21. q 1. art 3. in Corp. outward Expressions depending precisely upon the inward Acts as the Effect upon their Cause it necessarily follows that the more I love the greater Expressions of this Love I am bound to exhibite and to whom I am bound to shew the greater tokens of Love him I ought to love more in proportion to the Expressions otherwise let me adde the Love will be lame and imperfect or else hypocritical and counterfeit Not that every man is bound at all times to express his Love according to the height and intension of the inward Act but that he is obliged to do it when a just Occasion offers and a Necessity requires it For sometimes they whom we love do not either stand in need at all of our outward signs and expressions or perhaps do lesse want them then others lesse beloved or else there may not be a fit Opportunity to express our Love unto the height when they want or we desire or perhaps it may be more advantage for those we love to have the height and Ardour of this Love for the present concealed as we also have already intimated But then though sometimes it be convenient not to expresse our Love unto the height yet ordinarily it is required that there be a proportion and agreement in respect of Intension and Remission between the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love For the affection of Charity which is an inclination of Grace is not less ordinate then the Appetite and Inclination of Nature because both flow from the same divine Wisedome But we see in Nature that the inward Appetite is proportioned to that outward Act and Motion which is proper to every thing For the Earth has a greater inclination to gravity then Water which naturally is seated above it And therefore since as the good Father said Amor meus pondus meum since Love is as it Augustin were the weights and plummets of the Soul the more the Soul loves in the inward Act the more it carries the Soul to higher and nobler Expressions and a proportionable agreement and correspondence there will and must be between the inward Affection and the outward Effects and as the Bounty increases and is more intense so in proportion does the Love which is the very same that the Doctor had asserted § 58. And this was abundantly sufficient to the Doctors purpose though he never had attempted to prove that Expressions gradually different in themselves could not flow from several Acts of Love that were gradually the same or that the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love were of necessity equal in point of Intension For since you grant to the Doctor that it is an obvious Truth That each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love in Christ of which they were so many different Expressions then if to use Cajetan's word major Benevolentia major Beneficentia mutuò se inferunt and unless there be a proportion between the outward and the inward Acts of Love the Inclinations of Grace as Aquinas proves would be less orderly then those of Nature the Doctor might very well conclude that where the outward Expressions were gradually different there the inward Acts from whence the Expressions issue were gradually different also If it be ordinarily so with all others that the greater Expressions argue the greater Love what should hinder but that the Doctor might conclude it was so in Christ § 59. It will not be enough to Reply in this case and yet this is all you have to say that the Doctor has said nothing to prove that these Expressions which are acknowledged to be gradually different in themselves might not could not proceed from a Love equally intense § 60. For though nothing naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that different Expressions because they are imperate Acts of the Will and subject to its Command may flow from Acts of Love still the same for Degrees yet ordinarily they do not And therefore unless you can shew that the case is different in Christ from all other men and that every Act of his Love that flowed from the same all-full all-perfect Habit of Divine Charity was of the same height and intenseness and equal to the Habit it cannot be denied but that the Doctors Conclusion is most rational and just § 61. For Morality admits not of Mathematical Demonstration but as the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 1. Eth. c. 3. §. 1. great Master of Method tells us sufficient it is if here the Conclusion be inferred from Praemisses and Medium's that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and most commonly so And therefore Sir if the gradual intension and remission in the inward Expressions do most commonly argue and inferr a proportionable increase and decrease in the inward Acts of Love you must needs be unjust for charging the Doctor for not saying any thing to prove that these different Expressions could not proceed from a Love equally intense and for speaking impertinently to the matter in hand unless he can prove that they were of necessity equal in point of Intension For why should you require the Proof of that which the nature of things will not admit of The Doctor now was not engaged in the