all his heart though he love him not so perfectly as the Saints do in heaven yet in the Judgement and according to the Resolution of Aquinas he loves him with that height and perfection of love that the Law does require and look for the end whereof is onely that we love God as much as we are able in order to our last end and happiness and that we may gain that crown which God principally intended when he first did create us and imposed the command upon us He then that loves God as much as he can and according to the utmost of those abilities God gives him in this his passage to heaven fulfills this commandment though he loves him not so much as another does to whom God has afforded more Grace and more strength and more abilities to love him And he that now loves him with all his heart to day and so obeys the Command may by the addition of more Grace be enabled and so obliged to love God more to morrow because the Commandment still in force indefinitely commands that we love God with all our strength whatsoever it is And thus he can never know by this Law an end of his labour and an end of his love till he shall come to heaven where he shall love God as Perfectly as God at first intended when he shall arrive at the end that God aimed at in the enacting of the Law and prescribing that inferiour growing still increasing Love as a duty and means and way for the attainment of the other § 12. And now that this was the meaning of Aquinas is very plain from this very resolution For he expresly here declares that the Love in this height of Perfection is not compatible with our present state but is the perfection of the Saints in Patriâ who love not God by way of duty and choice and obedience but by necessity of their glorified nature and the beatificall vision § 13. This will further appear from his answers to the three Arguments in this very Article and Question For thus he Ad primum ergò dicendum quod ratio illa probat quod aliquo modo potest impleri in hac vitâ licet non perfectè Ad secundum dicendum quod miles qui legitimè pugnat licet non vincat non inculpatur nec poenam meretur ita etiam qui in viâ hoc praeceptum non implet nihil contra divinam dilectionem agens non peccat mortaliter Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut dicit Augustinus in lib. de perfectione Justitiae Cur non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamvis eam in hac vitâ nemo habeat Non enim rectè curritur si quo currendum est nesciatur Quomodo autem sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur So again in the same Question Art 4. in respons ad Secundum dicendum quod dupliciter contingit ex toto corde Deum diligere uno modo in actu id est ut totum cor hominis semper actualiter in Deum feratur ista est Perfectio Patriae Alio modo ut habitualiter totum cor hominis in Deum feratur ita scil quod nihil contra Dei dilectionem cor hominis recipiat haec est perfectio viae cui non contrariatur veniale peccatum quia non tollit habitum charitatis cum non tendat in oppositum objectum sed solum impedit charitatis usum So again ibid. Ad tertium dicendum quod Perfectio charitatis ad quam ordinantur consilia est media inter duas Perfectiones praedictas ut sc homo quantum possibile est se abstrahat à rebus temporalibus etiam licitis quae occupando animum impediunt actualem motum cordis in Deum So again 2. 2. q. 24. art 8. Vtrum Charitas in hac vitâ possit esse perfecta And he determines it in the affirmative from the Authority of Saint Austin The answer to it in Corpore is this †To this very purpose see also 2 2. q. 184. art 2. in Corp. Cajetan in loc Dicendum quod Perfectio charitatis potest intelligi dupliciter uno modo ex parte diligibilis alio modo ex parte diligentis Ex parte quidem diligibilis perfecta est charitas ut diligatur aliquid quantum diligibile est Deus autem tantum diligibilis est quantum bonus est Bonitas autem ejus est infinita unde per hunc modum nullius creaturae charitas potest esse perfecta sed solum charitas Dei quâ seipsum diligit Ex parte vero diligentis tunc est charitas perfecta quando diligit tantum quantum potest Quod quidem contingit tripliciter uno modo sic quod totum cor hominis actualiter semper feratur in Deum haec est perfectio charitatis Patriae quae non est possibilis in hac vitâ in quâ impossibile est propter humanae vitae infirmitatem semper actu cogitare de Deo moveri dilectione ad ipsum Alio modo ut homo studium suum deputet ad vacandum Deo rebus divinis praetermissis aliis nisi quantum necessitas praesentis vitae requirit Et ista est Perfectio charitatis quae est possibilis in viâ non tamen est communis omnibus habentibus charitatem Tertio modo ita quod habitualiter aliquis totum cor suum ponat in Deo ita scil quod nihil cogitet vel velit quod divinae dilectioni sit contrarium Et haec perfectio est communis omnibus habentibus charitatem So again in the following Article 9. Vtrum convenienter distinguantur tres gradus charitatis Incipiens Proficiens Perfectà he resolves it in the affirmative from the authority of Saint Austin The Answer in Corp. is this Dicendum quod spirituale augmentum charitatis considerari potest quantum ad aliquid simile corporali hominis augmento Quod quidem quamvis in plurimas partes distingui possit habet tamen aliquas determinatas distinctiones secundum determinatas actiones vel studia ad quae homo perducitur per augmentum sicut infantilis at as dicitur antequam habeat usum rationis postea autem distinguitur alius status hominis quando jam incipit loqui ratione uti iterum tertius status ejus est pubertas cum jam incipit posse generare sic deinde quousque perveniatur ad perfectum ita etiam diversi gradus charitatis distinguuntur secundum diversa studia ad quae homo perducitur per charitatis augmentum Nam primo quidem incumbit homini studium principale ad recedendum à peccato resistendum concupiscentiis ejus quae in contrarium charitatis movent Et hoc pertinet ad incipientes in quibus charitas est nutrienda vel fovenda ne corrumpatur Secundum autem studium succedit ut homo principaliter intendat ad hoc quod in bono proficiat Et hoc studium pertinet ad proficientes
the Actual of which you there spake not I am content for the present so to understand you Nor shall I labour by Consequences to rack your words to make them speak and confess that which you would not be thought to mean though this has been your own frequent Practise all along against the Doctor § 9. But then I must adde that Doctor Hammond who understood you in this Passage according to the Current of your Discourse did you therefore no wrong in omitting those words which in the sense he justly conceived he was bound to understand you did no more concern the present Debate then any part of your whole Book For it was a received and acknowledged truth on both sides that the Habit of Divine Grace was alwaies perfect and at the utmost height possible in Christ and therefore though the outward expressions were gradually different in themselves it must also mutually be granted that they must flow from a Love still equally intense in the Habit. But then this being nothing to the present controversie which only concerns the gradual difference of the Acts of Christ's Love it was no whit material whether he took it in or left it out and he might justly use his freedome without any mans offence But be your meaning what you please I shall easily grant you the liberty my good Sphinx Philosophicus to expound your own Oracles and Riddles And what then will be the issue § 10. Why then saies our Refuter and it is his second Charge The Doctor has said nothing to prove that these several expressions could not proceed from a Love equally intense Nay as he addes in the following Section he has not hitherto so much as attempted it unless vehement Asseverations be solid Arguments c. § 11. That I may give a cleer account to this Charge and bring the present debate to some issue it will be necessary to distinguish And couch the Answer I shall in these several Propositions § 12. First then I say That Expressions gradually different may flow and in Christ alwaies did from a Love equally intense as respecting the Habit. § 13. But then this is not the Question and makes nothing to the purpose unless our Refuter can prove That all the Acts of Christ's Love represented by those expressions were equally intense and full as the Habit from whence they proceeded It is true in this Reply he does vehemently and affectionately affirm it that I may retort his own language but pardon me he must if I entertain not his vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae And as he has no where in all this Pamphlet attempted the Proof of it unless begging the Question be argumentative so I know it is impossible for him to make it good and I have in due place demonstrated the contrary And therefore § 14. Secondly I say That nothing Naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that several outward expressions of Love in themselves gradually different may sometimes flow from several Acts of inward Love that are gradually the same § 15. For the outward expressions of Love being Imperate Acts of the Will and under it's command the Will is naturally free and still at Liberty unless it be by some superior cause ab intrinseco determined to one uniform expression to represent its own internal and Elicite Acts how and in what manner it pleaseth § 16. And now because this may be of some importance in this Controversie I shall to gratifie our Refuter endeavour to clear it by some apposite instances § 17. Suppose we then a Father with the same height of Actual love to affect his only Son for some space of time at least Suppose we the same Husbands or Friends to do the like in respect of the Wives of their bosomes and the inmates of Vid. Platonem in Convivio in Phaedro their Breasts We need not run to Plato's School for Examples the world does daily afford us such lovers as well as his Socrates And yet no man will say that these are alwaies bound or do or can express the same equal love after one and the same sort and with the same height and fulness For sometimes they have not the opportunity to do it and sometimes Prudence enjoines them to conceal it and sometimes there may be a necessity to express it beyond what they have or indeed can do at another time § 18. Further yet that I may clear it beyond exception we know that God loves his Chosen his Predestinate in Christ with the same equal Love not only because he loves them as in and for Christs sake but also because this inward Act of his Love is no other but himself And yet Gods outward Love and favour does not alwaies shine on them in it's Noon and Zenith sometimes it looks higher sometimes lower and though it knows no night no going down though the native light be still the same yet sometimes by the interposition of a dark opacous body the light as that of the Sun lies hidden from our sight in a sad Eclipse Sometimes the (a) Cant. 3. 1 2. Spouse in the Canticles was put to seek him whom her soul loved and though she sought him yet she found him not And therefore the Lord her Redeemer saies to her in (b) Esai 54. 8. Esay In little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee Nay it is also true of Christ (c) Matt. 3. 17. the Beloved in whom alone he was well pleased That though he were alwaies Christ alwaies God-man yet the * Leo it is that first said it and all Antiquity allow of it Non solvit unionem sed subtraxit visionem The union was not dissolved true but the Beams the Influence was restrained and for any comfort from thence his Soul was even as a scorched heath-ground without so much as any drop of dew of Divine comfort c. Bp. Andrews Serm. 2. Passion p. 356. Confer Leonem Serm. 16 17. de Passione Domini p. 53 54. humane Nature did not alwaies enjoy the comfortable influence of the Godhead And therefore we find him crying out upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me § 19. And as in respect of the same Person the light of Gods Countenance is not alwaies lift up to the same Degree of Altitude so it shines not equally on several Objects There are as well the sands and stones and desarts of Arabia as the Spices and though the whole Country enjoy the same common name and Climate yet all is not Felix but some part is Petraea and another Deserta Though those that live under the Aequator enjoy a constancy of Sun-shine and equality of Day yet those of Lapland Finland have little else but night and Frost for almost half the year together The case is very plain I believe no man will
of necessity be gradually different from one another § 17. And now because our Refuter seeks for Refuge under Vide Crellii Ethic. Christian infra citat the Ambiguity of this phrase the Love of God and to bring the debate between the Doctor and him to a final issue it will be necessary in the first place to distinguish that Term that so every thing may be clear before us in the present Debate and the Truth and the Doctors Innocence may be evidenced to the world and the Sophismes and mistakes of this Refuter be discovered § 18. First then this phrase the Love of God which the Refuter alwaies construes in a different sense from the Doctor and only for his advantage may be and is commonly taken in a threefold sense First more generally as it signifies the Divine Grace of holy Charity as the Schooles call it from Saint Paul 1 Cor. 13 the greatest of the three Theological Graces and that alone which never faileth that Grace which the Apostle there most excellently describes and the Schoolmen treat of l. 3. Sent. d. 27. 2. 2. q. 23 24 25 26 c. the Grace that in its latitude or amplitude conteins the whole duty of man towards God and our Neighbours whatsoever is good and excellent in him And therefore the Master of the Sentences defines P. Lombard 3. Sent. dist 25. B. Vid. Aquin 2. 2 q. 25 art 1. it thus Charitas est dilectio quâ diligitur Deus propter se proximus propter Deum vel in Deo and it is approved by all his Scholars for ought that I can find to the contrary § 19. Secondly more specially for Piety and Holiness and Devotion towards God and the Duties of the first Table § 20. Thirdly most strictly for that most sublime and perfect Love immediately terminated and concentred in God the only Good in which alone all the Acts of Piety and Charity are founded and from whence alone they stream and flow This is that which Aquinas frequently calls Charitas ut finis the other Vid. Aquin. 2. 2 q. 44. art 3. in Corp. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 44. art 1. in corp Aquin. ibid. art 3. ad 2. he calls Charitas propter finem Finis saies he spiritualis vitae est ut homo uniatur Deo quod fit per Charitatem ad hoc ordinantur sicut ad Finem omnia quae pertinent ad spiritualem vitam unde Apostolus dicit 1 Tim. 1. Finis praecepti Charitas est de corde puro conscientia bona fide non ficta c. And now because as the same Aquinas that alii actus Charitatis consequuntur ex actu dilectionis sicut effectus ex causa hence is it that by a Synecdoche generis or a Metonymy of the Efficient Tropes familiar in all Writers all the Acts of Piety and Mercy and Charity and Vertue are called the Love of God because they flow from it § 21. And now that this is no new-coined distinction invented on purpose to salve the present sore will appear from the Scriptures themselves where we have it in express termes § 22. For though to English eares this phrase The Love of God seems especially to import the prime and more principal Love that has God for its immediate Object yet in Scripture-phrase Tertull. cont Marcion l. 4. c 27. p. 548. A. B. ex edit Rigalt Vide Bezae major Annot. in loc Luc. Brugens tom 2. in Evangel p 802. Piscator Maldonat Theophylact. alios in loc it frequently does not And therefore saies our Saviour as we find it S. Luke 11. 42. Woe unto you Pharisees for ye tithe Mint and Rue and all manner of herbes and pass over Judgement and the Love of God these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone It is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judicium charitatem Dei. So Beza and the Vulgar Latine But in the vulgata vetus in use in Tertullians daies it is vocationem dilectionem Dei and accordingly we translate it the Love of God The true meaning of the place Tolet methinks has fully reached Majora mandata praeteritis nempe Judicium Charitatem Judicium quidem nocendo aliis rapiendo aliena contra leges Justitiae Charitatem verò non miserendo proximi nec eleemosynam pauperi conferendo Non solum ergo rapinas injustitias non recompensatis eleemosynis sed illas perpetratis contra judicium eleemosynas non facitis contra charitatem quae sunt majoris momenti quam decimas dare tales Addit Dei quia charitate Deus diligendus est proximus Pharisaei autem nec Deum nec proximum diligebant qui enim non diligit proximum non diligit Deum 1 Jo. 3. Qui viderit fratrem suum necessitatem habere clauserit viscera sua ab eo quomodo Charitas Dei manet in illo 1 Jo. 4. Qui non diligit fratrem quem videt quomodo Deum quem non videt diligere potest Tolet. in Luc. 11. 42. p. 690. in Commentar I know the place is otherwise expounded by * Vide Erasm in loc H. Grot. in Annot. ad Matth. 23 23. divers and we have no need of doubtful places S. John the beloved Disciple whose argument is Charity and the Love of God whose Text and Sermons were as Ecclesiastical Story testifies nothing else but this does in one short Epistle afford us instances sufficient beyond all exception 1. Ep. John 2. 5. But whoso keepeth his word in him verily is the Love of God Charity as Saint Paul or Love as the same Apostle and Saint John himself often indefinitely and generally stile it perfected Hereby 1 Cor. 13. Rom. 13 10. Gal. 5. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 5 14. know we that we are in him It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So again 1 Joh. 3. 17. But whoso hath this worlds good and seeth his Brother hath need and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how dwelleth the Love of God in him So again 1 Joh. 4 20. If a man say I love God and hateth his Brother he is a lyar for he that loveth not his Brother whom he hath seen how can he love God whom he hath not seen And therefore in the close of his Epistle 1. 5. vers 3 thus he describes the Love of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is the Love of God that we keep his Commandements and his Commandements are not grievous Plain then it is that in Scripture-language the Love of God is put for the Grace of divine Charity in general extending it self to that Love that is immediately centred on God himself and on our neighbours for Gods sake This is that Love which the Apostle tells us is the fulfilling of the Law Rom. 13. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 5. and the end of the Commandement § 23. And therefore sure it can be no
esse Comprehensorem Viatorem non repugnat Merito ut aliquo modo fundetur in ipsa visione Comprehensoris sed solum repugnat illi ut formaliter ac per se pertineat ad statum Comprehensoris ut sic Vnde sicut scientia beata existens in Viatore potest esse ratio prophetandi it a etiam potest esse principium vel fundamentum merendi dici potest ille actus Viatoris ut sic quia ipsa visio non potest ad illum actum ut meritorius est deservire nisi prout est in Viatore Dico primo Christum habuisse actum amoris Dei liberum supernaturalem elicitum à charitate ab amore beatifico distinctum illo actu perfectissime meruisse It a intelligo Sententiam D. Thomae hic solutione ad primum dicentis meruisse Christum per charitatem non in quantum erat charitas Comprehensoris sed in quantum erat Viatoris ubi de charitate loquitur prout terminatur ad Deum Et non potest exponi de uno eodem actu charitatis Dei ut sub una ratione sit meritorius non sub alia quia non potest idem actus numero prout tendit in idem indivisibile objectum atque adeo secundum eandem indivisibilem entitatem esse liber necessarius quia hae duae proprietates includunt contradictionem ergo non potest idem actus indivisibilis esse meritorius ut est Viatoris non ut est Comprehensoris praesertim quia ille actus licet materialiter ut ita dicam potuerit dici Viatoris quia fuit in Christo etiam eo tempore quo fuit viator formaliter autem propriè non dici potest pertinuisse ad Christum ut Viatorem Intelli endus est ergo D. Thomas de charitate operante per diversos actus quorum alter consequitur visionem beatam ut sie dicitur charitas Comprehensoris alter vero versatur circa Deum ut cognitum per scientiam infusam quae ut sic dicitur charitas viatoris c. Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 39. sect 2. per totum To this for the further clearing of the whole I should adde another passage in the same Author and the same Treatise disp 37. sect 4. p. 518. But it is quoted after and thither I refer the Reader § 19. To give the sum of this discourse from Suarez First plain it is that Christ in the daies of his Flesh was truly Viator and in statu merendi Secondly It is essentiall to Merit that the Meritorious Act be freely and voluntarily performed Thirdly Christ did truly merit otherwise we must deny him to be the Meritorious Cause of our Salvation and turn downright Socinians Fourthly He merited not only by the Inward Acts of that Love which was the consequent of his supernaturally infused knowledge of God but also by the Inward Acts of Charity and Love to his own Glory and his Love to us Men his Neighbors and all Inward Acts of all Virtues and Graces whether Infused or Acquisite as also by those other free Acts of his Will of a more inferiour Alloy such as Suarez calls ordinis naturalis his Natural Love of God Since then that all these were not could not be equal in themselves and with that high transcendent Act of his Love that was immediately yet freely seated upon God it necessarily follows that as he merited by them all though all were not of the same height and Gradual Perfection so he was not cannot be concluded guilty of the breach of the first and great Commandement though they differed from one another in gradual perfection because he truly did merit by every one of them Quâ—d erat demonstrandum § 20. But then though this be abundantly sufficient to acquit the Doctors assertion from the least suspition and umbrage of that so dangerous crimination yet I shall further demonstrate it from our Refuters own Concessions and that so clearly that either Sampson-like he must involve himself as well as his adversary in the same common ruine or else retract his so uncharitable aspersion For first in his Mixture he expresly grants that Christ in the Jeanes his mixture of Scholastical c. p 261. daies of his Flesh was not purè Comprehensor but also Viator and if he should not he must contradict the Scriptures that in many places assert it Secondly he expresly grants that Christ in the daies of his flesh did as truly grow in the Inward Acts of Wisdom and Jeanes Mixture of Scholast p. 249 250. Jeanes Mixture of Scholast p. 261. actuai apprehension and Grace as he did in Stature Thirdly he saies It is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation there was some restraint of his happiness or beatifical vision in the whole course of his humiliation and particularly in the time of his doleful passion § 21. From hence I argue that if Christ did truly and not in Appearance grow and receive Increase in the Inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace then the utmost height and degree of Actual Grace and holy Love is not alwaies pro hic nunc required by that first and great Commandement because Christ was impeccable and it was impossible for him to sin § 22. Secondly I argue that if Christ was truly Viator in the daies of his flesh then as Viator and in that state and respect he could not love God so highly so ardently by virtue of the infused Habit of divine Love as he did as considered in the state of a Comprehensor or as now he does at the right hand of God because as our Refuter maintaines from Austin and Bernard Aquinas and Scotus this Precept of Loving God perfectly cannot be fulfilled in this life but only in Patria quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus § 23. Thirdly I argue that if Christ as Viator had not could not have the same Abilities to love God with the same fervour and ardency as he has as Comprehensor therefore there must of necessity be a gradual difference in the Acts of his Love as Comprehensor and Viator because our Refuter has told us in his first Argument from Hurtado that Intensio actus secundi supponit aequalem intensionem in actu primo cum actus secundus supponit primum § 24. And now that the Viator differs in Abilities from the Comprehensor as it is clear to any that understands the very terms so plain also it is because the Viator knows God and his Goodness only by Infused knowledge and Revelation and the other by Actual Apprehension the one only tasts and sees how good he is by Grace and the other actually enjoyes him by fruition in Glory And since our Love must still be proportionable to our Knowledge the more we see and injoy God the more are we enabled and the more perfectly we love God For we know in part and we prophesie in part But when
THE REFUTER REFUTED OR Doctor HAMMOND'S 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 DEFENDED Against the impertinent Cavils of Mr. HENRY JEANES Minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Somerset-shire BY WILLIAM CREED B. D. and Rector of East-Codford in Wiltshire LONDON Printed for R. Royston and are to be sold at the Angel in Ivy-lane 1660. Mr ROYSTON I Have received four of the Refuter Refuted which I have spent some time in and by all that I have read finde it excellently well done and doubt not but it will finde Readers of all into whose hands you can put it I wish the success of this may encourage him to make himself known on other occasions and subjects for surely he is a man of excellent learning and parts I judge much better of it now then I did by the little I read at your house I am Your true friend H. H. Westwood Novemb 29. 1659. To the Learned Doctor H. HAMMOND Health SIR whosoever I am is not much materiall to know I humbly beg your Pardon for intermedling with your Quarrell without your Privity and Knowledge which you of all men are best able to maintain without Abettors or Assistants And I hope you will look upon it onely as an Errour of Love that I should presume to answer that Pamphlet which your self had so severely condemned to Neglect and resolved to confute onely by your learned Silence For all the world knows how speedily you could if you pleased in so just a Cause as this have set forth a Rejoynder because you have already so soon answered far abler Adversaries then this Refuter whatsoever Opinion himself and his Friends have of his Scholasticall Abilities Indeed it was my desire and in my own Judgement it would have been more for my interest and quiet if I had been silent or at most served onely as an under-workman to have fitted and prepared Materialls for an abler Artist to have raised a more lasting Monument and Obelisck to your Name and Memory And so conscious I am to mine own Weakness and inabilities to endure the Wind and Sun and so little thoughts I had when I first set upon this Business of doing any thing for the Publick that now all is finished and exposed to the world I cannot but wonder that it could be drawn from my Retirement to run so hazardous a Course And howsoever I may be concealed yet I cannot but frequently blush at the many Censures that will pass upon the Unknown Author though no man speaks or thinks of me But now such as it is I humbly throw it at your feet not for approbation and applause but for pardon and patronage It has nothing to commend it but the chearfulness of the Oblation It is no ambitious nor covetous Exhalation but a perfect Nidabah and Free will offering of Love And such I doubt not will be acceptable It was this alone that made the poor Widows two mites a richer present to the Corban then the Gold and Silver talents of the more wealthy but less willing Votaries and the very Heathens could smell that one grain of this Incense made a sweeter Perfume in the nostrills of their gods then the greatest clouds of smoak that arose from other Hecatombs But you well may wonder how a Defence of two sheets should swell into such a Volume and what strange over-ruling Influence should raise a Cloud of a hand-breadth to fill and overspread the whole face of Heaven And the very truth is Sir I my self am much astonished at the Bulk now all is finished But I shall give you my Reasons that made the work to enlarge thus insensibly under my hands Sir you have an Adversary more Confident then strong one that as I could tell you from credible information does not only Publickly brag that he has made you a Dunce but in every Sermon almost of note that he makes has one Use of Confutation against the learned D. Hammond Nay that his ordinary Countrey Lectures and Homilies to the People are full of such Ovations and not the meanest Pulpit round about him but has been turned into a Divinity Chair where Professor-like he has disciplined and arraigned and condemned you in a Scholasticall way But I insist not on Report it is his Pamphlet I fix on That you and the world may see I do not wrong him especially because he †It is my desire and purpose to have fair wars with you and my Pen shall not drop a disrespective syllable of you pag. 17. I hope it may contend with your reply for Civility and fairness in carriage of the Controversie between us pag. 39. professes Respect I shall here with your Patience give you in a short List of his Fair and Civill usage First then in a Sarcasticall Irony and Jeer he calls you great Critick that is in plain Terms an empty whiffling Grammarian and sayes he is a Pag. 10. loth to enter into a Contest with so great a Critick as your self touching the meaning of a word And what is it The poor English Monosyllable Mince Then in the very same Section he ranks you among the number of those b Pag. 10. erroneous Persons no less then Hereticks without doubt that in the first broaching of their Errours Mince the matter and speak more Cautelously then afterwards when they are fleshed and encouraged with success Next he tells you and in the very same breath where he professes Respect that he is c pag. 17. resolved to swallow none of your Proofless dictates and that d pag. 15. you must pardon him if he entertain not your vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae But he has hitherto used you kindly For in another place in plain terms he challenges you e pag. 19. to shew any thing for the justification of your Tenent from any Schoolman to be had in Pauls-Churchyard or at least in the Library at Oxford the great Bodleys Library And as if this had been too little again he tells the world that he is f pag 37. confident that no learned man either Protestant or Papist did ever ascribe such growth to the Ardency of Christ as you this Replyer does Then almost in every Section he slyly questions * Pag. 2 3 4 7 8 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 24 34 37 38 your Philosophy and Logick and skill in the Art of Reasoning and Syllogism or sayes †Pag. 6 9 11 12 16 18 21. you are impertinent and speak little sense or * Pag. 3 13 14 19 21 22 25 26 27 30 31 34 35 38 39. scornfully puts you to learn what you are yet ignorant of from such a place in Scheibler and Suarez in Thomas or Scotus in Petrus Hurtado de Mendoza Capreolus Albertinus Raunandus and Collegium Complutense hard names and that make a deep and reverend sound in our English ears not acquainted with such charms and this with such slighting
