A25291:1529
The Marrow of Sacred Divinity
The marrow of sacred divinity drawn out of the Holy Scriptures, and the interpreters thereof, and brought into method / by William Ames ... ; translated out of the Latin ... ; whereunto are annexed certain tables representing the substance and heads of all in a short view ... as also a table opening the hard words therein contained.The marrow of sacred divinity drawne out of the Holy Scriptures, and the interpreters thereof, and brought into method / by William Ames ... ; translated out of the Latine ... ; whereunto are annexed certaine tables representing the substance and heads of all in a short view ... as also a table opening the hard words therein contained.
London: printed by Edward Griffin for Henry Overton, 1642
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
17. They that think otherwise, do bring no reasons, which may move an understanding and sound man. They say the end of Divinity is the good of grace: but the end of Ethics is a moral or civill good. As if no moral or civill good were in any respect, a good of grace and spiritual. As if the proper good, blessedness, or end of man, were manifold, or as if that should be a virtue of a man, which doth not lead a man to his end, and chief good. They say that Divinity is exercised about the inward affections of men; but Ethics about the outward manners. As if either Ethics (which they define a prudence to govern the will and appetite) did not respect the inward affection: or that Divinity did not teach as well outward, as inward obedience.
17. They that thinke otherwise, doe bring no reasons, which may move an understanding and sound man. They say the end of Divinity is the good of grace: but the end of Ethicks is a morall or civill good. As if no morall or civill good were in any respect, a good of grace and spirituall. As if the proper good, blessednesse, or end of man, were manifold, or as if that should be a vertue of a man, which doth not lead a man to his end, and chiefe good. They say that Divinity is exercised about the inward affections of men; but Ethicks about the outward manners. As if either Ethicks (which they define a prudence to governe the will and appetite) did not respect the inward affection: or that Divinity did not teach as well outward, as inward obedience.
They would have it that Ethics are concluded in ⟨p. 227⟩the bounds of this life, but that Divinity extends to a future. As if a blessed life were not one; or that of one and the same life, there were one rule, as it is present, and another as it is to come. They say the subject of Ethics is a man, approved, good and honest: but the subject of Divinity is a godly and religious man; when notwithstanding the Apostle doth expressly teach that Divinity instructs us to live not only piously and religiously, but also temperately, and justly, that is, approvedly and honestly,