Demonstration of a Mathematical but an Ethical Probleme for the Schoolmen will tell you of Theologia Moralis and he that proves that such a Proposition is most commonly so has as demonstratively concluded as that Science does re-require § 62. But why cannot the Doctors Conclusion evidently follow unless he can first prove that they ought of necessity to be equal in point of Intension For will you therefore conclude because Expressions gradually different may flow since there is no necessary reason to the contrary from Acts of Love gradually the same that therefore they do so or necessarily must If you should as you intimate by this your redoubling your charge against the Doctor I must tell you that you are guilty of arguing A potentia ad Actum affirmativè which is the most simple and palpable Sophisme of all just as if I should argue Because nothing naturally and of necessity hinders but that Mr. Jeanes may be a Jesuite in a Ministers cloak therefore without doubt he is so § 63. Whereas you then put the Question to the Doctor and thus ask him Now Sir have you said any thing to prove that they Expressions of Love gradually different could not proceed from a Love equally intense and then adde in the following Section That though it be an obvious Truth that each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love of which they were so many different Expressions yet it is impertinent unto the matter in hand unless he can prove that they were of absolute necessity equal in point of Intension the proof whereof he has not hitherto so much as attempted It is evident you are mistaken and the
this makes to our Refuters advantage the Philosopher in this reply as appears from the sixth (b) Vid. Arist l. 10. Eth. c. 6. §. 1 2 3. Chapter of this Book refers to what he had more largely delivered to this purpose in the very entrance of this Treatise He had there proved by induction that Love was a Transcendent thing and placed in all * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Arist 1. Eth. c. 6. § 2 3. Predicaments He had also proved that Felicity as it was the greatest good so it consisted not in a dull and lazy quality that it was no †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 10. Eth. c. 6. §. 2. Vid. eund l. 1. Eth. c. 5. §. 3. c. 7. § 3 4 5. ibid. c. 8. §. 7. where this is at large prosecuted habitual goodness but a quick and active thing whose excellence and perfection did consist in Act and Operation in use and exercise not in Possession and that vertue too though it were in it's own nature a habit yet it did perform nothing good but only in the use and operation And both these he proves by this excellent reason because a man may be habitually vertuous and happy whilst he sleeps or does any thing or nothing even in the mid'st of sufferings and miseries and greatest misfortunes But they cannot possibly be so in regard of the Acts and exercise of vertues And therefore he concludes that as in the Olympick Games not the most beautiful and strong but those that run and strive because only such do conquer are crowned so amongst those that are good and honest in the course of humane life those only that do well do win the Prize and Laurel § 30. And now Sir what 's all this to your present purpose Because Aristotle disputing against Plato asserts as he had before proved that the Operations of vertues are not habitual qualities but Actions placed in another Predicament that Felicity consisted not in the habitual possession of Vertue but in the Act and exercise of it and that both these were good though not qualities will you therefore conclude from this place that they are Actions not terminated in qualities or that there can be any such thing without a transcendental respect to that which terminates the Action and is produced by it Saies the Philosopher any thing Pro or Con as they speak to this purpose And yet the only matter in debate between you and the Doctor is whether immanent Acts such as that of actual Love is be purely predicamental Actions and nothing else not terminated in qualities that are called by the same names with the predicamental actions by which they are produced § 31. Indeed if our moral Philosopher had here said any thing to this purpose he had digressed from his Theme into a Metaphysical Reserche and speculation he had been guilty of that which they call Transitio à Genere ad Genus a fault which the great and best Master of Method had declared to be unpardonable § 32. In short then Vertue and Felicity consist not in the Habit but in the Act and exercise and being thus properly considered and in fluxu operatione they are Actions and not Qualities and because though thus considered they are Actions and not Qualities yet the one being the greatest good and the other also good because vertuous they must be acknowledged to be good though not Qualities And this as it was sufficient against Plato so it was all that the Philosopher there intended § 33. But then secondly because these acts of Vertue and Felicity as all other immanent Acts are something more then bare Actions and carry with them a transcendental respect to the Qualities that terminate them hence it is that these Acts are in this respect called Qualities and those Qualities are placed in the same Predicament with the Habits whereof they are the Effects and Acts. § 34. And now Sir that you may see I do not speak altogether without Book you shall find the very same answer in Suarez * Suarez Metaph. disp 42. sect 5. §. 