Aristoteles Assembly-notes Athanasius Augustinus Author imperf Op. B Bartolus Basilius M. Baxter Beda Bellarminus Bernardus Beza Biddle Biel. Bonaventura Boys El. Brugensis Luc. Burgersdicius Buxtorfius C Cajetanus Calvinus Cameron Capreolus Catechismus Racoviens Cavellus Chamier Chrysostomus Collegium Complutense Crellius Cyprianus Cyrillus Alex. D Dailler Damascenus Danaeus Davenant B. Deodate Digest Diodorus Siculus Dion Dionysius Downham B. Drusius Durandus E Eckhardus Epiphanius Erasmus Estius Eusebius Euthymius F Fagius Paulus Field Forbesius Fulgentius G Gregorius M. Gregorius Naz. Grotius H Halensis Heinsius Henriquez Hieronymus Hilarius Hobbs Hooker Horatius Hùgo de S. Victore Hurtado de Mendoza Hyperius I Jansenius Javellus Juvenalis K Keckermannus L Lanfrancus Leo M. Liturgia Grae. Lombardus Lucianus Lutherus M Maldonatus Maresius Martialis Martyr P. Medina Morton B. Mountague B. Musculus W. N Navarrus Pet. Neopolitanus Nierembergius O Occham Optatus Orbellis D. Origenes Ovidius P Paulinus Paulus Jur. Piscator Plato Platus Plinius Sen. Q Quintilianus R Robuffus Reynolds Ed. Richardus Armachanus Riverius Ruerius Ruvio S Sales Fr. Salmasius Scaliger Ju. Scaliger Jos Scheiblerus Schenchius Scnedewinus Scotus Scultetus Selneccerus Sennertus Sextus Empiricus S. Joseph Smiglecius Soto Stupleton Strabo Strada T Tertullianus Theodoretus Theophylactus Toletus Tridentinum Conc. V D. Valentia Greg. Valerius Max. Victor Antioch Vincentius Lir. Virgilius Volkelius Vorstius Vossius J. Gâ—r Vrsinus W White B. Windelinus Wingate Wotton Doctor HAMMONDS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Defended c. SECT 1. The Refuters ominous changing the Doctors Title Page and the state of the Question His advantage by it over four sorts of Readers How easily the Doctor concluded against by it Love of God what it commonly signifies to English Eares How difficult to defend the Doctor in that sense Not so in the Doctors wary state The Refuters Reply foreseen Answered The phrase The love of God variously taken in Scripture How understood by the Doctor In what sense Prayer an Act of holy Charity § 1. MAlum omen in limine The Romans counted it Ominous if they stumbled at the threshold when they first set forth on any business Though I am far from approving any such ridiculous superstitions and fond idle conceipts yet I cannot behold it as any prosperous Symptome of this Refuter's fair carriage in the Managing this controversie that he should thus palpably prevaricate in the very Frontispiece of his Pamphlet § 2. For whereas Doctor Hammond had thus stiled his Reply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or The degrees of Ardency in Christs Prayer Reconciled with his fulness of habitual Grace This Refuter has thus advantagiously changed it Doctor Hammond his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or A greater Ardency in Christ's love of God at one time than another proved to be utterly irreconcileable 1. With his fulness of habitual Grace 2. The perpetual happiness and 3. The impeccability of his Soul It is true indeed this alteration serves little to the real confutation of his Adversary yet in the issue and recess it will be very prejudicial to Doctor Hammond and the truth maintained by him § 3. For how many be there in the world whose business will not suffer them or whose curiosity will not carry them on to read further than the very Titles of Books And yet these from this Lantschap-Discovery can talk as confidently and censure as severely as if they had throughly read and weighed every line and Period in the whole Discourse How many are there that read Books out of Interest and faction that are passionately desirous that every one should be in the wrong confuted that is not of their party These weigh not reasons but names and put not judgement into the ballance but prejudice and advantage They had rather truth should suffer than the cause they are engaged in and are abundantly satisfied to see an Adversary answered whatsoever Arts or Means are made use of to blow up a Refutation How many also are there in the world that are not able to distinguish truth from Pretences and shapes and Pictures from solid bodies that think all is right that is vehemently pretended and every Apparition real that presents it self to their deluded sense and Imagination Nay how few are there even of those who have the skill and abilities to judge that either have the patience or the leasure in controversies of this nature to compare Author with Author and Reply and Rejoynder together § 4. And yet who seeth not but every one of those which together make up the only considerable number of Readers are likely to be imposed on by this Change and Doctor Hammond be concluded guilty in their Judgements of a gross and palpable mistake § 5. For who is there almost so green a Catechumen and Neophyte in the Christian faith that knows God to be the only good and the last end of Man but will be ready to reply against the Doctor that we cannot love God sufficiently and that we must therefore love him to the utmost height we can that he who loves not God with all his heart with all his soul and with all his might doth not love him as much as God deserves or as much as man ought and therefore to maintain a greater Ardency in Christ's love of God at one time than another must be a dangerous Error bordering on that Heresie that denyes the God-head of our Saviour an Error that pulls the Crown of innocence and happiness and perfection from his head Doctor Hammond right or wrong is now abundantly confuted in the Judgement of the Many and it will be almost an impossible Task and an unpardonable crime to undertake his defence So great a School-man as Mr. Henry Jeanes of Chedzey has lost his labour in this rejoynder and has been only too curteous in honouring Doctor Hammonds gross Error with a Scholastical Refutation His Arguments and Pains might have been spared in opposing that so palpable mistake which at first-sight discovers it self in the naked proposal of it § 6. Indeed this Phrase The love of God to English eares carries with it nothing less than that high and transcendent Act of the Soul that immediately fixes on God as it 's proper Object And therefore if the Doctor had undertaken to maintain that this Act of Divine Love had not alwayes been at the ful height in Christ who by virtue of the Hypostatical Vnion so cleerly alwayes knew God and so perfectly enjoyed him his learning and parts would in the Judgement of most have only served him to parget o're an Error too gross and palpable to be defended by any man that owns and glories in the name of a Christian and a Preacher of the Gospel and his work would be justly accounted fit to be joyned to the monstrous Paradoxes of the age and the Panegyricks of Nero and the Altar of Busiris would have been reputed as true though to carry infinite less danger in them than this Assertion So successful has this
the smallest misadventures our Refuter will appear guilty of and therefore I shall not fix upon it especially since it matters not much if the Doctor be proved obnoxious to the Error charged upon him what the Reason was that first did move him to confute it § 3. Yet for his comfort I must tell him that as his first undertaking was altogether groundless so this whole Process is ridiculous and only a great heap of Errors and mistakes § 4. For first he very ignorantly or wilfully confounds the Immanent Acts of Love with the Action of Loving things that are toto genere different For this is a Praedicamental Action and the other are Qualities specifically distinct from the habit of Love as shall in due place be demonstrated And he could not but know that the Doctor positively does maintain it in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore must not by the Rules of Art be supposed to be otherwise without a Pittiful begging of the Question till the contrary has been proved against him This Argument then of which he is so confident that he shall submit it to the Doctors most severe examination at the very first glance appears an empty Paralogism that cannot conclude any thing against the Doctor For the Syllogism let it be put into whatsoever form this Refuter can devise will consist of four terms the Doctor by the Acts of Love in the Conclusion to be brought against him meaning the Quality of Actual Love and the Refuter in one of the Premisses by the Acts of Love understanding the Predicamental Action of Loving and consequently there can be no opposition because it cannot be ad idem § 5. But then secondly suppose we his Discourse were artificial yet it will not at all concern the Assertion of the Doctor For Intension and Remission is properly a gradual heightning or abatement of the same Numerical Form as we shall hereafter prove But the Doctor never affirms as I can find that the self-same Numerical Act of Holy Love in Christ was more intense at one time than at another which this Argument supposes He only affirms that Christ in one Act of Divine Love or holy Charity for this alone the Doctor means as shall in due place be evidenced though this Refuter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes it for that high and most transcendent Act of Love that was immediately fixed on God as its proper Object was more ardent than in another as in his dying for us than in his suffering Hunger Poverty Nakedness for our sakes or that this inward Act of divine Charity in Christ was more ardent and intense than those other were Now this Assertion as it is a Truth clearly demonstrable and shall in due place be made good so it is not any wayes concerned in this Argument of the Refuter § 6. For though true it is that Actions are not intended but by reason of Qualities yet this nothing hinders but that one individual Action may Comparatively and Respectively be more intense than another even where the gradual height of both is supposed to be still Simply and Absolutely invariable still the same For instance Illumination is a proper Praedicamental Action and yet Sense and experience tells us that the illumination of the Sun and the illumination of any one of the fixed Stars are gradually different and yet the illumination of both is still the same in it self and never varies but by accident in respect of the variety of the Medium or distance because the Original light of the Sun and Stars is still invariable * Aristot li. 2. de Generat corrupt c. 10. text 56. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes the great Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Causa necessaria ad aliquod agendum determinata est agitque quando quantum potest Burgersdic Log. li. 1. c 17. theor 13. Vid. commentar Agentia pure naturalia recte se habentia ad unum natura sunt determinata ut sublatis impedimentis externis non possunt non id producere ut patet exemplo corporum coelestium c. Wendelin Contemp. Physic Sect. 1. Part. 1. c. 4. p. â—00 So also Scheibler Metaphys l. 1. c. 22. tit 8. art 2. n. 96. For all natural Causes continuing still the same do alwayes work alike because they work by a necessity of nature and to the utmost of their strength and might § 7. And therefore notwithstanding this Refuters Argument I see no reason why also it may not be so in respect of the several individual Acts of Christ's Love and that though they in themselves be supposed to continue still invariable of one equal intension in themselves they may not yet in comparison and respect of one another be said to be more or less ardent and intense § 8. For thirdly to shew this Refuters Discourse yet more impertinent though most certain it is as the Doctor clearly grants and maintains that the Habit of Divine Charity in Christ was de facto alwayes at the height and in its utmost fulness that a finite Nature was capable of yet it is not therefore necessary that every Act of holy Charity should be alwayes in its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and full height nor will it thence follow that every Act of this Habit should be equally intense with the Cause from whence it flowes but may differ in degrees not only from the Habit but also from all other Acts springing from it unless this Refuter can by other Arguments than this prove a necessity of the gradual determination and equality of intensness of the several Acts with the Habit. § 9. Now all things that are any wayes determined must of necessity be determined either ab intrinseco or ab extrinseco from some internal cause and necessity of nature or from some outward bounds and limitations § 10. Ab intra there can be imagined no determination possible as his Master Scheibler may teach him For the Habit or Principle of these Immanent Acts is not necessary and determined in its Operations but an absolute * Of the difference between Natural Voluntary Agents Vid. Scheibler Metaphys li. 1. c. 22. tit 8. art 2. n. 96. De actibus liberis censeo etiam certum nec de potentia absoluta posse liberos esse nisi effectivè fiant à potentia libera cujus sunt Actiones ut in superioribus tactum est Suarez Metaphys disp 47. Sect. 2. §. 9. p. 557. free Cause as the Will it self is wherein it is subjected with which it coeffectively still concurres to the Production of the Acts because as it is confessed by this Refuter in this very Argument it is a Moral Habit that is only seated in the Will § 11. Ab extra the Habit cannot be supposed to be determined in its Operations to one absolute height and degree of intensness without a manifest Petitio Principii till it be proved against the Doctor For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
hanc etiam interpretationem verissimè dicitur nomen seu conceptum Dispositionis genericè specificè sumi posse Nam priori modo idem est quod Actus perficiens actuans potentiam operativam ut abstrahit ab actu primo secundo sic constituit hanc primam speciem Qualitatis quatenus est simplex quaedam species subalterna quae ulterius dividitur in actum primum secundum tanquam in Habitum Dispositionem strictè specificè sumptam § 44. And therefore Ringantur ut ilia Codro I must tell our Refuter that though he count the Doctor but a Critick yet he ha's shewed himself a true Philosopher and an acute Metaphysician and a solid Divine when he asserted that Love was truly a Quality of the first Species which as a Genus proximum was predicated of Habitual and Actual Love and therefore more truly deserves the Title of a School-man then our writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity that confesses himself to be ignorant of such vulgar common Truths which it is impossible a true Schoolman and Philosopher should not perfectly know § 45. And now for a close I shall adde that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first ground of this Refuters mistake all along in this Discourse arises from his misunderstanding of the nature of Immanent Acts which by a mistake and too hasty running over a Passage in Scheibler formerly quoted he makes to be simply Praedicamental Actions toto genere different from Habits and not at all Qualities either not distinguishing or not apprehending how in Immanent Acts the formal operation which is acknowledged to be a Praedicamental Action could be distinguished from the Quality that terminates and is still produced by that Action which as it is the first causa procreans so it is the constant causa conservans of it too For it is with these Qualities as it is with Light the Quality of actual Love that terminates the Action of Loving does still constantly depend on that Action in its being and preservation as Light does on Illumination The vanity and falshood of which Assertion of this Refuter as it hath already appeared so he will instantly give us further occasion to demonstrate § 46. And now for a breathing bait I shall be bold to ask our Refuter what he thinks of this his irrefragable Demonstration which at the beginning he so confidently submits to the Doctors severest examination Let him tell me whether it appear not to himself now as ridiculous as * 1 Kings 12. 11 25. Zedekiahs iron Horns when he fled at the news of the King of Israels rout and destruction Let him tell me whether his boasting and confidence of Success before an Enemy appeared make not his flight and overthrow more worthy to be scorned laughed at then otherwise it would have been Let him tell me how it is possible the first horn of his Dilemma or Captious Argument wherein all the strength and terror lay being broken and destroyed that the Doctor should be in any the least danger of the other What necessity now is there and let our Refuter himself judge that the Doctor must be forced to say that this Quality is a Habit and consequently what will become of his Inference That the Doctor must by consequence affirm what he seems to deny Indeed if the Doctor had asserted that the Habit the Principle of these Acts had been intended he had formally contradicted himself or if he had said that some Habit the terminus of those Acts and produced and acquired by them had been intended he had spoken and affirmed a kind of contradiction in adjecto for then he had affirmed that a pure supernatural Grace that solely depends upon the gift and infusion of God had been acquired by humane Acts and endeavors But then if he had so said this had not been to have contradicted himself He had spoken non-sense indeed but not a Contradiction to himself because he had not said that the all-full supernatural infused Habit had been increased but either a new Habit acquired or augmented by those Acts. And therefore our Refuter was as much mistaken in this attempt as in any of the rest § 47. But let me tell him that as the Doctor had no necessity to lay down such an Assertion so he was too sound and solid a Philosopher and Divine to do it though yet this Refuter does every where decry him for a Dunce and bragge he has so made him And therefore I shall only say that since the Doctor had so often and so early and withall so clearly disclaimed this Opinion in regard of the intensive growth of our Blessed Saviours Habitual Grace of Divine Love the Refuter in my Judgement could have no other aim in the re-doubling this charge in the close of his Argument but only to fill up his Paper and swell it into a volume He was sure at his * Martial aliter non fit Avite Liber or else he was willing to amuse the eyes of weak Readers and fill their heads with vain jealousies § 48. And thus we see * Horat. Suis ipsa Roma viribus ruit Though the Romans counted their City immortal and dedicated to it Temples and Altars with this Inscription Vrbi Aeternae yet Time and Roma Sotterranea has shewed that their Poet was the better Prophet And though our Refuter were so confident of this Argument that he proudly submits it to the Doctors severest examination yet as overladen with its own greatness it sinks into an empty and very impertinent Sophism If he had not put so much trust in it and swelled it with heterogeneous matter to this Bulk the Fall had not been so great But now as he said of Pompeys overthrow * Martial jacere Vno non poterat tanta ruina loco so as if it were not sufficient to have shewed the vanity of it once we shall be forced to hear of it again in very many places of his Pamphlet for there is scarce a Section to be met with where he grounds not his Reply upon this his first great but very unfortunate performance And therefore his Foundation being thus destroyed and not one stone left unremoved I shall with the greater security proceed to the examination of the rest They say of Mahomets Tombe though the more sober reports of later Travailers contradict it that being an Iron Chest it hangs in the Air in the Temple at Mecha drawn up suspended by the Magnetical force of a Load-stone roof that does cover it And such methinks is this following Discourse of our Refuter an empty Castle in the Air that ha's nothing to support it but the Magnetical chains of his own deluded Imagination And so we are come to a more solid building of the Doctors erection For thus he goes on SECT 5. The Doctor innocent of the former Crimination The Refuters new Endictment proved vain by a clear instance His
Super-excellency of this Act above the rest tells us (c) Phil. 2. 8. That he humbled himself to death even the death of the Cross § 38. And now I shall desire our Refuter to sit down and sadly consider what will become of his Consequence If neither the Proposition nor Assumption can be true how then will he be able to infer his Conclusion against the Doctor § 39. Indeed he had said somewhat to the purpose if this Habit of holy Love in our Saviour had been determined in its Operations to one equal uniform degree and height as natural forms are (d) Vid. Burgersdic Log. l. 1. ca. 17. theor 10 11 12 13. For these working by a necessity of nature to the utmost of their strength therefore alwaies work the same unless they be by some Accident hindered And consequently any variation in the Effect must argue a proportionable encrease or abatement of the natural virtue and efficacy of the Form that is the Agent But here the case is far otherwise For this Grace of holy Charity in Christ being a Moral Habit as our Refuter does and must acknowledge and so supernaturally seated in the humane Will of our Saviour must of necessity partake of the nature of the Will wherein it is subjected and still (e) Vid. Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 44. sect 6. §. 6 7 c. concurring effectively with the Will to the production of the Act it must continue still free as the Will it self is which it qualifies and modificates (a) Relinquitur ergo non posse Habitum juvare aut facilitare potentiam ad Actum nisi augendo virtutem per se effectivam talis actus c. Suarez Metaph. ibid. §. 10. Actiones quae parto jam fiunt Habita non ab ipso Habitu tanquam ab efficiente oriuntur sed ab eâdem voluntate Habitus autem ille quasi forma quaedam est illarum Actionum c. Jul. Sca. lig de Subtil exercit 307. §. 4. pag. 884. Potentia Habitus conveniunt ad effective causandum Actum sicut unum perfectum principium ita quod ambosimul non differunt ab uno sicut imperfectum differt à seipso perfecto Cajetan in 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. Advance and heighten indeed it does the power and efficacy of the Will to the performance of those Acts which of it self it is unable to perform but then the Will thus assisted by the Habit continues still a free Agent not destroyed in its nature and working but perfected § 40. If it shall be here replyed that the Saints and Angels in heaven love God freely and yet love him necessarily too and quoad ultimum virium § 41. I readily grant it in the sense that (b) Causa libera est quae consultò causat necessaria quae non consultò sed necessitate naturae causat Cum voluntas libera dicitur cumque causa libera causae necessariae opponitur Libertatis nomine nihil aliud intelligitur quam immunitas à coactione à necessitate ac determinatione naturali Burgersdic Log. l. 1. c. 17. Theor. 10 11. Dico secundò hanc libertatem voluntatis humanae Christi non solum intelligendam esse oppositam coactioni sed etiam necessitati atque adeo includere indifferentiam aliquam seu potestatem operandi non operandi Non est sensus Christum in omnibus actibus suae voluntaris habuisse hanc indifferentiam non enim est hoc necessarium nam Deum clarè visum necessariò amabat necessariò illo fruebatur sicut alii Beati sed sensus est habuisse Christum libertatem in aliquibus actibus c. Suarez in 3. part Thom. q. 18. art 4. disp 37. sect 1. pag. 512. Vid. eund ibid. disp 39. sect 2. per tot Freedome is improperly taken for a liberty from Coaction And withall I acknowledge it most true of the prime Act of Divine Love in Christ immediately terminated on God cleerly seen and enjoyed as Comprehensor in the superior faculties of his Soul he alwaies loved God freely and yet necessarily and because he could not chuse but love God the greatest good whom alwaies he most perfectly knew he could not chuse but love him in the height and utmost Perfection But then withall I must adde that this is nothing to the purpose For it was an (c) Heb. 10. 5 6 7 8 9. Esay 53. 10. Act of pure Love and Choice in Christ to be born and dye for us And therefore he loved us not of necessity but freely and he loved us as he himself best thought fit And therefore every Act of Joh. 10. 18. Non necessitate sed voluntate crucem subiit Hieron in Isai 53. Omni necessitate calcatâ cum voluit mortem sponte suscepit Gregor lib. 24. Moral c. 2. Vid. Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disput 37. sect 2. pag. 511 512. this Love respecting us must be commensurate to his own good will and pleasure And being all-wise as well as all-good he loved us in every several Act proportionably to that which his own Wisdom thought fit Every Act of this Love being purely voluntary though it was not equally intense yet so high and fervent it was that it was not any way disproportioned to the present end and occasion § 42. By this it evidently appears that I may make some reflexions on the second Paragraph how much of Charity there was in our Refuters adding not supplying the word farther to the Doctors Discourse If these be his mistakes of Charity to pervert an Adversaries saying to a contrary sense and that very erroneous I wonder what is his Malice The addition indeed might be very pertinent to the matter that himself had then in hand which was to calumniate the Doctor but it concerned not at all the business and scope of the Treatise of Will-worship For what though the Doctor in that Treatise had undertaken to prove that those large inclusive words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy Soul c. do not alwaies pro hîc nunc as they speak oblige us in every single Act of Divine Charity to the most intense and high degree but only to that sincerity and fervour as the present occasion does require will you thence conclude it to be the Doctors meaning that a man may fulfil that command though he loves not God with all his heart If you do Sir you are very uncharitable and irrational as might easily be demonstrated But I am loath to run into an unnecessary Digression and therefore I shall reserve the full clearing of the sense of this Commandement to its proper place For this Refuter will anon give occasion to prosecute it at large according to those true and solid grounds that the Doctor has already laid § 43. I shall only adde to preclude all subterfuges and captious advantages that may arise from general and undistinguished and ambiguous terms that the Acts
