To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Neither so, nor so.
1. I never thought that all Love considereth its Object as present, much less as enjoyed; but only amor complacentiae. I only said, that Love consi∣dereth it not as absent (as Desire and Hope do;) that is, It is not necessary to the denomination of Love, that we consider the Object as absent: I spoke nega∣tively,
not that I ever thought it necessary, that therefore it must consider it as present and enjoyed: Love considereth it more simply than other Passions do, that is, as bonum conveniens: It is accidental to it, to consider it as absent, or as present. Therefore Desire and Hope are Love with such an accidental variation.
2. As the said accidental differences of the Object in mere extrinsick respects, do not make the Object to be divers: (It is not one good that is offered, and another that is deliberated on, and another that we are fore-invited to;) so they make not Acceptance, Election, Consent, to be several acts, much less one to follow another as their fruit: No more doth it make Love to differ from them. All is but velle bo∣num, viz. Christum oblatum. Cannot mine eye see at once this wall as it is white, as it is quantum, as it is unum, as it is thus or thus scituate, standing East or West, facing that other Wall, near to this Wall, and like to it, &c. Must all these be several acts in the substance, and one the fruit of another?