17. MEan-while it is manifest and his own confession that there these were my words and those so Cautious that this sense of the words which he undertakes to refute could not be affixt on them And this I should have thought sufficient to have preserved my Innocence and forestalled his Use of Confutation JEANES SVppose that in your tract of Will-worship those were your words and withall that they were so Cautious that this sense of the words which I undertake to refute could not be affixt on them yet this is nothing at all unto the purpose and contributes nothing to the clearing of your Innocence and forestalling my Vse of Confutation and the reason hereof is very evident Because that which I undertook to refute was affixt by me not on these your so Cautelous words in your tract of Will-worship but on a passage in your Answer to Mr. Cawdrey Indeed I censured those your words in themselues impertinent unto your matter in hand and withall proved them to be so But if you had gone no further then these words you should not have heard from me touching this subject for time is more pretious with me then to wast it in medling meerly with the impertinencies of any mans discourse § 2. And here in all this we find very little to the purpose but an empty Contest about words and phrases which he carps at in the Doctor who is a little too old to be taught the meaning of his Mother-tongue and the usual import of it Only I observe that though he profess in the Close of this Tongue-combat That time is more pretious with him then to wast it in medling meerly with the impertinencies of any mans discourse yet he is so much at leasure for all that as to spend the compass of two pages at least in his puisny Pamphlet upon some words and phrases of the Doctors He is a man of business indeed § 3. But I cry him mercy Did I say it was only a controversie about words this I am afraid I was mistaken For he will offer to consideration no less then two reasons to prove the impertinency of the Doctors first Papers to ascertain him of the meaning of the latter The first is because the Doctor there mentions only the Habit and the expressions of Love which are called Love only by extrinsecal denomination but here he mentions the inward Acts themselves The second is because the Doctor now extends the Love of God which he affirms to be capable of Degrees beyond the outward expressions unto the very inward Acts. § 4. And with your Patience good Sir ought he not so to extend it why else did you so lately blame him for not doing so But what then Sir what then Conclude man with your Ergo Pot-lid What 's all this to the purpose Suppose the Doctor there speaks only of the outward expressions of Love and yet we have clearly evidenced that he speaks also of the inward Acts yet must not these of necessity imply and relate to the inward Acts of Love whereof they are Expressions Why then could you not guess at his meaning in this passage Can you be so uncharitable as to think the Doctor was a man of so slender shallow parts as to take the outward Expressions of Love for Love it self and a coordinate Species of the same Genus If not without doubt the Doct. must of necessity mean nothing else then what he professes that best knew his own meaning of any man in the world § 5. The truth is the Doctor then thought he writ to men ingenuous and candid that would not look for knots in Bull-rushes But after finding by sad experience that he was to deal with some that endeavor to move every stone to throw at those that are not in every thing of their Judgement though never so ridiculous and false though never so disadvantageous to the peace and welfare of the Church he was forced clearly to express that which before he had sufficiently implyed § 6. And yet now he must be told that at first he did mince the matter and speak more cautelously then afterwards as Hereticks indeed are wont Before he was condemned for speaking too little and now he is upbraided for speaking too much Nay our Refuter can do no less then to appeal to both vulgar and learned eares whether or no we may not say truly of divers erroneous persons such as without doubt the Doctor is that in the first broaching of their Errors they mince the matter and speak more cautelously then afterwards when they are fleshed and encouraged with success § 7. It is readily granted Sir and for your further confirmation I refer you to Lysimachus Nicanor and to Sleidan's History of the Anabaptists in Germany and other true stories and Pasquills and practises of later times § 8. And now though it be high time to leave this Tongue-Combat yet I cannot part with this Section without expressing my just indignation at this Refuters so contemptuous undervaluing the Doctors excellent Learning I am very loath saies he to enter into a contest with so great a Critick touching the meaning of a word The Doctor in our Schoolmans opinion is some petty Grammaticaster that knowes the meaning of Musa and can tell how to decline Lapis some great Critick forsooth one fit to teach Schoole-boyes perhaps the meaning of a Greek or Latine Author but for any skill in the Arts and Reserches of Philosophie he is a very Dunce and not at all seen in the curious Speculations and Subtleties of Schoole-learning § 9. And now I see this under his hand in print my wonder must cease that he even among his Apron-men of Bridgewater so fastidiously decries the Doctor for a Dunce For it has been assured me from very credible witnesses that he every where braggs he has made this Doctor a very Dunce § 10. This minds me of the Fate of the great Erasmus that Phosphorus to all curious learning which so brightly shines in the Christian world whose wit and Judgement and industry and skill all Scholars admire and very few equall and scarce any exceed whose Country-men thought themselves so highly honored in his Birth as once the Graecians did in that of their Homer that at the publique charge they erected a Brasen Statue for him as well to their own honour as his memory And yet this Erasmus whose Writings shall outlast ten such Brasen Statues was so highly undervalued by our Country-man Lee and the Paris Divines and some such Pretenders to School learning as our Refuter is as to be counted no Scholar no Divine but a Critick and a whiffling Grammarian His Apologies for himself in this kind are swelled into a Volume and in this Work he has shewed as much Judgement and Learning as in any that he ever wrote and has clearly demonstrated the advantage of the Critick above the Pretender to the Summes and the Sentences and that more goes to the making a true
pingeret poppyzonta retinentem equum Canem ita Protogenes monstravit Fortuna Plin. Natur. hist lib. 35. ca. 10. mihi pag. 346. tom 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist lib. 6. Eth. ca. 4. §. 3. Painters rage casually directs his Pencill to draw the Dogges and Horses foame which all his skill and frequent attempts could not reach to The Perfection of the Act still argues the Perfection of the Habit and the intension here must be derived from the former But then though the Painter cannot limne beyond his skill nor the Lutenist play unless by chance yet I hope the Lutenist and Painter is not morally or naturally bound and necessitated alwaies to play and limne as well as they can § 12. To come closer I suppose Mr. Jeanes to be a good Preacher for I have seen a good Sermon of his in print concerning Abstinence from all appearance of evill and he would do well to think of his own Doctrine but yet I cannot think him bound either by Gods law or man 's to preach alwaies as well as he can Nor do I beleeve he makes his Sermons with the same care and pains and sets them off with the same Learning and Rhetorick when he preaches weekly to his Parish at Chedzoy as when he preaches before the Judges in the face of the Country And yet still the intension of the Act must proceed from the intension of the Habit. A man of lower parts and less learning and Judgement and Rhetorick then himself cannot speak or write so well as he himself can And yet he himself is not alwaies bound to exceed a meaner Scholars performances and many times Prudence Discretion will invite him to stoop and condescend to the weakness and Capacity of his Auditors § 13. For the * Dicendum est ergo quòd Habitus determinat Potentiam ad hoc ut ipsa Habitu perfecta sit proprium principium perfecti operis in quo sua consummatur perfectio Et quoniam Habitus est quo quis operatur cum vult non cum habet propterea est quo quis operatur infra ejus Potestatem quantum vult non quantum potest ut patet in Artificibus ideo non mireris si Actus Potentiae habituatae non sunt semper perfectiores Actibus Potentiae non habituatae Cajetan in 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. pag. 98. col 4. K. Habitus in tantum potest esse Principium Actus Liberi in quantum possumus eo uti cum volumus non ergo dat ipse Habitus libertatem sed potius ut ita dicam illam accipit à Potentia in qua residet quatenus Potentia est quae Habitu utitur ut in ejus facultate positum est illo uti vel non uti c. Vid. amp Suarez Metaph. disp 19. sect 5. n. 8. Dicimus Qualitatem ex se habere talem naturam intensibilem non ratione alterius quamvis quoad existentiam redigatur in actum magis vel minus perfectum ab agente inaequali vel in virtute vel in approximatione vel in voluntate si sit liberum Suarez Metaph. disp 46. sect ◠n. 3. vid. ibid. sect 3. n. 9. n. 15 16. sect 4. n. 14. p. 497. col 1. Suarez disp 19. sect 2. sect 4. n. 8. c. Voluntas ab objecto proposito non semper determinatur ad unum certa est recepta ab omnibus eà mque ex professo probat D. Thomas 1. 2. q. 10. art 2. Nam perinde est dicere Voluntatem non necessitari ab alio quod non determinari ad unum ab illo Sed est certum non necessitari ab omnibus objectis ergo nec determinari ad unum Igitur quoad Exercitium solum in Patria ab infinita bonitate Dei clarè visi determinatur ad unum juxta receptam doctrinam quoad Specificationem verò à Bono in communi aut aliis similibus objectis c. Suarez Metap disp 19. sect 6. n. 9. Vid. ibid. sect 5. n 7. Habits whereof we speak being seated in the Will do ordinarily partake of the nature of the Will wherein they are subjected and concurring still effectively with the Will to the production of the Act must still be free and voluntary causes to act not necessarily ad ultimum virium but how and when and in what manner and measure he that has the Habit shall think fit unless the Will be otherwise limited and determined For instance The blessed Saints and Angels in Patria love God ad ultimum virium necessarily and yet freely as freedome is improperly taken because such is the excellency of the Object God which now they know face to face being Comprehensores and in Patria as they speak in the Schooles that he cannot chuse but most necessarily and most ardently be loved But then this determination is wholy extrinsecal to a Habit ut sic and praecisely considered and only by accident in respect of the Knowledge and Perfection of the Object which cannot chuse but be alwaies most perfectly loved where it is so perfectly known § 14. And Thus to speak in your own Complement which you vouchsafe in the Close of this Section to spend upon the Doctor having shewed you the ground of your mistake that invited you unto your Vse of Confutation I might pass over not only the three other Sections but the rest of your whole Book which you your self I presume would have spared if you had been privy to that which I now acquaint you with But we must attend you in your motion SECT 10. The Refuters Saying is the only proof that Actual Love is in the Praedicament of Action The contrary proved by Suarez Smiglecius Scheibler In Actual love the Action and the Terminus of it considerable The Refuters Remarques in Scheibler impertinent His Oracles nothing to the purpose The Propositions to be proved Immanent Acts in what sense Qualities Scheibler not slighted Aristotle his Character of Eudoxus agreeable to the Refuter His words not home to the Refuters purpose proved from Reason and Suarez Habitual and Actual Love both Qualities and Species of the same Genus proved from sundry places in Suarez The Refuters further Impertinencies Immanent Acts of Love in what sense Dispositions in what not from Smiglecius Aquinas Acts of two sorts Doctor HAMMOND 22. THe word Love as I said is a Genus equally comprehending the two Species habitual and actual Love and equally applicable to either of the Species to the Acts as well as the Habit of Love And so when I say Love is capable of Degrees the meaning is clear The Generical word Love restrained to the latter Species i. e. considered in respect of the Acts of Love gradually differenced one from the other is in that respect capable of Degrees both inwardly and in outward expressions that Act of Love that poured out and exprest it self in the more Ardent prayer was a more intense Act of Love
then another Act of the same habitual Love which did not so ardently express it self JEANES THat Love is not a Genus equally comprehending habitual and actual Love as it 's two Species I have already proved by this Argument Because they are in several Predicaments Habitual Love in the Predicament of Qualitie and Actual in the Predicament of Action There are I know divers great Philosophers and Schoolemen that make all immanent Acts and consequently all inward Acts of Love to be Qualities they are say they only Grammatical Actions not Metaphysical Actions in the Predicament of Action But this opinion is untrue in it self and no waies advantagious unto your cause in hand 1. It is untrue in itself and to confirm this I shall offer to your consideration two arguments out of Scheibler which clearly prove immanent acts to be true proper and predicamental actions in the Predicament of Action In universum id sine incommodo potest dici Actio quod sufficit ad constituendam causalitatem Efficientis Atqui dantur causae efficientes quibus non convenit alia causalitas quà m quae sit actio immanens Ergo actio immanens vere est actio Propositio patet Quia praedicamentum Actionis ponitur ad locandam causalitatem efficientis causae in genere entium ut supra disputatum explicando divisionem praedicamentorum Et confirmatur Quod actio sit adaequata causalitas efficientis ut supra visum est lib. 1. c. 12. Assumptio patet Nam Homo absolutè est causa efficiens in quantum denominatur videre aut intelligere et tamen isti sunt actus immanentes That which is the Causalitie of an efficient Cause is a true and predicamental Action in the predicament of Action But immanent Acts are the causalities of efficient causes and therefore proper and predicamental Actions Deinde ad actus immanentes sunt potentiae activae Sed potentiae activae sunt per ordinem ad veras actiones Ergo actus immanentes sunt verae actiones Et si hi solum titulo tenus sunt actiones Ergo etiam potentiae illae activae titulotenus sunt potentiae activae That which terminates and actuates an active power is a proper and predicamental action But every immanent act terminates and actuates an active power and therefore every immanent act is a proper and predicamental action Met. lib. 2. cap. 10. n. 27. You may perhaps slight Scheibler as a trivial author but I urge his reasons not his Authority and if you can answer his reasons you may speak your pleasure of him and of me for alledging of him But I can press you with an Author far greater then Scheibler our great Master Aristotle of whom you make somewhere in your writings honorable mention He lib. 10. Ethic. c. 3. tells us roundly that the operations of vertues and even happiness it self are not qualities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but these are immanent Acts and therefore in his opinion immanent acts are not qualities But secondly suppose this opinion were true in it self yet will it no waies advantage your cause for the patrons of it range immanent acts under the first Species of quality and then are they either Dispositions or Habits If you say they are dispositions as most of the above-mentioned schoolmen hold them to be against this I object That however they may be so in other men yet they cannot be so in Christ for a Disposition carryeth in it's notion inchoation and imperfection and therefore to attribute it unto Christ is to throw an apparent dishonour upon him If you say they are habits why then you cannot deny them to be gracious habits and so you will fall upon that opinion of which in this reply you so studiously endeavor to acquit your self viz. that the same habits of Grace in Christ may be more intense at one time then another and consequently that his habitual Grace was not alwaies full and perfect § 1. Whereas the Doctor had been forced again to mind our Refuter of the useful distinction of Love into it's Species Habitual and Actual he tells us again that Love is not a Genus equally comprehending them as it 's two Species as he has proved by this argument because they are in several Predicaments habitual Love in the Predicament of Quality and actual Love in the Predicament of Action § 2. It is true indeed that you have told us seven or eight times already that this you have proved And what pitty is it that since you are a man of such Gravity and parts that we should not take your word for it But my good Pythagoras since we are out of our five years Probation give us more then your bare word for the proof of this part of your Assumption that actual Love is in the Predicament of Action and not of Quality Review your former Pages that I may retort your own language and tell us whether you have attempted any thing to this purpose Do not then begge the Question like a Puisny Sophister but prove it like a Schoolman Shall I again bestrew your way with your own Rhetorical flowers * Jeanes Answer to the Eclenest pag. 15 17. I am resolved as well as you to swallow none of your proofless Dictates seeing I have entred the Lists with you you must not think me irreverent and sawcy if as the Souldiers speak I dispute every inch of ground with you and be so bold as to call upon you for the Proof of whatsoever you assert touching that which is in controversy between us Said indeed you have often that actual Love is a Predicamental Action and not a Quality but you have no where proved it § 3. And give me leave to tell you that it will be impossible to make it good till first you shall demonstrate against Suarez and the best Metaphysicians and Philosophers that Actio ut sic non dicit essentialem respectum ad terminum and that there can be any Motion whether instantaneous or successive and not from a Terminus à Quo to a Terminus ad Quem and give us a solid answer to their Arguments § 4. And now that you may see that Suarez is not singular in this Doctrine besides the Authors I have already quoted to this purpose for I am willing to move your Palate with a fresh Dish I shall now refer you to Smiglecius Logick a book of solidity and clearness in matters of this nature He tells us Non solum sunt in corpore passibiles Qualitates sed etiam in anima Nam etiam in anima oriuntur affectus ex passione alteratione corporeâ ut ira gaudium timor tristitia Amor c. Quod si objicies affectus istos esse Actiones mentis in Praedicamento Actionis reponendos how say you Mr. Refuter Respondeo in Actione duo considerari primò Actionem secundò Terminum qui est effectus Actionis Ratione primi affectus spectant ad Praedicamentum Actionis
ratione secundi spectant ad Praedicamentum Qualitatis Smiglec Log. disp 11. q. 3. p. 417. edit Oxon. § 5. Nor must you be ready to take advantage and say that though actual Love be not a predicamental Action yet Smiglecius you see makes it a Patible Quality and so Love as a Genus cannot comprehend the Habit in the first Species of Quality and the Act in the third and therefore hence at least it will appear that the Doctor is mistaken § 6. For the same Smiglecius has sufficiently prevented this Objection when in the beginning of his disputation (a) Smiglec Log. disp 11. q. 1 p. 412. Vid. etiam Suarez Metaph. disp 42. sect 5. n. 15. he layes it down for a ground that eadem Specie qualit as potest induere omnes illas rationes esse simul Habitus naturalis Potentia Passibilis Qualitas And therefore actual Love though as considered with respect to the alteration arising by it it be ranked among Passible Qualities yet as it is Qualitas bene vel malè afficiens subjectum abstrahendo ab hoc quod sit facilè vel difficilè mobilis it belongs to the first Species § 7. Nay which perhaps will raise a wonder in our Refuter I do not think but this Doctrine will also be found in his own Master Scheibler (b) Scheibler Metaph. lib. 2. c. 8. n. 105. p. 918. For whereas it had been objected that Actionis non datur Actio his answer is Respondeo Actus immanentes per quos fiunt habitus posse bifariam aestimari nempe simpliciter in ratione Actionis vel quantum ad intrinsecum terminum suum qualitativum Actio igitur convenit hoc solum posteriori respectu ut Suarez determinat disp 18. Metaph. sect 4. disp 44. sect 8 n. 23. Actionis autem non est actio immediatè ex vi suâ seu in quantum talis est dimisso respectu ad qualitativum terminum Vid. supra c. 6. tit 4. art 3. punct 1. num 37. § 8. Well then in Actual Love two things may be considered the very Action of loving or the Quality of Love produced by that Action which is it's terminus and product Now these two by reason of the narrowness of language are comprehended under the same common name as other immanent Acts are but yet though the name and expression be the same the nature of the things are so different that they are put in several predicaments the immanent act of love considered as in fluxu is in the Predicament of Action but considered as in termino continually depending on the action of Love as light does upon illumination that produces it it is a Quality and in the first Species ranked and placed I have already cleared this Doctrine in the answer to our Refuters irrefragable demonstration § 9. But now we shall hear newes indeed and he will let us know his own Remarques in Scheibler he tells it us as gravely as the Romane Priests were wont to relate the Fate of the Empire from the books of the Sibylls which themselves could only read Never any man without doubt made the like observations § 10. There are I know saies he divers great Philosophers and Schoolmen that make all immanent Acts and consequently all inward acts of Love to be Qualities they are say they only Grammatical actions not Metaphysical actions in the predicament of Action But 1. this opinion is untrue in it self and 2ly no way advantageous to the Doctors cause in hand § 11. For once Sir be it granted And what do you thence conclude against Doctor Hammond I see you are a cunning Angler that having fished long and catched nothing now fall to troubling the stream But En Rhodus en Saltus The Doctor made use of a distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act which all the world for ought I could ever find to the contrary approve of and our Refuter to oppose it tells us that some Schoolmen and Philosophers make all immanent Acts Qualities c. § 12. And is not now Doctor Hammond confuted Sing sing your Io Paean while we look out some Diogenes with his Candle and Lanthorn to find out in what corner our baffled Doctor hides his head Well Sir I see you are so excellent a Schoolman that I must give you my Vote to answer Bellarmine There is nothing can withstand your all-powerful Confutation § 13. But good Sir I beseech you tell us what 's all this to the Doctor or the present dispute Did he ever take part with those Philosophers and Schoolmen I pray what temptation had you then to run into this Digression Truly none but that a book was to be made and Doctor Hammond to be confuted whether he spake right or wrong or say any thing or nothing By this I see Sir you can answer Quodlibets and Ergo you are a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity § 14. But if we will but stay and have patience till the Sun is up this Memnon's head will vent an Oracle First then he saies This Opinion is untrue in it self and to confirm this he shall offer to the Doctors consideration two arguments out of Scheibler which clearly prove immanent Acts to be true proper and predicamental Actions in the Predicament of Action § 15. And have you not told us newes indeed you should have brought us word that the Sun shines at Rhodes or when it is in it's Zenith There is nothing more generally received in the Schools then that is And I dare say scarce any Philosopher or Schoolman of any note has for these hundred years almost delivered any thing to the contrary Why then urge you Scheibler and his reasons as if he being a late writer had discovered a Truth which former Authors were mistaken in If in the next edition of your book or Rejoynder to Doct. Hammond it may any way gratifie you I shall refer you to Authors of a greater Bulk and larger name then Scheibler for the proof of this point I shall refer you to Smiglecius to Ruvio to Suarez and all the Authors they have quoted but especially I shall refer you to Suarez his most excellent reasons which he has urged in the Demonstration of it And give me leave to tell you that your Master Scheibler first lighted his Candle at his Taper § 16. That you may see we will not alwaies be at difference and that it is not love of contention and victory but Truth only that I strive for it is granted to you and your Master Scheibler that Actio immanens verè est actio But then withall let me adde that this is not the question between you and the Doctor The Proposition you must prove is only this that Actus immanentes sunt tantum Actiones nullo respectu Qualitates that immanent Acts are only Actions and in no respect Qualities Soncinas it is true said that Actus immanentes sunt tantum
Objecta The one is nothing else but Gods Essence and Being but the other are outward Effects and Communications of his Love and Goodness to the Creature Si vero as (a) Durand l. 3. Sent. d. 32. q. 1. art 3. 1. Durand inaequalitas gradus attendatur ex parte boni voliti sic Deus non aequaliter diligit se omnes Creaturas sed plus se quam Creaturas nec omnes Creaturas aequaliter c. Though then it be most certainly true to make use of the same (b) Durand ibid. in fine Durand quod magis bonum est magis diligendum intensivè à voluntate quae movetur ab objecto yet Voluntas Divina quae ab Objecto non movetur sed bonitatem rerum causat hanc impressionem non recipit ab Objectis sed actu invariabili vult uni bonum quod alteri non vult quibus vult bona sive aequalia sive inaequalia vult aequali voluntate The will of God that is not moved by any outward Object is not subject to these changes and alterations but by one immutable Act does dispence all the several varieties of his outward Love and Favours As the Sun according to the opinion of Copernicus though it continue still fixed in one immoveable center of the world alwaies equally projecting it's Light in an uniform Ray yet by reason of the various posture of the Sphere arising from the triple motion of the Earth it makes Perigaees and Apogaees and at one and the same moment distributes Summer and Winter and Autumne and Spring and Morn Noon and Night to the several parts and Climates of the habitable world So this various participation of Gods outward Love and Favour arises not from any difference and variation in the inward Act of Gods Love but only from the several approximations of the Creature to God in its Essence or additional perfections or as it is fitted and qualified to receive and admit a greater portion of it And therefore most certain it is that when any such change is wrought the Creature varies and not God whose inward Love is eternally one the same infinite and immutable Act that has no other Object but it self alwaies loving and beloved To make this yet more clear I shall prosecute the former illustration We know the Sun according to whatsoever Astronomical Hypothesis continues still invariable in its Light and Heat and Influence and yet the effects of these three are not uniform and equal but vary in regard of the Bodies they work on The Starrs borrow their light from this fountain but then because they are celestial Bodies and as Aristotle determines of a nature Quintessential they are not capable of Heat and such elementary qualities and alterations arising from them The Air because perspicuous transmits its Light and Heat and Influence The Earth because opacous withstands the Light but imbibes it's Heat and Influence and Stones and Minerals in the bowels of it are multiplyed in their kinds by them Plants vegetate and flourish by them and Animals not only encrease and grow but also move and feel and perceive them But Man the Microcosme being himself a little World enjoyes within himself all varieties of effects to be found in any of the Creatures springing from them And yet notwithstanding there be so great a difference and multiplicity of effects this arises not at all from the Sun whose Light Heat and Influence is alwaies the same but only from the several dispositions and tempers and Perfections of the Creature whereby they are qualified and fitted for these Effects and Alterations And now because sic parvis componere magna solemus we may say the like of God The inward Act of his Love as well as his Essence is alwaies one and the same and all the difference in the outward effects of it arises from the various disposition and capacity and approximation of the Creature to him in his Being and Perfection If natural and irrational Creatures partake only of the fruits of his common Sustentation and Providence their natures are not capable of higher advancements If the Carnal man perceives not spiritual Objects it is because he wants a Principle to receive them or he wilfully shuts his eyes and withdraws himself from the Sun-shine If the Angels and Spirits of just men made perfect now share not in those various dispensations and assistances of Grace that the Church militant is partaker of it is because they are above it and are free from all humane Changes and Alterations If the wicked and reprobate arrive not to heaven it is because it was prepared for the Saints and those only that fear Gods name that carefully seek after it § 30. It is true indeed that this variety in the several participation of Gods Love and Favour which is found in the Creature springs originally from the will and pleasure of God which alone gives them Being in that variety and difference that qualifies them for this several reception and approach to him or distance from him But yet his Love is still the same though the Gifts and Graces and Favours be thus different as the Light of the Sun is still the same though the Slime be only warmed and the Plant be quickened from it's seed and the several Births and aequivocal productions of Froggs and Insects and the like brought forth by it are capable of and enjoy higher perfections and advancements from it § 31. And now because we have had occasion often in this Discourse to refer to the Doctrine of the Schoolmen I shall with the Readers Patience endeavour further to clear and confirm this by some passages taken from them And I shall begin with the (a) P. Lombard l. 3. Sent. dist 32. A. B. C. Master of the Sentences Dilectio Dei divina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est eademque dilectione Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus se diligunt nos ut supra disseruimus Cumque ejus dilectio sit immutabilis aeterna alium tamen magis alium minus diligit Vnde Augustinus Incomprehensibilis est dilectio Dei atque immutabilis quâ Deus in unoquoque nostrûm amat quod fecit sicut odit quod fecimus Miro ergo divino modo etiam quando odit diligit nos Et hoc quidem in omnibus intelligi potest Quis ergo digne potest eloqui quantum diligit membra Vnigeniti sui quanto amplius Vnigenitum ipsum De ipso etiam dictum est Nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti Ex his percipitur quod Deus omnes Creaturas suas diligit quia scriptum est Nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti Et item Vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat erant valde bona Si omnia quae fecit bona sunt omne bonum diligit omnia ergo diligit quae fecit inter ea magis diligit rationales creaturas de illis amplius quae sunt membra Vnigeniti sui
tertiò illa quae remotiùs sunt ordinata ad attingendum Finem Cum igitur Deus rationabilissimè velit licet non diversis actibus sed tantum uno in quantum illo diversimodè tendit super Objecta ordinate primò vult finem in hoc est Actus suus perfectus Voluntas ejus beata secundò vult illa quae immediate ordinantur in ipsum praedestinando sc Electos tertiò vult illa quae sunt necessaria ad attingendum hunc sinem sc bona gratiae quartò vult propter illos alia quae sunt remotiora puta hunc mundum sensibilem ut serviat illis c. Patet igitur inaequalitas volibilium quantum ad ipsa volita non ut volitio est ipsius Voluntatis sed ut transit super Objecta modo praedicto Nec tamen illa inaequalitas est propter bonitatem praesuppositam in Objectis quibuscunque aliis à se quae sit quasi ratio sic vel sic volendi sed ratio est in ipsa Voluntate Divina quia sicut ipsa acceptat alia in gradu ita sunt bona in talia gradu non è converso Vel si'detur quod in eis ut ostensa sunt ab Intellectu ostenditur aliquis gradus bonitatis essentialis secundum quam debent complacere voluntati hoc saltem est certum quod complacentia eorum quantum ad actualem existentiam est merè ex Voluntate Divina absque alia ratione determinante ex parte eorum And then he adds in his Answer to the third Objection Et ista inaequalitas Dilectionis hoc est effectus Dilectionis concedenda est non solum quantum ad gradus specificos sed etiam in individuis ejusdem speciei nec ratio est in isto in illo sed sola Voluntas Divina c. Thus Scotus § 35. I might adde more from Durand l. 3. Sent d. 32. q. 1. art 3. Nichol. de Orbellis l. 3. Sent. d. 32. Dub. 1. Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 32. § 1. pa. 110. E. F. 111. A. B. Hales and Bonaventure Argentinus Gabriel Biel and others are quoted by H. Cavellus to this purpose in his Scholia on this place of Scotus But it were vain to fill paper with more quotations since in citing these I have pointed out all the rest And I believe there is not a writer on this distinction in the Sentences or on that question in the Summes but has expresly delivered himself to this purpose as the Master and these his Scholars had done before them § 36. And therefore I cannot chuse but wonder that our Refuter should take no notice of these or the like passages which to ordinary eyes would have shewed more to his advantage then all that he has quoted in his Pamphlet from the Schoolmen and Suarez and Scheibler to boot But this and some other Passages in his Book which offered themselves at first sight make me not value his School-learning at the same rate and price he has put upon it in the Title-Page of his Mixture But old Homer was blind though he were the prince of Poets and our writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity sees not all things in those Doctors that may most serve for his advantage § 37. Howsoever the Proverb is on his side and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his second thoughts may be wiser Now I have helped him to a Festcue and pointed him to the places we may in his next rejoinder meet with these and more the like observations For methinks I already hear him at his Dicite Io Paean Io bis dicite Paean and that as cheerfully he sings it as the great Archimâ—des did his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he had found out the Demonstration of that Probleme which a long time in vain he had attempted Here at least it is acknowledged that he has all the Schoolmen on his side and therefore did not he rationally challenge the Doctor in any of those Writers to be had in Pauls-Church-yard or the Library at Oxford § 38. But good Sir soft and fair For I doubt not but I shall yet be able to pull off the Wheeles from your Triumphal Chariot though you were now entring the very gates of the Capitol to sacrifice to your Goddesse Victory § 39. For in the third place I must tell you that though nothing naturally hinders but that the inward Acts of Love in Men may be gradually the same where the outward Expressions are gradually different yet ordinarily they are not but the inward affection commonly varies according to the intension and remission of the outward Expressions and Effects § 40. And hence it is that God Almighty is very frequently in Scripture that speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after the manner of men said to love some more then others and the same person more or less at one time then he does at another though his Love in the inward Act must of necessity be still the same because it is most usual with men from whose custom this is borrowed and applied to God that the outward Expressions do carry a proportionable correspondence to the inward Affections and as the one gradually varies so most commonly do the other Nor would the Scriptures by an Anthropopathy have applyed this to God unless it had been most usual and ordinary with men § 41. Indeed this is in it self so familiar and obvious a Truth so commonly also received among the Schoolmen that I am even ashamed at our Refuters either Ignorance or Folly that he should put the Doctor because he is a Critick to prove that which every daies experience does manifest to all sorts of people For else how can we be able to distinguish true Love from that which is hypocritical and counterfeit but only upon the supposal of this Maxime That in the ordinary course of affaires among men there is and must be a Correspondence between the inward Acts of Love and the outward Expressions Upon what score but this did our Saviour reprove Judas for betraying the Son of Man with a kiss Luke 22. 47. Judges 4. 18. 5. 25 26. When Jael courted Sisera with fair language and profers of security and protection at the time she had resolved his destruction in her heart when in one hand she brought milk and butter in a Lordly Dish and the nail and hammer in the other when Joab strook Amasa under the fifth rib and killed him and at 2 Sam. 20. 9 10. the same time cried Hail Brother and took him about the neck and kissed him where else lay the cruel hypocrisie but only in this that the outward Expressions spake abundance of Love when there was warr and blood-shed in the Heart § 42. And indeed were not this a generally-received Truth amongst men that such as are the outward Expressions such also ought the inward Acts to be and that as the one does grow or
decrease so ordinarily do the other there could be no security of any mans Love or Friendship in the world but all things must fall into Jealousie and Confusion For the inward Acts of Love being immanent Acts of the Will it is impossible that they should appear and be discovered to others but only by the outward signs and Expressions And as it is impossible that the inward and elicite Acts of the mind should be discerned and known to others but only by the outward transient Acts so also it is generally received from Saint Austin that mentiri est contra mentem ire and men in Sinceritie are bound as well candidly to express as to speak truth to their neighbours else there will be as much a Lie in the Action as is in the Tongue § 43. If our Refuter shall here reply from the 38th Page that though it be a piece of high dissembling for a man to make great pretenses and shewes of Affection when there is little or none in the Heart yet there is no such matter where either it is not expressed to the height or else totally concealed § 44. To this I answer That as there is no General Rule without exceptions so it has already been granted that it may be lawful sometimes to conceal our Love or not express it to the height and Prudence also dictates that in some cases it is both commendable and necessary to assume and put on even a * Illud hic generatim dici potest Vbicumque Simulatio aut dissimulatio per se nihil habet quod Dei gloriam laedat aut in alterum sit injurium aut nostrae laudi vel commodo nimium aurigetur eam ad breve tempus cum res ita fert adhiberi posse saepe enim ad gubernationem rerum ad consilia perficienda opus est quaedam dissimulare nonnunquam etiam severitas quaedam simulari potest in liberos aut alios qui nobis subsunt ad eos imperio continendos quod tantum abest ut reprehensionem mereatur ut potius laude sit dignum tanquam ad disciplinam servandam vehementer utile Joh. Crellii Ethic. Christian l. 4. c. 27. pa. 517. contrary Passion of Anger and Severity toward those we most tenderly affect and consequently that he is no Hypocrite that in these cases hides his Love or does not fully expresse it But then these being but extraordinary cases and exceptions from general Rules can no whit prejudice the usual contrary Practice and Obligation And hence it is that I said which this Objection no waie strikes at that ordinarily the outward Expressions must and commonly do carry a correspondence and proportionable agreement with the inward Acts of that Love which they are designed to represent § 45. And now for this in the next place I appeal to the Common Notions and general apprehensions of Mankind For all men naturally are perswaded that where they conceive the Passion is not counterfeit there such as are the outward Expressions such also is the inward Love and as the one falls or rises so also does the other I pray Sir do not you your self guesse at your welcome by the freedome and nobleness and height of your entertainment Though the Table be loaded with plenty yet if a Super omnia vultus Accesscre boni if locks Ovid. Metam come not in to grace the entertainment or if others be more friendly accosted then your self you will soon enough descry that you are none of the Guests for whom the Feast was provided and that your room would be better accepted then your company When the Jewes saw our Saviour weeping for dead Lazarus Joh. 11. 35 36. did they not make a just construction of this Action and say truly Behold how he loved him When Mary Magdalene washed Luke 7. 38 c. our Saviours feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair and kissed them and anointed them with pretious oyntment did not our Saviour from thence truly argue the greatness of her Love and prove that it was though she were a sinner far more then that of Simon his entertainer because he neither as the Custome was had offered him a kiss or oyle for his head or else water for his feet And therefore the Schools do generally conclude from Saint Gregory that Probatio dilectionis Gregor Magn. Homil. in Evangel mihi pa. 321. E. exhibitio est operis It is in his 30th Homily upon the Gospels Such as is the Expression such is also the Love and the one is the Index and Touchstone to manifest the other § 46. Indeed true Love is a very fruitful and operative thing and it cannot chuse but be communicative Like Mines of Gold and Silver in the Bowels of the Earth it manifests the rich treasure by certain Signes and Indications And though we would our selves yet it cannot will not lie hid Every Concealment laies Shackles and Bonds upon it and shuts up that in a most tedious imprisonment which was born to be free and cannot long live restrained Like the natural heat in the Body it must have its vent and therefore if the Pores be shut up it puts all in a Flame till the Passages be opened Every Tree saies Luke 6. 44 45. our Saviour is known by its fruit and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh And again If ye love me keep my Joh. 15. 21. commandements He that hath my commandements and keepeth them he it is that loveth me and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father and I will love him and manifest my self to him Indeed true Love does as naturally manifest it self by the outward Expressions as Springs of water discover themselves by the verdure of the grass they run under It 's excellence consists in doing good and being communicative and like Light it was as well made to shew it self as comfort others and it has this Property also of Light that the greater or lesse it is still in the Fountain the stronger or weaker it alwaies is in the Ray. Nay it is altogether uselesse unlesse it be working and manifesting it self and a Love concealed is altogether as if it were not What Saint James saies of Faith may be as well said of this As Jam. 2. 26. the body without the Spirit is dead so Love without works is dead also § 47. This then being the nature of true Charity the Christian grace of sincerity requires that our Love be not only such as it seems but that it appear in the effects to be such as it truly is And therefore saies S. John My little Children let 1 John 3. 18. us not love in word neither in tongue but in deed and in truth From which place Tolet in his Commentary on Rom. 12. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let Love be without dissimulation observes that Tolet. Commentar in Epist ad Rom. c. 12. p. 527 528. there are
intensive growth 26. But to this the Reply will be easily foreseen from the Premisses that as the point by him handled and confirmed was distinctly the all-fulness of habitual grace in Christ so his proof of it by the consent of Fathers and Schoolmen belongs still to that fulness of habitual Grace 27. Witness one for all Aquinas Par. 3. qu. 7. art 12. ad secundum Licet virtus Divina possit facere aliquid majus melius quam sit habitualis Gratia Christi non tamen though the Divine power may make somewhat greater and better then is the habitual Grace of Christ yet So 't is plain he speaks of the fulness of the habitual Grace And ad tertium In Sapientia Gratia aliquis proficere potest dupliciter uno modo secundum ip sos Habitus sapientiae Gratiae augmentatos sic Christus in eis non proficiebat alio modo secundum effectus in quantum aliquis sapientiora virtuosiora opera facit sic Christus proficiebat sapientiâ Gratiâ sicut aetate quia secundum processum aetatis perfectiora opera faciebat in his quae sunt ad Deum in his quae sunt ad homines One may increase in wisedom and Grace two waies One way according to the habits of them increased and so Christ increased not another way according to the effects when any doth more wise and vertuous works and so Christ increased in wisedom and Grace as he did in Age because according to the process of his Age he did more perfect works and that both in things belonging to God and men also 28. And thus are the Schoolmen understood by the Refuter himself in his producing their Testimonies as appears by the express words habitual Grace pag. 260. lin penult and holiness and the Image of God in him pag. 261. lin 13. And so 't is most clear their Consent belongs not even in his own opinion to the matter I had and have in hand no way denying but asserting a Capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Christs Love of God and the Expressions of it § 1. And now my good Refuter I pray deal ingenuously and speak plainly without any subterfuges and ambages Could any thing be said more fully for the proving the vanity of your Vse of Confutation For was not your Theme the All-fulness of habitual grace in Christ's Manhood Does not the Title of every Page from p. 229. to p. 297. speak as much Does not the whole carriage and Proof of your Doctrinal part evidence it Do you treat of any thing but that Nay do you not usher in your first Vse of Information from your former Doctrine thus From the dwelling of all-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ we may infer this Qualification and fitness for all his Offices c And then does it not follow in order after this Vse p. 258. thus Secondly this Point may serve for Confutation of a Passage in the learned Doctor Hammond against Mr. Cawdrey to wit that Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees I pray Sir what does this Ordinal Secondly mean Has it not relation to that which went before Or what is the Antecedent to this Relative This Is it not the Point of the All-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ Is it not from hence that you conclude Doctor Hammond guilty Did you from pag. 237. to pag. 258. where begins your Vse of Confutation speak of any thing else Nay do you not continue on this Argument to pag. 297 Nay do your Authorities from Aquinas 3. part q. 7. art 12. in 3. Sent. dist 13. say any thing else Nay do not your Thomists and Scotists that you say are unanimous in asserting that the grace of Christs Humanity was in regard of †Vide Davenant in Coloss c. 1. v 19. p. 99 100. Suarez tom 1. in 3. Part. Thom. disp 22. sect 2. p. 322. et disp 26. p. 306. col 1 C. ibid. sect 2 p. 367. col 2. A. B. Gods Power ever which yet would be considered of were this a place fit for it Summa both positive and negative speak the same Are not your two reasons which you fetcht from Aquinas which you say are dilated on by his Commentators brought in only to this purpose Do you not say expresly in your first Reason 1. Ex parte Formae ipsius Gratiae The habitual Grace of Christ was referred unto the grace of Vnion as a consequent Ornament of it and therefore in all congruence it was to be suited and proportioned to it Is not your second Reason taken ex parte Subjecti to this purpose also Say you not that Christ was not pure Viator but in his soul he was also Comprehensor and that from the first instant of his incarnation He alwaies therefore in his soul enjoyed heaven happiness the beatifical vision and therefore all his Graces and consequently his Love of God were in termino and therefore could not admit any further degrees And do you not therefore adde to shew you speak only of habitual Grace that it is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation there was some restraint of the influence of happiness or beatifical vision in the whole course of his Humiliation and particularly in the time of his doleful Passion But surely it seems very improbable and no waies sortable unto the state of Christs blessedness for his Grace and Holiness the Image of God in him his Love of God c. to be liable unto perpetual motion and augmentation Sir If these be your Vide Jeanes Mixture of Scholast and Pract. Divinity p. 260 261. words even in the midst of your Vse of Confutation as you know they are what could be said more to the purpose to acquit the Doctor from the dint and force of it then he has done Your Subject is as clear as the Sun the fulness of Christs habitual Grace and nothing else and from this Doctrine you inferr your second Use a Vse of Confutation of Doctor Hammond who never any where denyed this fulness of habitual Grace and in the Passage you undertake to refute spake only of a gradual difference in respect of some Acts and some Expressions of Christs Love If this be not clearly to acquit himself I know not what is And I shall sooner expect that Calvin and Luther shall receive absolution in the Conclave at Rome then the Doctor in the Judgement of our Refuter But if this plea be not admitted I shall never believe that any thing can be proved and shall instantly turn Sceptick and think that all the world will be Pyrrhonists as well as my self I remember that somewhere it is reported of Diogenes that when a bold simple animal would against all sense and reason undertake to maintain there was no Motion he did instantly refute him with a blow on the Pate Yet I would not be mistaken All I urge this story for is to shew that Diogenes with his
Love of Christ in sincerity Eph. 6. 24. § 30. Thirdly this appears from the several Acts the Doctor instances in that consisted in a Latitude the Love of Adam in innocence the Zeal of the Martyrs and Confessors for Christ in their patience and sufferings the ardency of Christ in several acts of Prayer the different ardency of Prayer in other men which he acquits from sin by the example of Christ and lastly by several acts of Mercy and Liberality to the poor All which as it is plain they are Acts of the infused Grace of holy Charity all rooted in that high sublime Love immediately centred in God himself so clear it is that they are not that Love as thus specially and properly taken but rather fruits and expressions of it § 31. Lastly this will appear from express words in the Doctor § 5. of that Section thus Still it must be remembred saies he that it is not the sinless Perfection we speakof when we say it consists in a Latitude and hath Degrees but Sincerity of this or that vertue I pray mark it good Sir exprest in this or that performance and as this though it excludes not all mixture of sin in the Suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that Act for it is certain that I may in an act of Mercy mark it again give as much as any law obligeth me to give and so not sin in giving too little so to this his answer belongs not at all nor shewes any difference or reason why such Sincerity may not in any pious Christian be capable of Degrees as well as in Christ himself I pray good Sir mark it and the lower of them be sinless and all the superiour voluntary oblations more then the strict Law required of us § 32. And thus also was the Doctor understood by Mr. Cawdrey in his instance in Christ himself For whereas the Doctor had urged he was more intense in Praier at one time then another when yet the lower degree was no sin to this Mr. Cawdrey answers That Christ was above the Law and did more then the Law of God required but men fall short many degrees of what is required § 33. Nay the Doctor was understood in this sense by the Author of the Mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity himself For whereas his Theme had been the All-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ from pag. 230. to 256. he there begins to draw out four Vses from that Doctrine so largely before handled The second whereof is a Vse of Confutation of Doctor Hammond thus pag. 258. Secondly this point of the fulness of habitual Grace in Christ may serve for Confutation of a passage in the learned Doctor Hammond against Mr. Cawdrey to wit That Christs Love of God or habitual Grace for it were nothing to the purpose as the Doctor in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we also have already shewed to understand it of any thing else was capable of further Degrees And for proof of his Charge he quotes this very Section § 4 5. p. 222. And in this sense he did oppose the Doctor all along in his Vse of Confutation witness this short passage for all the rest pag. 259. And the falshood of such an assertion to wit that Christs Love of God wa◠capable of Degrees is evident from the point here handled and confirmed the absolute fulness of Christs Grace which by the general consent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was such as that it excluded all intensive growth It was a sequele of the personal union and therefore it was from the very first moment of his Conception The Word was no sooner made Flesh but it was forthwith full of Grace and Truth His Love of God was uncapable of further Degrees unto whom God gave not the Spirit that is the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit by measure § 34. Indeed as it had been nothing to that Authors purpose and his Vse of Confutation had appeared absolutely groundless to have understood the Doctor in any other sense so had it been nothing to the Doctors Argument also if by the Love of God all along in those Discourses he had understood any thing else then the several Acts of that divine Grace of holy Charity which he said consisted in a Latitude For the question in the Treatise of Will-worship was whether that first great Law Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. did oblige every man by way of Duty to the utmost height of perfection possible in every Act of Grace and goodness or to such a Sincerity in the several Acts of this or that Vertue or Grace that consists in a Latitude and hath Degrees The Doctor asserted the latter and Mr. Cawdrey undertook to make good the legal obligation to the former And therefore as it had been a vain and fruitless attempt for the Doctor to have laboured to make good his Conclusion by instancing in that Act of Christ's Love which every Smatterer in Theology and the Schoolmen knowes to be necessary because it is actus Comprehensoris so it had been nothing to the Doctors purpose because this Act being necessary and flowing per modum emanationis as they speak it could not come possibly under the power of a Command or the notion of a Duty Because the Saints in Patria that are Comprehensores that see God face to face love him alwaies to one height and fulness because they alwaies know and enjoy him at that height they love and therefore love him perfectly because they are now perfectly united to him it can be no argument or pattern for us men that are now in via to love God to that height because we can love God but to the height of our Knowledge of him And as they love God necessarily and naturally as I may so speak since their glorification because therein consists the height of Heaven's happiness so we love God freely and by way of Duty in order to that happiness which Duty consists not in one indivisible point and height in every act of habitual Grace but in sincerity that admits of a Latitude of performance in the several Acts of Grace as our Knowledge is enlarged and Occasion does require § 35. No other sense then can rationally be affixed to this phrase the Love of God either in the Treatise of Will-worship or the Vindication of it against Mr. Cawdrey Nor can any other sense be affixed on it in the Ectenesteron also For if I have not miscounted it is but 13. times to be met with in that Treatise and in most of them they are the words of Mr. Jeanes in his Vse of Confutation and are taken up by the Doctor for a necessity of argument rather then choice § 36. Besides it being a vindication of himself from a false imputation in that Vse of Confutation for a denial of the fulness of habitual
Grace in Christ he knew it was not necessary so precisely to distinguish that phrase the Love of God which the whole subject matter of that argument must needs clear to be understood as parallel and aequipollent to habitual Grace and the Acts of it § 37. Besides the Doctor in the very entrance of that Treatise § 2 3. had so fully cleared his own and the Refuters meaning saying expresly that the Refuters meaning was this that he had affirmed Christ's Love of God meaning thereby the habitual Grace of divine Charity to have been capable of further Degrees so as that capacity of further Degrees is the denial of all fulness of that habitual Grace already in him and accordingly in that Treatise he makes answer to that Charge that no other sense could by any ingenuous man be affixed unto that Phrase § 38. Adde to this that the Doctor expresly denies that he ever said these words That Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees And now I shall desire our Refuter to shew me so much as the very subject of it Christs Love of God in terminis either in the Treatise of Will-worship or the Defence of it against Mr. Cawdrey The truth is the Proposition is none of the Doctors and all that the Refuter pretends to is that he rightly inferred it from these words in the Account That Sincere Account to Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diat c. 6. sect 9. §. 5. Love is capable of Degrees as appears among other instances from the Example of Christ more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another and therefore in all equity must have no other meaning and signification then what the place from whence it is pretended to be deduced does admit of which can be no other then what we have given of it And though the Doctor here acknowledge that those other words not found in his Papers are yet not illogically inferred from them viz. That Christ's Love of God was capable of further Degrees more intense at one time then at another yet he that best knew his own meaning there expresly declares that they only import that Christs Love of God or holy Charity in the general Notion as he distinctly expresses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 12. it § 14. had in its Latitude or Amplitude several Degrees one differing from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in that full all-perfect Love of God which was alwaies in Christ so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees Besides that this and no other could be his meaning is evident from his instancing in that Place whence the Proposition is pretended to be inferred in the different Ardency of Christ in several Acts of Prayer which is rather an Act of Religion then Charity And though it be founded in Charity and flowes from it yet Prayer that is Deprecation or Petition such as that of Christ's then was is rather an effect of that Love of God which the Schooles call Amor Concupiscentiae a love of God for our own sakes then that which they call Amor Amicitiae a love of God purely for himself Vid. Durand l. 3. Sent. d. 28 q. 1. art 1. B. and nothing else Beseech God indeed we do to help us because we believe he is the fountain of all goodness which makes the Act formally an Act of Religion and rather to be radicated in Charity then formally and immediatly an Act of Love the Effect and issue of Charity rather then it § 39. Adde to this that the Doctor expresly saies that the Vide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 14 15 16 18 21 22. word Love in that Passage was to be taken by a Synecdoche generis for the Acts of holy Charity and not for habitual Love § 40. And then he explains his meaning by an instance taken from the Refuters own Confession thus The Death of Christ §. 22. saith he was an higher expression of Christ's Love of us of us but for God's sake then his Hunger c. To this I sub join That such as the expression was such was the Act of inward Love c. And so the same person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely then at other times Love but what God as the immediate Object no that was neither the meaning of the Refuter nor the Doctor But us he loved and expressed that Love to us more in his Death then any other Act of holy Charity and Love to us An Act of Charity Love of God this was without doubt which he bestowed on us but us in these Acts he loved immediatly for Gods sake § 41. This will further appear by the several other Phrases he uses as aequipollent to this of the Love of God For sometimes nay most commonly he rather uses the word Love absolutely then the Love of God sometimes he expresses it by Graces sometimes by Acts of vertue sometimes in the Concrete thus a sincerely-pious man a true lover of God c. § 42. I confess I have been over tediously curious in this part of the Reply But I conceive it necessary to shew how beyond all possibility of defence this Refuter is unjust in affixing that other sense to the Doctors words which he never meant nor could possibly serve his turn But so it was that the Doctor had so fully acquitted himself from the Vse of Confutation that nothing now but Consequences and new-devised meanings of words and phrases would help him and he was forced of necessity to prevaricate otherwise it had not been possible to have found out a Medium to have confuted Doctor Hammond a second time And as the Reader will see a necessity of this Travel before the Discourse is ended so I doubt not but the ingenuous will therefore pardon it § 43. Well then it being plain that this phrase the Love of God may be taken generally in confuso as they speak in the Schooles and as it prescinds or abstracts from this or that particular Act or else specially as it relates in particular to the prime and most noble Act of Divine Charity that is immediatly terminated in God and it being as plain that Doctor Hammond takes it in the first sense when he saies that The Love of God or the Acts of that Love do consist in a latitude and if we compare them one with another are more intense at one time then another it now remains that I make good the Assertion for the full and absolute acquitting of the Doctor Which I do by these Arguments § 44. Where there is and of necessity must be a gradual rence and more in respect of the goodness of the Objects of the Habit of Charity or the Love of God there is and of necessity there must be also a gradual difference in respect of the several Acts of this Habit of Charity or the Love of God
quandam includit vel implicitè quatenus fertur in objectum sub una praecisa ratione consideratum ac si esset separata ab aliis conditionibus quae illius executionem impediunt vel etiam interdum explicitè per intellectum consideratâ appositâ conditione ipsi Objecto ut in 1. 2. latius explicatur Of these two Acts of Christ's Will and Affection the Scripture affords us many clear and apposite instances § 62. Of the efficacious Acts of Christ's Will and holy Love we may find a clear proof Heb. 10. 5 6 7 10. Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith Sacrifice and burnt-offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou had'st no pleasure Then said I Loe I come in the volume of the book it is written of me to do thy will ô God By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all And this free-will offering of Christ for our Redemption had been foretold by Esay c. 58. 7. Oblatus est quia ipse voluit as the Vulgar reads it or as our Translation He was oppressed and he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb so opened he not his mouth § 63. For the inefficacious Acts of Christs Will and Affection we have also clear proofs Matth. 23. 37. Luke 13. 34. O Jerusalem Jerusalem thou that killest the Prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee how often would I have gathered thy Children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and ye would not As out of his abundant Love he came unto his own though his own received him not so to testifie his Affection he now weeps that after all his care and pains his preaching and miracles their sins and obstinate impenitency should render this his Love ineffectual Another instance we have of these inefficacions Acts of his Will Mark 7. 24. And he entred into an house and would have no man know it but he could not be hid Our Saviours prayer in the Garden during his bloody Agony gives us clear instances of both Mark 14. 35 36. And he went forward a little and fell on the ground and prayed that if it were possible the cup might pass from him And he said Abba Father all things are possible unto thee take away this cup from me nevertheless not what I will but what thou wilt And again and again he prayed O my father if it be possible let this cup pass from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt Matt. 26. 39. From these and other like passages the Fathers in the sixth general Council concluded against the heresy of the Monothelites and established the true doctrine of a two-fold Will in Christ not contrary to themselves but still subordinate the one unto the other at least in the final issue § 64. I shall not now enquire whether these Acts of Christ's Will and holy Love did issue and proceed from him per modum naturae or per modum rationis as they speak in the Schools or both that is whether they were only the natural weights and inclinations and desires of the Will and Propriè non dicitur operari Voluntas ut Ratio nisi quando ex efficaci intentione finis de mediis deliberat quando hoc modo non operatur semper Actus procedit ex naturali pondere vel ipsius voluntatis vel alicujus virtutis in ea existentis ut Charitatis vel alterius similis ad hunc modum operatur semper illos actus imperfectos Suarez in 3. p. Thom. disp 38. sect 2. p. 525. col 2. F. Dicit Thomas rationem fuisse in oratione Christi sensualitatis advocatam Aquin. 3. p. q. 21. art 2. Iidem actus qui sunt à voluntate ut naturâ quatenus aliquo modo liberi sunt possunt dici esse à voluntate ut ratione Deinde interdum potuit habere Christus hos actus circa objecta quae non pertinebant ad proprium commodum sed vel ad amorem amicitiae vel ad alias superiores honestas rationes sic enim potuit desiderare omnium salutem ex charitate quamvis sciret non omnes esse salvandos Similiter etiam Hilarius Hieronymus exponunt appetivisse Christum fugam mortis non solum ex inclinatione naturae sed etiam propter vitandam ruinam Judaeorum quae etiam fuit expositio Originis l. 1. contra Celsum quae si non excludat affectum naturalem supra explicatum sed praeter hunc illum alium adjungit neque impossibilis est neque ullum habet inconveniens Ratio verò est quia hi actus sunt honesti non repugnant perfectioni Christo Domino debitae Suarez ibid. D. E. Similiter tristitiam habuit Christus de perditione Judae ruina Judaeorum adeo ut Hieronymus Hilarius dixerint magis doluisse Christum de morte sua propter ruinam Judaeorum quam propter suum incommodum sed hoc etiam pertinet ad portionem superiorem erat enim opus insignis charitatis Et ex his exemplis facile constat ratio hujus conclusionis quia hic etiam affectus est optimus honestissimus valde consentaneus statui Christi in carne passibili ad satisfaciendum pro hominibus valde accommodatus Suarez ibid. sect 3. p. 526. col 2. B. C. Habit of Charity to his own self-preservation without any deliberation such as is to be found in children before the use of Reason or whether they proceeded from him out of a deliberate consideration and pondering not so much of the now-impending evils and the fury of his Fathers wrath as the love he bore to his own people the Jewes whose destruction and casting off he foresaw would be the consequents of his death though Suarez seems to me to have proved the latter as well as the former Sufficient it is to the present argument that since Christ was himself holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners that all his actions thoughts desires and inclinations were holy just and good and issuing from that all-full and all-perfect Habit of Divine Love and Charity in him § 65. From hence I thus argue Those Acts of holy Charity that were most perfect in themselves were gradually distinguished and secundum magis minus different from those that were imperfect in the same kind But the efficacious Acts of Christs Love and holy Charity were most perfect the inefficacious Acts of the same holy Love were imperfect Ergo These Acts of holy Love and Charity in Christ were gradually distinguished and secundum magis minus different one from another And consequently all the Acts of his Love were not equally intense in themselves and with the Habit from whence they proceeded § 67. There can be no doubt
citat For 1. though the apprehension of the approaching torments was never so great yet he did but only desire the removal of them not absolutely but conditionally and with submission to his Fathers will And 2ly the inferiour faculties were no whit repugnant to the superiour but yielded patiently to it's dictates And therefore 3ly he absolutely submitted himself to God his Fathers will and pleasure And then 4ly God himself was pleased thereby to testifie the truth of his humane nature that these desires should naturally and innocently express themselves in them for our instruction and guidance in such cases All which in every part shall be fully demonstrated in due place § 70. From all which thus considered I thus argue That if our Saviour did truly and innocently because naturally desire the removal of that bitter Cup though with submission to his Fathers will even when so high an Act of divine Charity as the reconciling of the world to God by his death lay before his eyes and his Father had given him a command to perform it and he himself came for no other end into the world then to make it good then he might as innocently have endeavoured by all lawful means his self-preservation upon supposal that no such Covenant had been made nor particular command given and God had left it freely in his power either to reconcile the world to him by his death or to endeavour by just and innocent waies to save himself For plain it is from Scripture that before his hour was come which the Father had appointed for this work when the Jewes took up stones to stone him he withdrew himself to leave us an example what we might lawfully do in such cases And hence it is from the Authority of this great example that though Martyrdome be the highest and most sublime Act of Christian Charity yet all men that profess the name of Christ are not by virtue of that first great fundamental law of divine Charity Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and all thy mind obliged in a time of Persecution to offer themselves to fire and fagot but lawfully may embrace a lesser good and follow a less noble Act of Charity consisting in a lawful endeavour of their own preservation even when an occasion offers of glorifying God by their suffering death or persecution for his names sake Otherwise Saint Paul had sinned when he was let down from the wall in a Basket otherwise the Martyriani that so eagerly coveted Martyrdome for Gods honour had been the best of Christians and are unjustly branded with the name of Hereticks and Tertullians Book against flight in time of Persecution had not deserved the mark of Montanism and Cyprian and great Athanasius had not received the name of Saints but had been enrolled amongst Apostates § 71. From all which it seems to me clearly to follow that as the Doctor asserts sincere Love in the Habit is capable of Degrees in the several Acts either in one man at several times or in two men at the same time and so both may obey that first great Precept of Loving God with all the heart in respect of some several Acts that are gradually different For though that Act that is less intense is comparatively less perfect yet is it not therefore so farre faulty or in vitio because God commands sincerity of our Love which is capable of Degrees in the several Acts as occasion offers and not alwaies pro hic nunc the highest and most noble Act of holy Charity as appears by these so great examples § 72. If it here be said that our Saviour prayed for a removal of this bitter Cup with submission to his Fathers will which alters much the Case § 73. I grant he did so but then I further argue that if it had not otherwise been lawful praescinding still from Gods decree in the present case but the great fundamental law of Charity without any other express and positive command of Gods for the laying down his life had obliged him to it he could not have been excused though he did desire the removal of it with Vide Hooker Ecclesiast Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 280. submission to his Fathers will For what I may not lawfully perform and do as in it self considered that I cannot lawfully desire and pray for though with submission to Gods will For shall I pray to God to bless me in an unlawful Act suppose of Murder or Adultery because I desire it only with submission to Gods will They must be only innocent holy things we must ask and pray for from the most holy God and still we must ask them too with a submission to his holy will and pleasure § 74. And as this was all the Doctor aimed to prove by that instance of our Saviours greater Ardency in this Act of prayer then in another so we shall have anon occasion to clear and further vindicate that instance § 75. I might in the third place demonstrate this Truth from the consideration of the gradual difference in respect of intension between the necessary Acts of holy Charity in Christ and those Acts to which his Will had a most absolute freedome For most certain it is that in the prime and most noble Act of Divine Charity that was immediatly terminated in God the only good he did love necessarily and to the utmost height of intension imaginable and he did alwaies so love him nor could he possibly do otherwise because being alwaies Comprehensor as they speak he perfectly knew him and his Love must of necessity be exactly commensurate to his Knowledge For even the great Philosopher by the light of Reason could discover that Summum bonum and finis ultimus necessariò amatur And then as certain it is that in other Acts of holy Charity he did not love necessarily but freely and his Will had an absolute freedome in them and by reason of this freedome and liberty in the performance of the Acts he was capable of meriting by them And for this our Refuter himself saies that if you please you may see further in Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae dist 39. Jeanes Reply to the Ectenesteron p. 39. sect 4. where the question is debated Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera But because our Refuter has mistaken that Author and he will give us a fitter opportunity of handling this Argument I shall defer the further prosecution of it till that Section § 76. And so I come at last to the examination of the Assumption of your monstrous Syllogism It is this But now this Objection is urged by you against the perpetual All-fulness and perfection of his actual Love the inward Acts of his Love For it is brought to prove that the inward Acts of Christs Love were more intense at one time then at
answer § 1. To this our Refuter returns JEANES FIrst this is an utter Impertinency unto that which is in debate between us c. § 2. Grande crimen Caie Caesar si probetur But what if it appear in the issue most evidently to prove the Doctors Position will not then our Refuter betray as great Ignorance as Impertinence in this Rejoynder And now to shew the Appositeness of the Proof I must tell him what either he knows not or will not observe That the Doctor again argues à posteriori from the Effect to the Cause and the necessary relation between the work and the reward His argument is founded upon a maxime of distributive Justice not expressed but supposed and intimated Vide Suarez 3. p. Thom. tom 1. disp 39. sect 1. p. 537. col 1. and it is this Where the reward does proceed of debt as in Christ certainly it did and is properly wages there must be a proportionable encrease of the reward and the work And therefore * 1 Tim. 5. 18. since the labourer is worthy of his hire and †Gen. 18. 25. God the Judge of all the world must needs do right we may most evidently and demonstratively prove the gradual increase in the perfection of any Act of vertue from a proportionable encrease in the reward that he gives because as the Scripture testifies he rewards every man not only according to the sincerity of his Matth. 16. 27. 2 Cor. 5 10. heart but also secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or works the more abundant labour as the Doctor saies truly proceeding from this sincerity For it is this inward heart-devotion that God alone regards this this is the thing that gives life and vigour to the outward work and makes it acceptable in Gods sight and if this go not alwaies with the outward Act or work God looks upon it as the sacrificing and cutting off the neck of a dogge and pouring the blood of a man upon his Altar But then because the outward works are the fruits and effects of the inward Devotion and ordinarily as these are more noble so also is the Love and sincerity more strongly encreased God for the inward Fervours sake does reward men secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or outward works § 3. Well then if the very multiplication of more outward Acts and works for such only the Doctor means of any vertue be more valuable in the sight of God as without doubt they are who rewards every man according to his works and this because the more abundant labour in the outward Act proceeds from the greater fervour and intenseness of the inward Act which alone gives life to it it will evidently follow that the length of Prayer the outward Oraizon he meanes in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God as the work is in it self considered and without relation to the Person that does it for of the work in it's own nature considered the Doctor speaks as appears by the whole current of his discourse and that must needs argue it more excellent in regard of the intensive Perfection of the inward Act which is that alone which God values then the smaller number of those Acts would be And this as it clearly proves the Doctors Assertion so it was the whole he aimed at in this argument § 4. But our Refuter will give us his reason why he does charge it with impertinency JEANES FOr suppose that the very multiplication of more inward Acts of any vertue in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God and so more excellent then the smaller number of those Acts would be yet this supposition will never bring you to this conclusion That one inward Act of Christs love of God may be more intense then another and my reason is because in all these inward Acts of Christs love of God and we may say the same of the inward Acts of other vertues and graces there may be no gradual dissimilitude § 5. But why I pray Sir may or must there be no gradual difference of the inward Acts of Christs love of God or holy Charity and other inward Acts of other vertues and graces Good Sir give us a proof of this Is it therefore an irrefragable demonstration because you usher it in so gravely with a Because and this is my reason But good Sir know you not that this is still Petitio principii and the Controversie between you and the Doctor And do you not prove still idem per idem thus The inward Acts of Christs Love are not gradually different or which is all one they are gradually the same my reason is because in them there may be no gradual dissimilitude If this be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not what your great Master Aristotle means § 6. How the Doctors supposition has inferred his Conclusion has already appeared and the folly also of what you have urged against it But it is no wonder that you argue so absurdly when you understand not the Discourse you undertake to refute For Sir the Doctor does not argue from the multiplication of the inward Acts as you suppose him but from the multiplication of the outward Acts or works and from the greater reward that attends them he concludes the more noble and intensive Perfection of the inward Act from whence they flow as the more abundance of fruit argues the rich vigorousness and plenty of the vital sap of the Tree and the less argues either the unseasonableness of the year or the decay of the Stock For you your self have told us that works signifie those that are outward how properly has already been shewed in the sense you spake of it The truth is that works in a Physical consideration never signifie the Elicite Acts of the Will but the issues and Effects of them whether inward or outward whether immanent as in a Syllogism purely mental or trunsient as in the imperate Acts of the Will though certain it is as we have shewed that the inward and outward Act both concur to the essence and constitution of a Moral work or Action § 7. But he goes on as gravely as if his words were all Oracles JEANES A Great part of the Schoolmen will tell you that the moral vertue of one single Act of any vertue in Christ was infinite and in the multiplication of more Acts there is but an infinite value now one infinite cannot be greater then another infinite in the same kind wherein it is infinite and hereupon they conclude that the multiplication of Acts makes nothing in Christ unto an intensive addition of value The value of one Act is intensively as great as that of more Acts. The first Act of Christ saies Albertinus habet totam latitudinem intensivam valoris moralis etsi non adaequet totam latitudinem extensivam Corol. tom 1. 150. n. 61. And of this you have a reason p. 145. this Act is
heightning of an inward Act or Acts of Piety and Devotion which were not Acts of Nature but of Grace and the Habit from whence they issued was one of those †Vide Suarez in 3. p. Thom. tom 1. disp 20. sect 1. p. 303. septem dona Spiritus Sancti as the Schools call them that the * Esa 11. 2 3. Prophet had foretold should be infused into his Soul by God And then though his Actual Love that most high and transcendent Act of Love you mean that was immediatly terminated on God as it's next Object were alwaies in termino as Christ was by virtue of the hypostatical union Comprehensor as they call him in the Schools yet this nothing hinders but that the fervour and ardency in the inward Acts of Prayer and Devotion might now be heightned For the Schools when they determine that question utrum conveniens fuerit Christum orare do alwaies consider him at his prayers in the state of a Viator in which state he might truly * Vide Estium l 3. Sent. d. 26. §. 1. p. 88. C. D. E. F. Suaresium alios supra citat pray as well as he might be miserable or want the exaltation of his Humane nature which he attained not till after his Ascension For being considered as Comprehensor as it was impossible for him to want any thing so he was not in a state and condition to receive any thing by way of advance from the good hand of God no more then the Saints and Angels now in heaven or he himself can since his Session at the right hand of God We shall instantly clear this for the Readers understanding § 15. And therefore what 's your grant of the heightning the ardency of Christs Fears and Griefs in his Agony and the denial of the heightning of that high most transcendent Act of his Love of God which is Actus comprehensoris and not a free but a necessary Act and therefore alwaies in Summo Is this denial or that concession any thing material to the Ardency of Christ's Prayer which the Evangelist tells us was now heightned Grief and fear may be Causes and advancers of Piety but then they are not it Nay differ as much they do as Grace and Nature as Habits and Passions and therefore the heightning Vide Suarez Metap tom 2. disp 46. sect 3. § 4. Vide Aquin. 1. 2. q. 52. art 1. of the Acts of the one cannot possibly be the formal heightning of the Acts of the other since Intensio est eductio unius ejusdem formae secundum diversos gradus seu partes ejus ex quibus forma per se una componitur quo magis integra â—fficitur eo magis radicari in subjecto dicitur as Suarez who as well as any man knew what belonged to such speculations Where the Evangelist saies that Christ being in Agony did pray more earnestly you say to this that indeed he grieved and feared more greatly then before but his love of God as he was Comprehensor was alwaies in termino and at the utmost height If this be not to answer à baculo ad angulum then I know not the meaning of the Proverb § 16. But Sir speak roundly and to the purpose Was the Ardency of Christ's Prayer now more intended in his Agony or was it not If it were not then tell us plainly what the Evangelist means by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you cannot render it better then our Translators and Beza and Grotius and Piscator and the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Translations have done and it signifie here that he prayed the more earnestly then deal ingenuously and acknowledge your mistake Confess what you cannot possibly deny that Christ was now more intense in this Act of Prayer then before in other Acts. And then ask the Doctor forgiveness for the abuse of his good name and make the world amends by a publick recantation Do not eat your own words but stand to what you have granted Acknowledge what you must that Christ prayed more earnestly in his Agony then at other times in regard of the matter against which he prayed The greatness of his present and approaching sufferings was such that it proportionably heightned his prayer for the removall of them if it had been possible One deep I must tell you did here call upon another and a time of great Affliction is a season for more then ordinary Devotion The Fathers and Schoolmen will tell you that in this heightned Devotion at Vide Hookers Ecclesiast Policy l 5. §. 48. per tot this time our Saviour did read us his Disciples a lecture and teach us our Duty in such cases by his own great example As there may be a more weighty occasion for the heightning of our Devotion so it is our duty then to heighten it And as this was all that Doctor Hammond pretended to so the whole world of Readers will judge that the words of your second part of your second answer do acknowledge it § 17. For that that Act of Christ's Love regarding God which was alwaies in termino was not could not be that Act of Prayer and Devotion that the Evangelist and the Doctor spake of will be evident even from your own proof and Argument For you say it was Actus Comprehensoris and in termino as they say and because it was a necessary Act it was alwaies at the height Now the Act of Prayer and Piety and Devotion in Christ was Actus viatoris and meritorious in it self Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 40. sect 3. p 542. col 1. A and consequently free For ut Actus sit meritorius saies Suarez requiritur ut sit bonus liber in persona grata in Via existente And therefore nothing hinders but that it might be heightned in him according to the greatness of the occasion if Gods law did so allow which was the ground of the Controversie and must by other Medium's be disproved then this of our Refuter unless he is resolved to begge the Question Nay the same Suarez will tell us not only that our Saviour did merit by this Act of Devotion but that it is distinct from the Acts of Charity in it's true and proper notion Dico tertio meruisse Christum per Actus omnes virtutum infusarum quos liberè exercuit est certissima sic enim meruit per Actum Obedientiae ut testatur Paulus per Actum Religionis ut Orationis c. ad eundem modum meruit per Passionem suam quatenus illa erat Actus Charitatis Dei proximi Religionis erat enim Sacrificium quoddam misericordiae justitiae obedientiae ac ferè virtutum omnium Et ad eundem modum philosophandum est de omnibus Actibus Christi So Suarez § 18. And now though this be sufficient to satisfie the utmost pretences of the Refuters Discourse yet because I am
elicit actum conformem inclinationi naturali quae semper est ad commodum dicitur autem libera in quantum in potestate ejus est ita elicere actum oppositum inclinationi sicut conformem non elicere sicut elicere Scotus l 3. Sent. aist 17. q. 1. § 3. p. 127. col 2. Est enim voluntas naturalis non re sed ratione diversa à voluntate rationali quatenus videlicet non per modum naturae movetur velut dum naturaliter refugit ea quae sunt naturae contraria secundum se mala ut mortem cruciatus hujusmodi Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 17. §. 3 p. â—0 col 1. E. Vide Durand ibid. q. 1. art 1. of Christ that his Will had a two-fold operation the one natural and necessary which moving according to the order necessity of nature does simply and without deliberation desire whatsoever is in it self good and decline from and abhorr whatsoever is hurtful And therefore they call this Voluntas ut natura and Voluntas sensualitatis a willingness of nature and a sensual inclination § 41. The other rational and deliberate whereby it follows and embraces those things as good which the superiour faculty of the Soul the Mind and Understanding upon due pondering and consideration preferrs as good to that end which we simply and absolutely desire though otherwise never so burdensome This they call Voluntas ut ratio and Appetitus Rationalis § 42 For instance The Will desires the End absolutely but the Means in order to that end The Physician affects not the Scorpion and the Viâ—er but only for his antidote and medicine Though the stomach loaths the Potion and the flesh trembles at the Application of the Caustick yet Reason conquers Nature and the sickman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a kind of unwilling willingness submits to the Cure which in health he would as much abhor as now he does his Disease Though his Judgement tells him the Medicine is for his recovery yet Nature cannot chuse but express her reluctance even when it is applyed And therefore the great Philosopher tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they are a kind of mixt actions and though in order to the end that now Reason preferrs they are willingly Vide Aristot l. 3. Eth. c. 1. §. 3. per totum Vide H. Grot. Annot. in Matt. ca. 26. ver 39. Voluntas autem simpliciter hominis est rationis voluntas hoc enim absolute volumus quod secundum deliberatam rationem volumus Illud autem quod volumus secundum motum sensualitatis vel etiam secundum motum voluntatis simplicis quae consideratur ut natura nonsimpliciter volumus sed secundum quid scil si aliud non obsistat quod per deliberationem rationis invenitur Vnde talis voluntas magis est dicenda Velleitas quaÌ„ absoluta Voluntas quia scil homo hoc vellet si aliud non obsisteret Aquin. 3. part q 21. art 4. in Corp. Vide Cajetan in loc embraced yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no man would willingly choose them for their own sakes § 43. The Schools do well distinguish these several Acts of the Will and the one they call Actus voluntatis efficaces absolutos Vide Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 38. sect 2. the other inefficaces conditionatos We have already given the reason from Suarez In the one Nature expresses her present sense and apprehension in the other her Reason and Judgement that looks beyond the present which Sense cannot attain to § 44. Now these two Operations of the Will being supposed to be as truly in Christ as in all other men it will not be difficult to shew how at one and the same moment he might both tremble and stand amazed at the apprehension of his approaching Sufferings and yet most willingly submit to them he might both ardently and now more intensely pray for a removal of the bitter Cup and yet most earnestly long to taste it pray most sincerely to his Father against it and yet pray that his Fathers will might be fulfilled notwithstanding his Prayer and all this without any clashing or Opposition between his own desires among themselves or the least Repugnance to Gods Laws or Decrees or the least derogation to his own superlative Love and Charity to Mankind whom he came to purchase with his bloud And therefore God might most justly preordain that all this should be done by Christ notwithstanding any seeming contrariety to be found in it and Christ notwithstanding he knew his Father had decreed he should drink up the very dreggs of this bitter Cup might pray for a removal of it if it had been possible § 45. To clear this First then as to the matter of fact I suppose it most evident from the Scriptures That our Saviour at the very apprehension of his approaching Torments was possessed with such astonishment and terrour that he not only prayed thrice but more earnestly also for the removal of this Cup and in his agony he fell into a bloody sweat so that an Angel was sent to comfort him 2. That he so willingly and cheerfully submitted himself to death that for the joy set before him he endured the Cross and despised the shame and though he was oppressed and afflicted yet Heb. 12. 2. opened he not his mouth but brought he was as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb so opened he Esay 53. 7. not his mouth § 46. As much willingness is here as can possibly be imagined and yet as much dread and astonishment as could seize on flesh and bloud But yet here is no opposition no tumult and thwarting between the superiour and inferiour faculties and desires but only two several and distinct inclinations the one avoiding death as abhorrent to nature because destructive to its present being the other accepting it as most rationally to be embraced for the Redemption of the world Two disparate Acts of the will indeed they are but not contrary and the repugnance between them is only in shew and not in truth For the great †Aristot l. 2. de Sophist Elench c. 5. circa medium apud me pag. 435. A. Philosopher has told us that all Opposition that is really such must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Vide Luc. Brugens in Matt. c. 26. vers 39. Dicendum quod contrarietas non potest esse nisi Oppositio attendatur in eodem secundum idem si autem secundum diversa in diversis existat diversitas non sufficit hoc ad rationem contrarietatis sicut nec ad rationem contradictionâ—â— puta quod homo sit pulcher aut sanus secundum manum non secundam pedem Aquin. 3. part q. 18. art 6. in Corp. Between these desires and resolutions there was a diversity but no contrariety a subordination but no repugnance or resistance There was no contrariety
first to the Perfection of Charity ex parte diligibilis and so does also Capreolus But your argument concerns the Perfection of Charity ex parte diligentis which yet in the places quoted Aquinas does deny of all but only God whose Love is only commensurate to the Object beloved § 18. But the truth of it is since your Argument concerned the Habit and the Acts of Divine Grace in Christ you were ill advised to look for any thing in the * Author intendit de augmento charitatis secundum statumviae tantū non de augmento charitatis absolute ratio est quia de augmento charitatis absolutè loquendum erat in tractatu de gratia animae Christi qui fuit verus Comprehensor ab initio non est ei data gratia ad mensuram c. Cajetan in Commentar 2. 2 q. 24. art 7. §. Ad secundum dubium principale Secunda secundae of Aquinas Summes where ex professo he disputes only of Charity as considered according to that imperfect state and condition of Travellers that are now in the Way to heaven-happiness As for the habitual grace of Christ which was all full and perfect and belonged to him as Comprehensor that he treats of only I mean ex professo in the third part of his Summes and there you should have sought for proper Mediums and not elsewhere § 19. If you shall here reply that the Charity of Christ is Charitas Patriae and Charitas Comprehensoris and that Aquinas sayes of that quod totum cor hominis actualiter semper feratur in Deum and therefore the Acts of his love must be always uniform and at the height § 20. To this I answer The Charity of Christ or Love that we now speak of is not actus Comprehensoris as shall instantly be shewed but belonged to him as Viator in its own general Notion contained in it all Vertues and Graces whatsoever The Acts of this Love though they were always perfect in their kinds yet of necessity they could not be equal in themselves in gradual perfection because of the gradual difference in the Objects of this Love much less could they equal the all-full perfection of the Habit whence they issued § 21. And thus we have seen that our Refuters two first testimonies from Aquinas and his last from Hurtado make nothing to this purpose § 22. As for his third from Aquinas I must observe that he has either grossely prevaricated or most ignorantly mistaken his Author For whereas Capreolus and Aquinas in the place cited speak only of the perfection of Charity ex parte diligibilis and in order to the Object beloved he renders it to the Reader as if they had meant it of Charity ex parte diligentis and in order to the person loving The words in Capreolus as himself cites them are Cum Actus Habitus speciem habent ex Objecto oportet quod ex eodem ratio perfection is ipsius sumatur Objectum autem Charitatis est summum bonum igitur perfecta Charit as est quae in summum bonum fertur in tantum in quantum est diligibile Which our Refuter thus renders at least to the sense The Habit of Love is then perfect when 't is carried towards God as the chief when God is loved so far forth as he may be loved to wit by a creature when God is not loved thus intensely the Habit of Love as Aquinas thought was imperfect § 23. In good time Sir But if it had been your good fortune to be a Critick as well as Dr. Hammond and you had been so happy to know the difference between Participles ending in ens and ending in bilis you would have otherwise understood Capreolus and not have made use of a Testimony that is so utterly a stranger to your Argument And so I am come to consider whether Scotus his Testimony be any whit more material § 24. With Aquinas he sayes Scotus accords and therefore I conclude he speaks as little to the purpose § 2. The place in Scotus at large is this Contra possibile est illam animam habere summam gratiam ergo summam fruitionem Scotus l. 3. Sent. dist 13. q. 3. §. 2. Consequentia probatur quia Actus naturaliter elicitus ab aliqua forma aequatur in perfectione illi formae Fruitio est Actus supernaturalis per consequens elicitus à causs supernaturali quae est gratia patet quod naturaliter quia Gratia non est formaliter libera Ergo secundum quantitatem gratiae potest esse quantitas fruitionis § 24. The truth of it is that Subtile Schoolman does there dispute four questions Primò utru Christo potuerit conferri summagratia quae potuit conferri creaturae Secundò utrum de facto fuerit collata animae Christi summa gratia possibilis conferri creaturae Tertiò utrum possibile fuerit voluntatem animae Christi habere summam fruitionem possibilem naturae creatae From whence this passage of our Refuter is taken Quartò utrum anima Christi potuerit summè frui Deo sine summa gratia The resolution of the three first questions he defers to the fourth His answer to the third whence this testimony is taken is this Ad tertiam Quaestionem dico quod animam posse summè frui potest dupliciter intelligi vel formaliter vel effectivè hoc est vel quod summa fruitio informet istam voluntatem à quocunque causetur vel quod ipsa voluntas efficiat summam fruitionem sit causa acttiva ejus Primo modo possibile est summam fruitionem creabilem conferri animae Christ quia ipsa est receptiva cujustibet accidentis convenientis sibi in summo quia non determinat sibi certum gradum istius sicut fuit probatum in prima quaestione de gratia et fruitio est quoddam accidens absolutum possibile creari à primo Causante immediate sine actione voluntatis creatae Secundo modo videtur probabile quod cum illa voluntas non possit tantam vim activam habere quantam voluntas creata alia potest habere ut Angelica non potest it a perfectè elicere fruitionem sicut alia voluntas potest Licet enim possit summam gratiam habere quae ut causa Partialis respectu fruitionis aequè causaret fruitionem in ipsa Angelo si haberet eam tamen alia causa partialis erit inaequalis ut voluntas altera autem causa partialis sit aequalis modo tamen de facto est maximè elicitiva quia licet non sit voluntas ejus ita perfecta sicut voluntas Angeli tamen ipsa cum summa gratia ut aliâ causâ partiali activâ potest ferri in perfectiorem fruitionem quam voluntas Angeli cum minori gratia quia excedentia gratiae excedit in ea essicientiam voluntatis Angeli The sum in short is this that God de facto has bestowed on
tell us that for the joy that was set before him he endured the Heb. 12. 2. Crosse and despised the shame and is now set down on the right hand of God Does he not also say that when Christ had by Heb. 1. 3 4. himself purged our sins he sate down on the right hand of the Majesty on high being made so much better then the Angels as that he hath obtained a more excellent name then they what are these also Propositions harshly sounding in the ears of Christians that are jealous of their Masters honour Review your assertion Sir and confesse and acknowledge your own thoughts or will you write uses of Confutation against the pen-men of sacred writ as well as against Doctor Hammond For can a state of Sorrow and Grief and Misery and Want consist with an absolute and compleat uninterupted heaven happiness where the Scripture testifies there shall be no more death nor sorrow nor crying neither Revel 21. 4. shall there be any more pain for the former things are passed away If in the dayes of his flesh he were so absolutely and compleatly happy that this blessedness could in no respect be interrupted how then as the Apostle testifies did he offer up prayers supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to help him For how can he pray for assistance that is in an absolute incapacity of want that is alwayes as happy as God and heaven-happiness can make him If he were so absolutely and compleatly happy so that in no respect it could be interrupted why then for the joy set before him which sure was not therefore yet Heb. 12. 2. obtained did he endure the cross and despise the shame why prayed he so earnestly for his own after-glorification Why John 17. 1. 2. said he to his Disciples after his Resurrection Ought not Christ Luke 24. 16. to suffer these things and to enter into his glory § 10. If here now you say that Christ in the state of his humiliation may be considered 1. Either in respect of the present state of his soul in the soveraign part of it his Mind and understanding or else 2ly in respect of the present state of the Inferiour sensitive part of his soul and the frail mortal passible condition of his flesh In the first respect he was Perfectus Comprehensor and enjoyed the fulness of heaven-happiness and therefore alwaies did love God to the full height that he enjoyed him And of this only you now spake But then in the second respect he was in a state of frailty and misery and sorrow and want and because truly a Viator he was not yet possessed of heaven-happiness and of this speak the Scriptures I shall accept of your answer and acknowledge the truth of it But withall I shall desire you to apply this distinction to your own argument and the assertion of Dr. Hammond § 11. And now I pray deal ingeniously with the world and tell us whether ever Dr. Hammond did deny the fulness of Christs happiness in the soveraign Part of his Soul Does not he allow him to be truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God man from the first indued with the fulness of habitual grace And does not of congruity a fulness of happiness in Christs soul flow from this Vnion and fulness of grace And does not an absolute uninterrupted Act of divine Love in its utmost height and intenseness flow necessarily from this happiness shew us then whether ever this was brought into debate betwixt you and the Doctor Nay do not you your self acquit him of this charge in your first argument when you conclude that the Inward Acts of the habits of all virtues and graces were alwaies full in him because the habits themselves were so will you say that the habits of virtues and other graces were proper to him as Comprehensor and that he could watch pray Tast suffer be meek patient humble c. as now in the state of heaven-happiness And have we not most evidently proved that Doctor Hammond understands by The Love of God only that Love and that Charity which was proper to Christ as Viator in the daies of his flesh and not that other necessary Act of Divine love proper to him as Comprehensor § 11. And therefore I pray now what is become of your argument and your grave Propositio malè sonans do you not all this while build upon an empty Sophism argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and conclude because Christ was perfectly happy in his Soul as Comprehensor and did therefore necessarily love God at the height therefore he must be absolutely so too in every respect and happy equally happy he must be also as Viator and according to that respect and so must also all his other Acts of divine Charity towards God himself and his Neighbours be equal all in themselves and with that high transcendent Act of Love immediately seated on God And is not this now a weighty argument well deserving to be put in the Title page of the Book to tell all the world how Doctor Hammond is subdued by it But because I see you sufficiently ignorant in this point I shall adde something for your instruction § 12. Plain it is that there was a twofold state of Christ during his abode upon earth The one was status Comprehensoris in respect of the soveraign Part of his Soul the Mind The other Status Viatoris in respect of the Inferiour Faculties of his soul and his frail mortal passible condition in the Flesh In this he was in statu merendi in the other not And consequently the Schoolmen do distinguish and observe a twofold Act of Divine Charity or holy Love in him The one †Necessary Vide Suarez in 3 part Thom. tom 1. disp 39 Sect. 2. p. 540. col 1. pag. 541. Col. 1. qui non potuit esse meritorius quia non erat liber sed necessariò consequebatur visionem beatam This they call Actus amoris Dei beatificus and Actus Comprehensoris and is the same with that of Christ and the Saints and Angels now in heaven who because they see and enjoy God face to face cannot chuse but perfectly love him The other * a Free Act and though it is Vid Suarez ibid. supernatural as flowing from the all perfect Habit of Divine Charity in Christ yet distinguished it is from the Beatifick Love that necessarily flowes from the Fulness of heaven-happiness this was proper to him as Viator § 13. Now though the habit of this Love was alwaies in Christ full and without any interruption even as he was Viator yet the Acts that flowed from this Habit were de facto some or other still interrupted because his present finite state and condition could not actually apply himself to the performance of all at once and the acts themselves were not all compossible in the same subject in one
Ex toto sunt etiam duae Patrum expositiones una Sancti Augustini Bernardi Thomae locis notatis qui docent illud Ex toto significare imperari nobis hoc mandato omnes gradus Charitatis quos vel in hoc mundo vel in alio habere possumus it a ut semper Deum amemus non sit in nobis ullus motus cupiditatis neque voluntarius neque involuntarius cum Dei amore pugnans ex quo recte deduc unt hoc mandatum in hac vita perfecte impleri non posse Quae sententia non pugnat cum sententia nostra de consiliis Evangelicis c. quia Patres supra-citati existimant hoc praecepto simul imperari medium indicari finem ideo docent non posse impleri perfectè hoc praeceptum in hac vita tamen non esse praevaricatorem qui non perfectè illud implet c. Quo circaremanet jam suus Consiliis locus etiam circa hoc praeceptum nam etiam si nihil possim addere huic praecepto quatenus indicat finem tamen possum addere quatenus indicat medium si non pecco ex sententiae S. Thomae si non amem Deum nisi vno gradu amoris certè non teneor in rigore amplius amare implicat enim contradictionem quod non peccem non faciendo quod facere teneor ergo si addam alterum gradum amoris amo plus quam teneor atque eo modo facio actum supererogationis consilii c. Est igitur alia Sententia illud ex toto Corde non significare omnes actus Cordis vel omnem intensionem possibilem ità ut imperetur ut nihil corde agamus nisi Deum diligere idque summâ vehementiâ amoris sed solum ut amemus Deum praecipuo amore nihilque illi in amore anteponamus vel aequemus ac proinde solum in hoc praecepto contineatur id quod faciendum est non etiam finis ob quem faciendum est ex quo sequuntur sex quasi Corollaria Primum est Huic praecepto adversari omnia peccata mortalia quia in omni peccato mortali anteponitur Creatura Creatori Secundum Huic praecepto non adversari amorem honestum affinium amicorum licet non roferatur actu in Deum quia non tenemur Deum solum amare sed eum praecipue Tertium Non adversari peccata venialia eidem praecepto quia peccata venialia non mutant ultimum finem Quartum Non adversari eidem praecepto motus involuntarios concupiscentiae etiam si rerum alioqui gravissimarum ut infidelitatis blasphemiae adulterii c. Nam cum charitas Dei sit in voluntate non adversantur ei nisi motus voluntarii Quintum Hoc praeceptum perfectè in hac vita servare posse quia non exigit nisi ut amemus Deum plus quam Creaturas Sextum Posse Deum ex toto corde magis minus diligi qui enim propter Deum abstinet se à licitis magis diligit quam qui solum se abstinet ab illicitis tamen uterque diligit toto corde Quod autem haec explicatio sit verior Scripturae conformior quam superior multis modis probari potest c. Bellarm. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 13. col 343 344 345 346. § 4. The Doctors answer stands thus I answer that that Phrase Thou shalt love the Lord thy Treat of Will-worship §. 49. God with all thy heart with all thy Soul c. denoteth two things only First the sincerity of this love of God as opposed to Partial divided Love or Service Secondly the loving him above all other things and not admitting any thing into competition with him not loving any thing else in such a degree and in neither of these respects excluding all other things from a subordinate place in our Love Which being supposed it will be easie to discern that this sincere Love of God above all is capable of degrees and that it is possible for two men to love God with all their hearts i. e. sincerely and above all things and so both to obey the praecept and yet one to love him in a more intense degree then the other doth which may be observed amongst the Angels themselves the Seraphims being so called because they are more ardent in Zeal then other Angels nay for the same Person constantly to Love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another Thus we read of Christ himself Luke 22. 24. who we know did never fail in performing what was man's duty in prayer or any thing else yet that he at that time prayed more earnestly which is a demonstrative evidence that the lower degree is not necessarily sinful when the higher is acceptable to God which when it is granted there is no doubt but these free-will-offerings will be reconcilable with that Command and he that loves God with all his heart may have some possibility of loving God better then yet he doth and so some room left for a voluntary oblation § 5. To this for a further clearing and unfolding his mind the Doctor thought fit in his Reply to Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe to add these two things To the first branch of his answer The sincerity of this Love of God as opposed to partial divided Love I now add saies the Dr. Hammonds Account of Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe c. 6. sect 9 §. 1. p. 221. Ibid. §. 5. p. 222. Doctor for further explication that what we do according to the precepts of Gods Law we do out of Love toward God not hypocritically or as by constraint 2ly He sayes Still it must be remembred that it is not the sinless perfection we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath degrees but sincerity of this or that vertue exprest in this or that performance and as this though it excludes not all mixture of sin in the suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that Act. For it is certain that I may in an Act of Mercy give as much as any Law obligeth me to give and so not sin in giving too little § 6. To which let me now add what the Doctor had before delivered in his Treatise of Will-worship Sect. 16. When in the service of God a man out of a pious affection of hope and gratitude inciting to do things acceptable to God as well as of fear deterring him from all that is prohihited shall in conformity to Gods general commands and the Doctrine of the Gospel do any thing else besides what God hath commanded by any particular precept this Action of his is to be accounted so much more commendable and acceptable to God Piety being one of those vertues quarum tantae sunt amplitudines ut quanto auctiores sunt tanto sunt laudatiores which have
and Scotus and other of the old School-men say is required by this Law And is not this denyed by Bellarmine and is it not therefore justly charged upon him by Protestants And yet does not the Doctors exposition in this comply with Bellarmine § 30. To this I answer by degrees First that true it is that the learned Chamier does thus conclude against Bellarmine But then plain it is that these are none of that Veterum Sententia quam nos tenemus but only Inferences and Deductions from it And if our Refuter will allow me what he cannot reasonably deny that the Doctors exposition is exactly conformable to this of the Ancients which Chamier acknowledges that the Protestants maintain I shall not envy him those advantages he can make by these Corollaries § 31. Secondly though it were †Vide Davenant de Justit habit actual c. 46. p. 529 550 in sol ad 2. granted that these Inferences were good and forceable against Bellarmine that maintaines a man may not only keep the Law to that height that he may merit at Gods hands but also supererogate and be more holy and righteous then the Law does require yet they no waies concern the Doctor that speaks not of a sinlesse perfection but of the sincerity of this or that vertue in this or that Performance which though it exclude not all mixture of sin in the suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that Act. The truth of which assertion as it is acknowledged by Chamier in the Case of David and Josiah so is it so farre different from Bellarmine's assertion against which these Corollaries of Chamier were directed that it is even opposite and contrary to it § 32. Thirdly I acknowledge that Bellarmine grants that Saint Austin and Bernard and Aquinas and other of the old Schoolmen do speak of such a Perfection required by this Law that advances our Love to that height that we must do nothing else but think of God nothing else but love him and this not only in the Habit but in the Act. This Love he acknowledges does so wholly possess the soul that no idle vitious Thought can obtrude or press in upon it nothing either contrary or besides this holy love can have any the least admission into the heart but that of necessity God is and must be all in all But then he addes that this Love is proper only to the Saints in Bliss and that we whilst we are in the flesh as we are not capable of it so it is not it cannot be enjoyned us but it is only proposed that we may know what we are to aim at and hope for and desire in heaven and that this is the meaning of Saint Austin Bernard and Aquinas and the Schoolmen when they say this Perfection is not attainable in this life But of this more in due place and let Bellarmin stand and fall to his own Master § 33. But then Fourthly be it granted that those Corollaries of Chamier are rightly inferred against Bellarmine's doctrine of the several states of Perfection and works of supererogation and the possibility of fulfilling the Law yet neither of them will any whit advantage our Refuter in the present controversie depending between him and the Doctor For though God should require of us by that Law that we love him totis viribus naturae non tantum totis viribus corruptionis yet the †Vide Doctor Hammonds Account of Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe c. 6. sect 8. §. 6 7. p. 204. Doctor has most irrefragably demonstrated against Mr. Cawdrey that even the sinless Perfection of Adam in Innocence was a state of Proficiency and that he and all his posterity had even in that first Integrity and Holiness wherein they were first created been in statu merendi till the time of their translation and consequently had been obliged as well as we are now to grow at least in Actual Grace and the knowledge and the Love of God § 34. And Mr. Cawdrey in effect grants it For Christ being Heb 7. 26. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatrib p. 116. holy harmless undefiled and still perfectly continuing in that first innocent estate wherein Adam was created he saies did more then the Law required and did supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and so in the degree of affection in Prayer if not in the Prayer it self § 35. It is true that for a Salve he saies that Christ was above the Law § 36. But then this is nothing to the purpose For though 1 Tim. 6. 16. as he was God the King of Kings and Lord of Lords he were the supreme Lawgiver and the absolute Soveraign and so in this Philip. 2 7. Gal. 4. 4. sense was not under but above the Law yet as he took upon him the form of a servant as he was made of a woman so the Apostle expresly saies he was made under the Law and as he was born Gal. 3. 16. Gen. 17. 9 10 11 12 13 14. Gal. 5. 2. the Son and Seed of Abraham so bound he was to be circumcised the eighth day and being thus circumcised the Apostle plainly testifies that as every man that is circumcised so he was a debter to do the whole Law and consequently in this sense he was not above it And therefore nothing hinders but that Adam if he had persevered in his first Innocence might notwithstanding the Obligation of that first great Law of Love to which Christ also was subject as Man supererogate also in some such like Actions and Passions so in the degree of Affection suppose in Prayer if not in the Prayer it self § 37. If here it be replyed that as Christ according to his Divine Nature was above the Law so by virtue of the Hypostatical Vnion as Man he had the fulness of Grace which Adam had not whereby he was enabled to such supererogating Performances § 38. For answer indeed I grant that he had the very †John 1. 16. c. 3. 34. Coloss 1. 19. Fulnesse of Grace But then this solves not the Doubt For the Question is not now concerning the Measure of Grace but the Extents and Obligation of the Law and whether that admits of any vertuous o◠holy or pious performances above what Man is in particular obliged to by it And in this respect the first and second Adam are equall because both as Men were equally made under the Law But then Adam though he were created in a mutable Condition as Christ was not though he had not a fulnesse of Grace as Christ had yet if he had not fallen from his first innocence he had such a Measure of Grace and Original Righteousnesse bestowed upon him that would not only have preserved him in his integrity but also enabled him to do whatsoever the Law required and whatsoever other vertuous holy pious performances could by Man
sed quod potest adjutus divino Spiritu Quo autem major nunc datur aut offertur spiritus copia eo praeceptum quoque istud vberius praestandum est H. Grot. in annot ad Matth c. 22. vers 37. p. 375. § 48. †Daille l. 1. de Jejuniis cap. 7. apud D. Hammond in his Account of the Triplex Diatribe p. 144 Scalig. Elench Trehaeres c. 22. in the treatise of Will worship sect 28. Vide Bp. Downeham of the Covenant of Grace c. 10. throughout Monsieur Daillé and Joseph Scaliger both Protestants sufficient and in Treatises particularly opposed against Bellarmine and Serrarius the Jesuite have been quoted by the Doctor to this very purpose and others might be added to the Number But these are sufficient to acquit the Doctor from the suspicion of Popery in this his Doctrine and let our Refuter know that all Protestants are not even of the learned Chamier's opinion in this point And now that the Doctor and those of his Judgement are in the right I undertake to defend and shall make it good in * Vide infra sect 32. §. 20 21 22 23 24 c. 32. sect 26 27 29 31. due place § 49. Indeed the assertion of Chamier is so notoriously false that it carries its own confutation in its forehead even to the most ordinary observer and I wonder by what misfortune and inadvertence it dropped from his Pen. What Omnes gradns comprehendimus amoris qui obtineri possunt vel in hac vita vel in altera si quid sit minus id peccato deputamus Let our Refuter himself in his most Protestant Ruff construe it and tell us how he can make it good Can he ever be able to prove that it is my sin that I see not God face to face while I am in the body and walk by Faith not by sight If it be my sin that I be not a Comprehensor in Heaven while I am in the state of a Viator upon earth that I be not present with the Lord while I am absent from him that I enjoy not Heaven happinesse and the sight of God whilst I am in the flesh in which state no man can see him and live then God with all humble Reverence be it spoken must be the Author of it For God has planted us all in that Condition where we can only see him by Faith and Revelation as through a glass darkly and not face to face Even Adam in innocence had only this advantage to see God by 1 Cor. 13. 12. Faith and clearer Revelation but not at all by Sight And now if our Love of necessity must bear proportion to our Knowledge Impossible it is I should love God at that height whilst I am in the flesh as I can do and shall by Gods Grace I firmly hope when I see him face to face and shall know as I am known Even the souls of Adam and all just men now made perfect do far more intensely more fervently love God whom they now see and enjoy in Heaven then ever Adam did or could if he had continued still in Innocence They love him now Naturally Uninterruptedly Constantly and Immutably but Adam in Paradise Habitually and not alwaies Actually for of necessity the Acts of his Love must be interrupted at least whilst he slept and Freely and therefore Mutably as his fall does too sadly evidence Nay the very Angels that fell not but kept their first station do now more fervently love God since their Confirmation in Grace because they now Immutably love him and have had since the fall of Lucifer an Experiment of his Favour to them which the others had not § 50. With what colour of truth then can it be maintained that it must be deputed and reckoned my sin if I love not God to as high a degree in this life as is possible to be attained in the next For does not that height and perfection of Love depend purely upon the sight and enjoyment of God and the participation of Heaven happiness And is not this height and intensenesse of Love an effect at least of the happiness of the Spirits of just men made perfect And does not this wholly and absolutely depend upon Gods bounty For though the wages of sin be death yet the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6. 23. And shall it be my sin that Gods gifts are not at my Command or within my power to purchase them Or must we say with Bellarmine that it is our sin and will be our punishment if we do not even ex condigno merit Heaven For so of necessity it must be said before it can be maintained that it must be our sin and transgression of this first and great Commandement if we love not God to that height and degree that the blessed Saints and Angels do love him in Heaven with that precise utmost height which is possible to be attained not only in this life but also in the next Add to this that the Saints and Angels now confirmed in grace do love God Naturally and Necessarily to that height that they love him and they can as well cease to see God and know God as not so to love him This is not now their election and choice but their happinesse and Crown their reward nay their Nature not their Labour and Endeavour How then can the want of that Fervour be my sin which is not within the compass of my Will and power to arrive at * Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. c. â—1 p. 470. arg 1. He should as well have said it is our fault that now we be not immortal and glorified whilest we are in the flesh And let me tell our Refuter that he also should have said we are obliged to see God face to face whilest we are in this body as well as to have told us that the first and greatest Commandement enjoyneth us a love of God with as high a degree as is possible Jeanes hic p. 31. unto the humane Nature For I hope he will not say but that is possible to the humane Nature which Enoch and Elias not to speak of our Blessed Saviour at the right hand of God and the Spirits of just men made perfect have now attained to § 51. Indeed this assertion of Chamier is so extremly crude and absurd in that sense which the words at first view do seem to import that I had rather strain them to the meaning and purpose of Grotius and Doctor Hammond then any such monstrous Paradox should be affixed to so Judicious and learned a man Howsoever if Mr. Cawdrey and our Refuter will needs otherwise understand him as they seem in this assertion of theirs to have done which I conceive was to them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Stone of stumbling and Rock of offence I shall leave them to defend and make it good For
against the Popish Doctrine of Merit ex condigno Justification by works and supererogation and the fulfilling of the Law according to this perfect rule of Righteousness and the Covenant of works they are unanswerable and I must also say with Chamier Magnum hoc inevitabile telum est senserunt adversarii momentum Itaque omnem movent lapidem ut eludant Chamier tom 3. l. 11. c. 14. § 1 2 3 4. § 48. But then I must adde that this nothing concerns the Doctors opinion and as little the Schoolmen and that there is little or no difference between theirs and Saint Austins and Bernards opinions as the Reader will soon perceive if he be pleased to compare them § 49. All that is said in those passages or that as I conceive can be rationally inferred from them I shall briefly summ up in these Theoremes 1. That the Law of God is the perfect Rule of Righteousness 2. That Perfection of Righteousness consists in an exact and sinless obedience and conformity to this Rule 3. That no man can be Justified by this Law according to the Covenant of works that does not thus perfectly observe it 4. That our Saviour has briefly summed up this Perfection of Righteousness and the whole drift of the Law in these two precepts Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. and our neighbours as our selves 5. That he that perfectly keeps these has fulfilled all Righteousness 6. That in our lapsed condition we do not we cannot so observe it because experience and Scripture teach us that in many things we offend all 7. That though we do not we cannot now observe it yet by Faith and Repentance promised in the Gospel according to the tenor of the second Covenant we shall find mercy and grace 8. That even Adam in innocence though he had persevered in that state could not have arrived to the utmost perfection of Love that is contained in those precepts because 9. This utmost perfection of love depends upon a clear intuitive knowledge of God 10. That here we walk by Faith and hereafter only in heaven we shall walk by fight where onely we shall know as we are known 11. That since our Love depends upon our knowledge of God and the more that increases the more will our Love then so much must be wanting to the perfection of our Love as is wanting to this knowledge 12. That though the utmost perfection of Love that a Saint now in viâ and in his Pilgrimage to heaven can arrive at consists as our Saviour himself testifies in laying down our lives for the faith and the Brethren yet that perfection of love that the Saints now injoy in heaven and we hope and patiently look for far exceeds this and all else that we can pray for or understand And yet 13. This love of the Saints now made perfect in heaven is no more then what is contained in this Precept it is no more then a love of God with all the heart c. Because nothing can be added to that which is perfectly the whole and if any thing might be added as yet it were not the whole And therefore 14. This of loving God with all the heart is the first great precept of that all full all perfect righteousness and the second it like unto it and they shall both then be perfectly fullfilled by us when we come to heaven where we shall see God face to face 15. That this perfect Rule of righteousness and love though it cannot be fullfilled in our lapsed estate according to the perfection of innocence much less according to the perfection of glory yet it was imposed upon us for this end that we might know what to aim at and hope for and endeavour after as much as we can and forgetting what is behind we might earnestly press toward the mark set before us 16. That this love in this utmost height and perfection which the Saints now enjoy belongs not to sinners but Saints not to this frail mortall life but that other which is immortall 17. That the righteousness and Perfection of Charity that belongs to believers in this life is that we strive against sin and suffer not sin to reign in our mortall bodies that we should obey it in the lusts thereof And therefore 18. Since this sinless perfection of Charity much less that Perfection of glory is not possible to be attained by us in this our lapsed estate God imposed this impossible command on us who well knew our frailty and the moment and weight of this Law not to judge us by it as transgressors at the last day but onely to humble us and that every mouth might be stopped and the world be convinced that by the works of the Law no flesh can be justified but that reading our own weakness and frailties and miseries and sins and wants in this perfect Law we might come to the throne of Grace to find Grace to help in time of need from him in that day who then not by works of righteousness which we have wrought but according to his mercy must and will save us 19. That God saw it reasonable even in this lapsed estate to prescribe us this rule of Perfection though no man can attain unto it that we might know the end of our race and the crown and reward of our endeavours which awaits us at the end of the Goale and to what perfection of righteousness and holyness we should aim at and endeavour and labour after and consider not what we yet have attained and then lazily sit down as if we had done sufficiently but still look forward and consider what yet we want 20. That he is the greatest proficient in this School of Perfection and has arrived highest to it that considering the excellency of the mark set before us does humbly acknowledge how much he is short of it and still labours to go higher so long as he continues in the race and way to it so long as he is a stranger and Pilgrim on earth and a traveller toward heaven § 50. This is the utmost those two Fathers drive at and I desire our Refuter to sit down and consider whether he can possibly make more of them then here I have done And if this will content him I shall here subscribe to the truth of every Theoreme and so will the Doctor Indeed there is nothing here but what is fully contained in the Doctors writings especially in the Practicall Catechism as the Reader will soon perceive if he be pleased onely to review the places already quoted And if Bellarmine or any Papist else deny the truth of any one of these or maintain any thing contrary to them I shall lend our Refuter my helping hand if he will accept of such poor assistance to oppose him in his errours § 51. But then for all that I must tell him that he will never be able to prove that S. Austin or
Aquinas and Scotus that are urged by our Refuter Sir Bellarmine found this distinction made to his hands by Aquinas himself and applyed it is by Aquinas in the very same manner as Bellarmine uses it to declare what he thought was the meaning of Saint Austin in those places as will be plain to any man that shall peruse the places formerly quoted from Aquinas And if those be not clear enough I shall desire him to consult the same Aquinas secunda secundae q. 27. art 6. in Corpore a place too large to be transcribed to so little purpose where this is ex professo handled If then Bellarmine in answer to those two quotations of Aquinas and Scotus sayes they are to be understood of the command quatenus indicat finem non quatenus praecipit medium be the answer to Saint Austin what it will or the distinction true or false he sayes true in this that Aquinas so is to be understood if Aquinas knew his own meaning that sayes expresly that he meant so And whether Aquinas truely said that this was the meaning of S. †Horum testimoniorum aliqua currentes exhortamur ut perfectè currant aliqua ipsum finem commemorant quo currendo pertendant Ingredi autem sine maculâ non absurdè etiam ille dicitur non qui jam perfectus est sed qui ad ipsam Persectionem irreprehensibiliter currit carens criminibus damnabilibus atque ipsa peccata venialia non negligen◠mundare eleemosynis Ingressum quippe hoc est iter nostrum quo tendimus in perfectionem munda mundat oratio Munda est autem oratio ubi veraciter dicitur Dimitte nobis sicut dimittimus ut dum non reprehenditur quod non imputatur sine reprehensione hoc est sine maculâ noster ad persectionem cursus habeatur in quâ perfectione cum ad eam pervenerimus jam non sit omnino quod ignoscendo mundetur August de perfect Justit c. 9. vid. etiam c. 10. Austin and Bernard in those places though it concerns not the Doctor to determine who is not engaged in that controversie at all yet I shall leave it to the Readers Judgement whether Aquinas sayes truly and shall rest in expectation till our Refuter shall tell us what are the most materiall exceptions in Chamier and Ames against it that he insists on For if this be his way of arguing there will be no end of controversies and when we have obeyed him in his desires he will yet be at liberty to say that he meant not these already considered but some others § 58. Howsoever I shall not envy our Refuter any advantage he can make by these Replies If he thinks fit to make use of them I am willing to be so courteous as not to forestall his market And he has reason to thank me that I have afforded him some materialls to furnish his next answer Yet I cannot but observe that he is willing to teach young learners to construe Latine amiss and he would very fain perswade the world that Bellarminus Enervatus signifies in English Doctor Hammond Confuted § 59. If our Refuter shall yet say That if it be granted that the Law requires that we love God with all our strength and as much as we can then consequently there will be no room for uncommanded degrees of love To this I answer him That if what we have already said concerning this objection do not satisfie I shall desire him because he is a Schoolman to look for an answer in Cajetan 2. 2. q. 184. art 3. the Article from whence his second quotation from Aquinas is taken where in his Commentary he has both proposed and answered this Argument § 60. And thus at last to mine and I doubt not to the Readers great contentment we are got out of a tedious digression that concerns not at all the Treatise of will-worship much less the Ectenesteron SECT 30. The Refuters return His Proof impertinent weakens a known Truth Christs Agony a fit season for heightning Ardency in Prayer As Comprehensor he enjoyed an Intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence Hence a Love necessary Love as viator Beatifick Love hindred not the Free Exercise of this Love and Graces nor his Happiness his Grief in the sensitive Appetite Suarez Hence a graduall difference in the Acts of Love as Viator Particularly in Prayer Fallacy à dicto secundum quid His Confounding of Terms Grounds Motives Occasion What. Christ as Comprehensor still had Cause to Love God but no Grounds Motives nor Occasions As viator he had Refuters Contradictions Tautologies Love of Desire Complacency distinguished not divided One oft begins the other Bishop Andrews Naturall Love of Desire in Christ. What Hope in Christ. Love of Concupiscence though first in Men yet otherwise in Christ. Threefold Love of Complacency in Christ Experimentall Love of Desire and Complacence in him capable of Increase Both heightned at his Passion Ardency of these and of Prayer different Of which the Doctor Vanity of the Refuters Title page § 1. ANd now with our Refuters good leave we are come to our first argument The Ardency of Christs Prayer To this at his return he sayes JEANES Thirdly you seem in the latter end of Section the 39. to intimate that in the time of Christs Agony there was more occasion for the heightning of his Love of God then there was at other times What you mean by these occasions of heightning Christs Love of God that you intimate I will not undertake to guess but this I am sure of that at all other times he had sufficient causes grounds and motives to induce him to Love God with as heightned degrees of Actuall Love as the humane nature could reach unto he enjoyed the beatificall vision a clear evident and intuitive knowledge of the divine essence that had in it all the fullness of goodness and so was an object infinitely lovely and amiable Now such an object thus known thus seen challengeth such a measure of actuall Love as that it leaveth no place for a further and higher degree The Thomists generally maintain that this most intense Love of God is a naturall and necessary sequele of the beatificall vision necessary quoad exercitium as well as quoad specificationem actus now that which works naturally and necessarily works as vehemently and forcibly as it can omne agens de necessitate necessario agit usque ad ultimum potentiae suae therefore the inward Acts of Christs Love of God were alwayes as ardent and fervent as he could perform them and therefore some were not more intense then others for if we speak of a liberty of indifferency and indetermination he had no more liberty towards the intension of the inward Acts of his Love then he had towards the Acts themselves § 2. You have said Sir but I must tell you that though this argument is wire-drawn to the utmost length yet there is nothing proved all this while
that is in debate betwixt you and your adversary You need not have spent so much time in proving that Christ as Comprehensor did love God to the utmost height possible It should have been granted you for asking It is a known undoubted truth in the Schools a Perfection that de congruo follows from the Hypostaticall union and therefore questioned by none but the Socinians and those that deny the divinity of Christ § 3. But I see by experience that Gold the most solid most ponderous of Metalls may be beaten so thin that it may be moved with a breath and broken with a touch And our Refuter is so unhappy as to weaken an undoubted truth by his overmuch proving it For if the inward Acts of Christs love were alwayes at the utmost height because this most intense love is a naturall and necessary sequele of the Beatificall vision then it necessarily follows if his love were alwayes thus intense that then he alwayes enjoyned the Beatificall vision the sole and necessary cause of such a love For it is an undoubted Maxime That Positis aut sublatis effectu causâ necessariis ponuntur tolluntur causa effectus And if so what then shall we say to the Author of a mixture of Scholasticall divinity with Practicall Henry Jeanes of Chedzoy For sayes he not expresly That it is not to be denyed Mixture of Scholast with Pract. p. 261. but that by speciall dispensation there was some restraint of the influence of this happiness or beatificall vision in the whole course of his humiliation and Particularly in the time of his dolefull Passien And now if his fervour of love were a naturall issue of the beatificall vision it will necessarily follow that as that his happiness and clear intuitive sight of the divine Essence was restrained so the fervour of his love was proportionably abated also § 4. But not to trouble our selves much with any contradictions of our Refuter I suppose he meant well whatsoeever he sayes It was truly said by Saint Leo and all Antiquity has approved it that at the time of our Saviours Passion Non dissolvit unionem sed subtraxit visionem And hence it comes to pass that we read of our Saviours saying My soul is exceeding sorrowfull unto death and his crying upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And I believe our Refuter is not ignorant what M. Calvin has said of that expostulation § 5. And why then might not this be a fit season for the heightning of the Ardency of our Saviours zeal and devotion when he prayed for the restoring of those comforts and Joys that flowed from the Influence of the Beatificall vision which now was restrained The more comfort and happiness he formerly enjoyed from this clear intuitive knowledge the more earnestly now without doubt he would long for it And had not now our blessed Saviour in this extremity and bitterness of his Passion and sufferings when the manhood was left naked without any beams of comfort streaming from the Godhead which now by speciall dispensation our Refuter grants as indeed it is most evident from Scripture also were restrained had not now I say our blessed Saviour occasion enough for the heightning of his fervour in prayer had he not now grounds and motives sufficient to induce him to advance his ardency and zeale when he prayes for the restauration of those joyes For who so ardently longs for a Repossession of happiness as he that has once been satisfied with the ravishing contentments of it The loss of those comforts which David formerly enjoyed was it that made him so earnestly cry out Psal 51. 12. Restore unto me the joy of thy Salvation and uphold me with thy free Spirit Make me to hear joy and gladness that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoyce The Iron that has once been touched with the Loadstone and enjoyed the benefit and sweetness of that magnetick Love and Influence does more earnestly desire and move stronger to a Re-union with that Loadstone then it did before the touching And this is abundantly sufficient to demonstrate the utmost of the Doctors pretences in his Ectenesteron who there undertakes onely to shew that the fervency of Christs zeale and devotion in Prayer was in his Agony encreased But then because it is an Act of Piety and devotion and consequently of Charity and love to God as that is commonly taken in the Scripture of which Love alone does the Doctor speak and so is not that Love that high transcendent Love which flowed from the Beatificall vision which our Saviour as Comprehensor enjoyed and that which our Refuter here speaks of plain it is that by this Argument if all were granted he opposes not the Doctor § 6. But then this is not onely sufficient to acquit the Doctor but also to destroy all the truth in his Argument For if now especially in the time of our Saviours dolefull passion the Influence of the Godhead and beatificall vision were restrained then it evidently follows that now at least there was more occasion then formerly even for the heightning of his love of God as that is properly taken For our Love of necessity must bear a proportion and correspondence to our knowledge and therefore we shall love more infinitely more when we see God face to face then now possibly we can when we see him onely in aenigmate in speculo by Faith as in a glass darkly And consequently so must it be with our Saviours love also at least during this restraint And therefore to grant to our Refuter what he adds in that Treatise immediately after though surely it seems very improbable and no wayes sortable unto the state of Christs blessedness for his grace and holiness the image of God in him his love of God in the habit to be lyable unto perpetuall motion and augmentation yet even there he himself expresly grants that his Actuall grace and wisdome and consequently his acts of divine love did encrease and gradually differ and if he should here deny it this argument we have urged from his own concessions will necessarily enforce it § 7. The truth is he met with a common received truth but for want of skill and a right understanding of the Schoolmen in whose shop this divine truth was first strook out and discovered he has almost destroyed it by his manner of proof and labouring to defend it § 8. First then I grant That Christ in the dayes of his Flesh was not purè viator but also Comprehensor 2. That as Comprehensor he enjoyed a clear intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence 3. That from this clear intuitive knowledge issued a Love answerable to it an Actuall love most perfect and in the utmost height alwayes uninterrupted alwayes the same because as Suarez truly erat simpliciter necessarius tam respectu Dei Vid. Suarez tom 1. in 3 par Thom. disp 37. Sect. 4.
quam respectu propriae beatitudinis it was an Act simply necessary flowing from the beatificall vision which Christ in the superiour faculty of his soul the mind alwayes enjoyed and which de congruo flows from the hypostaticall union This Ibid. disp 37. sect 4 p. 518. Col. 1. D. E. they call amor beatificus animae Christi simpliciter necessarius 4. It is supposed by Suarez and others that besides this beatifick Love there was also in Christs soul an infused habit of Love whereby he also loved God in the dayes of his flesh as well as he knew him by a twofold supernaturall knowledge the beatifick and infused as he declares and proves at large ibid. disp 39. Sect. 7. p. 540. 5. Hence it is that the same Suarez sayes Tertio suppono Ibid. disp sect 5. p. 518. Col. 1. E. F. Col. 2. A. B. Christum fuisse simul Comprehensorem viatorem ex quâ mirabili conjunctione consequenter effectum est miraculosè ut proprii actus beatifici ita continerentur in supremâ parte animae ut non redundarent in inferiorem neque perfectionem suam cum illâ communicarent Ad hunc ergo modum intelligi potest ita animam illam amâsse Deum necessario ut amor ille sisteret in solâ formali conjunctione unione ad Deum suo modo ad formalem beatitudinem pertinente non se extenderet nec communicaret ut ita dicam aliis operibus actibus qui in Christum ut viatorem conveniebant Cum enim haec extensio vel Communicatio fit per modum cujusdam efficientiae poterat facilè impediri sicut fruitio beata impedita est ne omnem tristitiam expelleret nec inferiori portioni communicaret Hoc ergo supposito facile intelligitur illum Dei amorem quem anima Christi habuit veluti consequentem scientiam infusam non beatam fuisse liberum c. ex quo ulterius facile intelligatur ab illo amore libero liberè etiam processisse actus obedientiae charitatis proximi aliarum virtutum quos Christus Dominus ut viator exercuit tum quid ille amor est sufficiens principium causa illorum tum etiam quia amor beatificus ut dictum est veluti continebatur ne influeret in hujusmodi actus sed relinqueret voluntatem operari modo accommodato viatori Thus he Adde to this what the same Suarez has demonstrated ibid. disp 39. Sect. 2. we have already quoted the place at large and shall therefore refer the Reader to it 6. I shall crave leave of the Readers patience to acquaint him what the same authour has further observed to our purpose in his Commentary on the 15. Question of the third part of Aquinas art 6. utrum in Christo fuerit tristitia Quanquam ex divinâ contemplatione quae erat in animâ Christi redundare posset haec delectatio in appetitum sensitivum divinâ tamen virtute impedita est ne dolorem vel tristitiam sensibilem impediret quam doctrinam docuerat D. Thomas art praecedenti ad tertium solvens difficultatem quomodo anima Christi beata fuerit capax doloris tristitiae Circa quam doctrinam supererat difficultas quia ex illà videtur sequi in voluntate Christi nullam fuisse tristitiam quia in illâ fuit summum gaudium ex divina contemplatione visione manans Sequela patet quia si appetitus sensitivus privatus est delectatione quae in ipsum derivari posset in fruitione beata ne fieret incapax tristitiae ergo voluntas in qua per se primò fuit gaudium illud beatificum per illud effecta est omnino incapax tristitiae Respondeo D. Thomam hoc loco ea tantum docuisse quae ad praesentem difficultatem solvendam sufficiebant assignasse modum quo evidentius constare poterat appetitum sensitivum Christi fuisse capacem tristitiae an vero alio modo potuerit voluntas esse capax tristitiae simul cum gaudio D. Thomas hoc loco neque negavit neque asseruit quoniam ad rem not spectabat Adde praeterea D. Thomam non tantum voluisse ostendere appetitum sensitivum Christi fuisse capacem tristitiae secundum quid seu secundum aliquam rationem sed absolute simpliciter ita potuisse tristitiam pati ut omnis delectationis voluptatis expers aliquando fuerit Quod in voluntate locum habere non potuit quia licet secundum aliquam rationem potuerit tristari tamen quia secundum potiorem superiorem rationem semper fuit beata non potuit omni gaudio privari appetitus autem sensitivus fuit in statu possibili caruit statu beatifico ideo fuit capax talis tristitiae quae omnem voluptatem excluderet Caetera quae ad hanc difficultatem pertinent tractabimus infra q. 18. Suarez ibid. pag. 460. 461. § 9. From all which well considered if already we have not given a full and satisfactory answer to all the pretences of this discourse of our Refuter it will evidently appear that though Christ as Comprehensor in the superiour Part of his soul had alwayes a clear intuitive knowledge of the divine Essence and a naturall and necessary love of God thus clearly known which was alwayes at the utmost height still one and the same uninterrupted Act because simply necessary yet this beatifick knowledge and Love of God was so miraculously ordered that it hindred not nor any wayes altered the Acts and operations of the inferiour faculties of his soul nor changed the mannner of working of those his infused graces whether of knowledge or love of God or his neighbours or the exercise of any other virtues and graces necessary for him in the state of a viator To all which as in that state he had a true and proper freedome so he did truly merit by the free ezercise of them And as the happiness he enjoyed in this superiour faculty of his soul as Comprehensor did not hinder but that at the time of his Passion his soul in the inferiour parts was sorrowfull unto death and had no comfort from those supernaturall joyes in the superiour which now by speciall providence and dispensation were suspended so this naturall and necessary fulness of his beafitick Love nothing hindered but that there might be a graduall difference in the Acts and exercise of his infused love of God or at least in the Acts of love towards us his neighbours and the Acts of other virtues and graces All which Acts of Piety and devotion and zeal to God and love to his neighbours and obedience to Gods commands in the exercise of all other virtues and graces his will did freely perform in that way that was proper and most agreeable to the state of a viator And consequently since every man in the exercise of these virtues and graces is bound to exercise them quoad debitas circumstantias and since we have clearly shewed
already that the same ardour and fervency is not required in every Act it evidently follows that notwithstanding this superlative height and fervour in this his Actuall Love as Comprehensor yet in respect of the other Acts of Love and holy Charity and Piety and Obedience and virtue which he exercised freely as viator there might be a graduall difference of fervour and intensness according as the present exigence required And therefore if it appear as it has already that Christ in his bloody Agony had now greater occasion for the heightning of his Fervour in Prayer then formerly it also as cleerly follows that not onely de facto he did pray more earnestly then at other times but it was his duty to do so And here for avoiding of Cavells I must mind our Refuter of Calvins observation formerly noted that a time of affliction is a season for more then ordinary servency in Prayer and that God then calls for it and Christ has instructed us in this lesson by his own Practise and example § 10. And therefore be it now granted to our Refuter that Christ during his abode upon earth and the dayes of his flesh enjoyed the beatificall vision and by reason of that clear intuitive knowledge loved God to the utmost height possible yet what will he thence conclude will it follow does he think that therefore in every respect and as viator also he so loved him Or at least that he loved us his neighbours so too and that as necessary he did exercise all the other Acts of virtues and Graces and Piety and Charity and Obedience If so I must ask him how then could Christ ever be in statu merendi and even whilest he was viator be the meritorious cause and Authour of salvation to all them that obey him § 11. I must therefore mind him that this his long Argument is no other then the old fallacy and Sophism à Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Thus Because Christ as Comprehensor loved God alwayes at one utmost height therefore as viator in every Act of divine Love and Piety and zeal and devotion and love to us his neighbours and in every Act of virtue and Grace he did so too which how absurd and false it is will appear at first sight I doubt not even to our Refuter himself And therefore I deny the sequele of his discourse For though the Antecedent be true that Christ as Comprehensor so loved yet the Consequence is false and fallacious that therefore as viator he did so too And therefore the Doctors Position of the Contrary to the Consequent must needs be true That the Acts of Christs Love or holy Charity exercised by him as viator might be gradually different in fervour notwithstanding our Refuters Antecedent be granted which is all the medium he here brings to confute the Doctors assertion And now let me ask our Refuter suppose I should say If the Aethiop have white teeth therefore the Aethiop is white would he not say it was a ridiculous Sophisme à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter I suppose he would thus answer and he would answer truly And yet such is his Argumentation here against the Doctor and therefore so must be answered § 12. But this is not all the misadventure of our Refuters discourse In this 1. He betrayes very much ignorance and want of knowledge of those Logicall termes of Art which he uses and 2. His own discourse contradicts its self and 3. He speaks most apparent tautologies all unpardonable faults in one that professes himself to write in a scholasticall way § 13. For first he very inartificially confounds these terms Occasion grounds and Motives and Causes For thus he sayes What you mean by these Occasions of heightning Christs Love of God that you intimate I shall not undertake to guesse but this I am sure of that at all other times he had sufficient Causes Grounds and Motives to induce him to love God with as heightned degrees of Actuall Love as the humane nature could reach unto he enjoyed the beatificall vision c. § 14. For the beatificall vision was a necessary Cause of this most heightned Actuall Love and such an Object as God is thus known challengeth as himself speaks such a measure of Actuall Love as that it leaveth no place for a further degree And he adds The Thomists generally maintain that this most intense love of God is a Naturall and Necessary sequele of the beatificall vision Necessary quoad exercitium as well as quoad specificationem actus And it seems he is of their opinion For from hence he argues Now that which works Naturally and Necessarily works as vehemently and forceably as it can § 15. But then Grounds and Motives to induce one to Love are not Necessary causes of Love They are onely suasoria moral perswasions and rationall inducements to perswade a man that has a proper freedome and liberty of indifferency and indetermination of the will which yet expresly in this discourse the Refuter denyes of Christ either to the Acts or degrees of divine Love of which he speaks either to forsake that which he already embraces or to follow that which now he neglects or else to heighten and quicken him either in his flight or embrace of any object he declines or persues § 16. And then as for the term Occasion that is nothing else but an Opportunity and advantage of time and place that has some kind of virtue to excite the Agent to work at this instant when now all impediments seem to be taken off This is no other then a kind of Causa sine quâ non an accidentall thing that not alwayes happens and because it stayes not for post est occasio calva and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore it stirrs up the Agent more powerfully to work at this instant then otherwise it would But then this and the former are onely Causae minus principales And such a Cause Fr. Burgensdic Institut Log l. 1. c. 17. Theor 21. in Commentar sect 1. Ibid. Theor. 24. in Commentar sect 1. as this as a good Author will tell him non tam efficit quam subservit principali causae ad effectum producendum They are both of them Causae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and inchoantes and are thus defined by the same acute Logician Occasio est temporis locique commoditas ad agendum quod velis quae ipsae vim aliquam movendi habet ad agendum quatenus agendi impedimenta tollit Author dicitur hoc loco qui causam principalem propositis rationibus ad agendum hortatur aut ab agendo dehortatur vocatur etiam causa moralis And consequently according to this Author Grounds and Motives sunt rationes seu argumenta quibus propositis Author causam principalem ad agendum hortatur seu moraliter excitat aut ab agendo dehortatur § 16. And therefore though Christ as Comprehensor had
it self out more profusely even in Outward Expressions then at a calmer season I shall not doubt to conclude that his Inward Devotion was also then more enlarged I never read of any but the Hypocrite and Crocodile that have Tears at command and can assume a sad countenance and at pleasure disfigure their faces and counterfeit a passion True zeal and devotion knowes no other expressions then what are Naturall and Genuine Gods Spirit gives no Rules no Examples for the heightening of our Outward Devotion onely nor to make a Trade of lifting up the eye and smiting the breast and making the Tears full and raising of our Cryes and Noise They were the Pharisees onely that did teach and practise such Arts and I read of miscreant Jews that were professed Praeficae and hired mourners at funeralls We need no Tutors nor Instructors to teach us to express the true passions of the heart They whether we will or no uncommanded unthought of rise and fall as the soul it self is affected Nature teaches us this lesson and it is the first that we practise The Child the more it longs after the Mother or the Nurse the more it cryes and sheds tears and the further they go from it the louder still it calls and the more earnest more violent are the Shrikes and lamentations If a man be fallen into a Pit or have lost his way among the Woods the deeper he finds the Pit and the more remote from any Village or company that he conceives himself to be the louder he calls and the more multiplies his cryes It is just so with a truly sanctified soul The more eager and violent is her Love of God the more earnestly it longs and Psal 51. 1 and 12. yearns after him and the comforts of his presence and when God withdraws himself from it the further that he seems to remove the deeper still is the sigh the more humble the Prostration the more dejected the countenance and the more earnest are the Cryes and more plentifull the Tears and the more ardent still the Prayers Our earnest Longings and * Psal 42. per tot pantings after God and the Joy of his countenance without any other Monitor and Instructor can advance and heighten our devotions Indeed nothing but Love and more then ordinary Affection can quicken and raise them as nothing but Moses Rod could make the Waters flow and gush forth from the Rock in the Wilderness Love is often compared to Fire As then the Fire must raise the Spirits in the Alembick before any water can distill and drop and as the more Spirits are raised by it the more Water issues forth so the Flames of holy Love must first raise the spirit of zeal and devotion in us before it will dissolve into Tears and breathe out in Sighs and as that spirit of zeal and true devotion does increase the deeper will be the Groan the more vehement will be our Prayers And therefore S. †Mat. 27. 46. Mar. 15. 34. Matthew tells us that our Saviour when * Subtraxit visionem non dissolvit unionem Leo. now the comfortable Influence of the Deity was suspended he cryed with a loud voyce My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And of this devotion this Ardency it is the Doctor speaks and of this onely he understands S. Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed the more carnestly § 8. And therefore you to no purpose add when the case already is so plain JEANES Secondly In this your reply unto me you expresly averr that the inward Acts of Christs Love of God were more intense at one time then at another Sect. 21. and I hope you have more Philosophy then to confound the inward Acts and the outward expressions of Love That which herein hath occasioned your mistake c. § 9. What the Doctor so expresly averrs in his 21. Section has already been cleared and sufficiently demonstrated And though you beguile your self and others with the ambiguity of this Term the Love of God yet the Doctors meaning is so plain that it is impossible for any man to be deceived in it that resolves not to be willingly mistaken § 10. But you are not deluded in your hopes The Doctor has more Philosophy then to confound the Inward and Outward Acts and Expressions of Love though you betray so little Ethicks to divide and sever them For though the Metaphysician and Naturalist may precisely and abstractly consider them yet the Divine and Moralist know that as the Soul Vid. Durand l. 2. sent dist 42. q 1. A. B. C q. 2. ib. Aquin 1. 2. q. 11 art 4. q. 18. art 6. in Corp. q. 20. art 3. in corp Suarez infra citat and Body make a man so the Inward and the Outward Act concurr to make up one compleat Moral Action Without this the Outward Expressions are but empty Paint and Varnish and all that they can do is but to dress and tire an Hypocrite to make him truely more ugly because it onely makes him more handsome to the eye and appear otherwise then he is § 11. And now our Refuter as if he were some Licentiate in Physick having cast the Doctors Water and as he conceives discovered his distemper he proceeds to acquaint him with the Procatartick cause of his Malady JEANES That which hath herein occasioned your mistake is I believe a supposal that the inward acts of love and the outward expressions thereof are if they be sincere alwayes exactly proportioned in point of degree but this proposition hath no truth in it as you will easily find if you attempt the proof of it who almost but may easily c. § 12. That the Inward Acts of Love and the Outward expressions thereof if they be sincere are alwayes exactly that is Arithmetically proportioned in point of degree so as they be equall and parallel in graduall intension * Jeanes Answer to the Ectenest p. 16. as you formerly express your self is an imaginary phantà sm and Creature of your own brain and no supposall of the Doctors But that the Ardency of the Inward Acts does ordinarily rise and fall according to Geometricall proportion as the Outward Expressions gradually do though the increase and decrease is not Arithmetically parallel in both is a most commonly received Truth in the practise and opinion of all sorts of people in the world for ought I find to the contrary and has been already demonstrated and therefore needs not further Proof § 13. What follows is a very clear mistake and belongs not to the matter you would prove by it When therefore you ask the question and say JEANES p. 38. Who almost but may easily conceive how 't is very ordinary for the outward expressions of Love to be gradually beneath the inward Acts thereof He is no hypocrite in expressing his Love that loveth inwardly more then he expresseth outwardly the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall
but also transcend the most sincere expressions of Love It may be so in all men and I shall alleage two reasons why in Christ c. § 14. To your first question I return that it is readily granted For every prudent Father does often deal so with the child he most loves and God himself sometimes in mercy hides his face and withdraws the light of his countenance from his dear children and servants when yet with an everlasting Love he affects and with everlasting kindness will have Jer. 31 3. Isa 54. 8. mercy upon them But will you thence conclude against the express letter of the Gospell that Christs earnestness in prayer was not greater in his Agony then at other times Sir you must consider that you are not now to remonstrate what may possibly come to pass or what in other men at other times and in other cases happens but what de facto then was at the time of our Saviours bloody Agony And who sees not at first glance that your Proofs fall a hundred short of your Conclusion For we are not now upon the disquisition and enquiry of what was Physicê and naturally possible but what was Morally such and what de facto according to S. Lukes plain Narration and the ordinary course and Practise of men did then come to pass And therefore since the Rule of the Law is that illud possumus quod Jure possumus if it has already appeared and clearly been demonstrated that the Christian Grace of Sincerity does ordinarily and in most cases require it and usually where the Charity is true and perfect and not counterfeit or innocently concealed for the advantage of the beloved there is and ought to be a proportionable correspondence between the Outward and the Inward Acts of Love and as the one falls or rises so also in Proportion do the other then it will not be enough to inferr which yet is all you conclude that the degrees of the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall but also transcend the most sincere expressions you must prove that they still must and ought to do so which I think will be impossible But yet let me tell you that if you should perform this more then Herculean Task you will still be very far short of concluding any thing against the Doctor For again I must remember you that we are not now speaking of the Elicite Acts of the Formall virtue of Charity and the Love of God properly taken but onely of the Imperate Acts of that Charity the Ardency of Prayer which is onely Tropically such and this will yet make your task more impossible § 15. And therefore whereas you add for a Confirmation that he is no hypocrite in expressing his Love that loves Inwardly more then he expresseth Outwardly I answer that this is manifestly impertinent to the matter in debate Christs Ardency in Prayer And though in some cases I shall make no scruple to grant it yet mind you I must that the Christian Grace of sincerity requires that in the Ordinary Course of humane affairs as our Love should not be Personate so it should be fruitfull and operative otherwise it would in this be lame and imperfect as well as in the other it would be counterfeit And this further manifests that from such not onely vain and impertinent but also false allegations as understood according to the ordinary course of morality and practise among men you will never be able to demonstrate that our Saviour in his Agony did not more earnestly according to the inward Act and Fervour deprecate his last bitter cup then any other worldly cross and affliction to which he was exposed in the dayes of his flesh § 16. But yet he will essay to make good his undertaking JEANES It may be so in all men and I shall alleage two reasons why in Christ the inward Acts of his Love were alwayes equally intense though the outward expressions thereof were gradually different § 17. And if you can make this good in the sense that the Doctor understands all along the Phrase The Love of God nay if you can clearly prove it in your own I am so great a friend to any Reason you shall bring that though you have failed in all your other undertakings yet I shall give you the whole cause for that single Reasons sake § 18. Let us weigh then your reasons to this Purpose and try them at the touchstone JEANES The first reason agreeth unto Christ in common with other men Christ as man was alwayes obliged unto the most intense ardent and fervent inward acts of Love of God But he was not c. § 19. Say you so Sir Nay then I do not doubt but notwithstanding my fair proffer you yet will fall short and so lose the golden Ball at last § 20. For Christ as Mediator and one that had undertook to pay our debt was not onely Priviledged in the humane nature by virtue of the hypostaticall union to be holy harmless undefiled but by virtue of the Covenant and contract betwixt him and the Father as well as by that First made with all mankind in Adam was obliged to be spotless and innocent otherwise he could never have been that Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world But then Man though in his integrity by virtue of the first Covenant he were bound to sinless perfection yet now since the Fall and the Fatall curse incurred and in Part inflicted on him he may as justly by that or any other New Covenant be obliged to be Immortall as the Condition of his Salvation as to be absolutely sinless and pure from all even Originall Pollution since his Corruption as well as his Mortality is an equall fruit of the first Sin and it is a part of the Curse and Punishment of Adam even inflicted on him by God that all his posterity should be left to be born after the similitude of his fallen nature For by one man sin entred into the world and death Rom. 5. 12. by sin and so death by that one passed upon all men to condemnation for that all have sinned or as S. Austin constantly reads it in quo omnes peccaverunt in whom all have sinned § 21. As then God may justly though not by Positive infliction yet by spirituall desertion and Penall decree punish one sin with an other so the Scripture assures us that this originall guilt and pollution and the vitious effects of it seize on us as a part of our punishment and Praeludium of eternall damnation and all the sons of Adam for their transgression in him are by virtue of the first covenant as certainly dead in Law and in some measure also executed as the damned are now in Hell though not so absolutely so irreversibly as they I would not be mistaken I say by virtue of that Covenant so certainly dead in Law though not so irreversibly And if the Mediatour of the new Covenant
say that those outward Acts of Gods Love that appear in his common Providence and whereby he maketh Mat. 5. 45. his Sun to shine and his Rain to fall as well upon the unjust as the just are to be equalled and parallell'd with those more peculiar Acts of his Love whereby he regards his Saints and Chosen For the Apostle hath told us that though God be a Saviour of all 1 Tim. 4. 10. men yet it is with an especially of them that believe His eye and his ear are alwaies open to the Righteous they are not so unto Psal 34. 15 16. the wicked He loves indeed all the Creatures he has made and therefore constantly preserves them But Man he loves more then the rest of the Creatures which he made for Mans use But then his * Deut. 10. 15. Delight is in the Saints those that fear his name For their sakes his Son dyed and rose again for their sakes he made Heaven and there has laid up for them a never-fading Crown of Glory But his Son he loves more then all Saints and all Angels This this is his beloved Son in whom alone he is well pleased § 20. But then though these outward Acts of his favour be thus gradually different yet by reason of the infinite Perfection of his Essence the inward Act of his Love must be still one and the same because it can be no other but himself one and the same Act alwaies infinitely loving and one and the same Object alwaies infinitely amiable and beloved And therefore the Scriptures are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood and in a way that best suites with the Majesty and Excellence of God when speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the manner of men they represent to us this one most simple infinite Act of his Love as if it were many and those in themselves also gradually distinct because among men the inward Acts of Love do usually vary according to the gradual difference of Goodness in the several Objects beloved which the greater it is truly or falsely apprehended to be the more it still allures and draws the affections and inclinations of the Will § 21. And now because the Socinian denies it and it is of great importance in the Christian Faith I shall upon this occasion endeavour to make it good And I hope that our Refuter himself will pardon this Digression that speaks so much for his advantage § 22. Say then Vorstius and Crellius what they will to the contrary those places of Scripture that speak of the different Ea verò attributa sunt Voluntatis Divinae Actus in ipso residentes seu Actiones voluntatis immanentes ut vocant Actus vero illi sunt duplicis generis Alii enim affectuum similitudinem inprimis referunt eorumque nominibus in sacris literis praecipuè designantur alii Decreta sunt Illi sunt Voluntatis Divinae ut ita dicam commotiones praesertim vehementiores seu actus ejusmodi quibus Voluntas vehementius vel in objectum suum fertur vel ab eo refugit atque abhorret Vt ut forte res ad quam affectus incitat non sit firmiter conclusa c. Crellius de Deo attributis apud Volkel lib. 1. de vera Religione cap. 29. p. 295. Vide eund ibid. per tot cap. 30 31. per tot Vorst de Deo Biddle's Catechis c. 4. Degrees of Gods Love cannot properly be understood and as if in God the inward Acts of his Will were gradually different as in men commonly they are For being the First Cause of all things he has no superior to limit him nor will he limit himself because this were to lessen his own perfection neither could he indeed bound and determine his own Being and Excellence if he could possibly will or attempt it because he is the one and alone necessary Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is | Exod. 3. 14. 6. 3. I am that I am Nor can any Second inferior Cause do it be it of what kind soever because they being the free issues of his Power who * Ephes 1. 11. Vid. Esay 14. 24. 40. 13. Rom. 11. 33 34 35. Ephes 3. 20. Psal 115. 3. worketh all things according to the Counsel of his own Will they must of necessity be supposed to flow from him when now he has his Essence already undetermined And therefore he being the First Cause of all things and consequently infinite in his Essence as well as his Power and Perfection which only flows from the Infinitude of his Essence he must be absolutely simple in this his Essence and most perfectly One as much without all shadow of Parts or Accidents as he is of Change or Alteration For if he were made up of Parts he could not be the First Cause of all things because the Parts are first in Nature at least before the Whole compounded of them And if there were in him any Accidents he could not be the †Malach. 3. 6. Lord that changes not no more infinite in Perfection which the * Accedit quod perfectissimum unicum tantum est Quis vero dubitat supremum Numen primum Naturae Principium esse Perfectissimum quis id aliquo defectu laborare dicat Crell apud Volkel l. 1. ca. 17. p. 113. Haec Dei immensitas atque Omnipraesentia Potentiae Sapientiae Potestatis Perfectionis ut omnium confessione certissima sacris literis testatissima ita nobis creditu utilissima c. Ejus autem Essentiam in quovis pulvisculo latere nondum ex sacris literis discere potuimus viri quidam doctissimi ex Christianorum scriptis ea collegerunt dicta quae vulgarem sententiam de diffusione Essentiae Divinae per res universas vel penitus refellunt vel non â—arùm labefactant c. Crell ibid. cap. 27. p. 277 278. vide ibid. per tot Socinian dares not deny against so many clear express Scriptures then they say he is in his Essence because he stands in need of those Accidents and changeable alterations that must compleat his Perfection Nor could he indeed be that One all-perfect Being from whom all things else flow if he were not absolutely as well without Accidents as Parts because by the Addition of any thing whatsoever it be of necessity he becomes finite and simpliciter per se imperfect because capable of this Addition And therefore it is most rationally determined by the Schoolmen though the Socinian will not grant it that In Deo neque est aliud neque Accidens and Quicquid est in Deo Deus est That God is nothing else but one entire and simple infinite and eternal Act and that nothing can possibly be found or at least imagined in him which is not himself § 23. Hence it necessarily follows that when God in Scripture is said to love he must not be understood properly to love as man does by