14. Solum potest obijci difficilis locus Aristotelis l. 10. Eth. c. 3. ubi sic ait Atqui neque si voluptas non est qualitas propter hoc bonum non est neque Operationes virtutis sunt qualitates neque felicitas ipsa Constat autem voluptatem felicitatem operationes virtutis esse actus immanentes ita etiam absolutè docent D. Thomas alii non aliter interpretando verba Aristotelis Existimo tamen aliquo indigere moderamine nimirum Voluptatem aut Felicitatem non esse puram qualitatem quae non necessariò consistit in actuali operatione ejus qui voluptate vel felicitate afficitur quia nemo potest aut voluptate affici vel fieri felix nisi actualiter aliquid efficiendo non tamen potest negari quin illud quod facit Qualitas sit To this for the greater confirmation I shall subjoin another passage in the same Author †Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. num 25. Rursus cum dicitur Beatitudo consistere in actione immanente si propriè loquamur intelligendum est consistere in ipso actu immanente ut est Qualitas informans ac ultimo perficiens ipsum operans nam in actione ut actio est non consistit nisi praesuppositivè in via ad talem perfectionem § 35. Indeed I wonder that you should see the Objection in that Author and not refute or take the least notice of this Answer But perhaps you thought that so great a Critick as the Doctor would not dip in Suarez Metaphysicks because there was nothing in it for a Criticks observation And therefore you might easily suspect that your objections thence taken would not be answered by him yet you did forget your art when you pointed the Doctor to Suarez for satisfaction in this kind Without doubt the Doctor though a Critick has shewen himself better read in Metaphysicks then your self though a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity § 36. And that I may make it good and also instruct you in that wherein you profess your self yet to seek viz. that habitual and actual Love are both as the Doctor saies Qualities in the same Predicament and coordinate Species of the same next and most immediate Genus of Love nay that it is the generally-received opinion amongst Metaphysicians I shall now acquaint you with some of my observations to this purpose in that very Suarez whom for instruction in this point you recommend to the Doctors perusal First then in his Disp 14. sect 3. tom 1. § 14. I find that Habitus actus earum potentiarum in eodem genere in rigore collocantur Licèt enim Actio ut Actio I pray mark it Sir pertineat ad praedicamentum Actionis tamen ut Actus vitalis habens esse consummatum in suo genere collocatur in praedicamento
and real increase and growth in his Stature could any waies derogate from the truth and full perfection of his humane nature or Manhood For though a greater intension presupposeth remission and imperfection and though intensio est eductio rei intensae de imperfecto ad perfectum as Aquinas often yet if the Habit be full and perfect and incapable of any diminution or increase the gradual increase and perfection in the Acts will no more conclude the real growth and encrease of the Habit then our Saviours growth in his Stature did conclude a growth in the perfection of his Manhood As his humane nature was compleat and perfect in his Infancy though his Stature were now in growth so the Habits of Wisedome and Grace were then also perfect though his actual Wisedome and Grace were now capable of addition and growth as his Stature was § 86. And therefore for a period of this Section and the full acquitting the Doctor from the least suspition of this Charge I must again mind our Refuter of that known distinction in Scheibler which he borrowed from Scaliger And it is this That as Habits are either infused or acquisite so the Acts and Operations belonging to them are either praecedaneous to the Habit and effectually concurre to the production and accomplishment of it or else they are such as are subsequent and flow from it now compleat and perfect as Effects from their Cause Though then an intensive perfection and growth in those Acts and Operations that praecede and effectively concur to the production of the Habit argue also an intensive growth in the perfection of the Habit to be acquired and Aquinas his Rule does hold true in them yet the Habit of holy Charity in Christ being not an acquired but an infused Habit and alwaies from the first moment perfect in its utmost intension the Rule holds not but an intensive growth and gradual difference in the Acts here argues only an innocent liberty of the Will whose free effects they are and no intensive growth in the Habit at all For that being already full and perfect and seated in the Will and effectively concurring with it to the production of these Acts Operations it may if it be not otherwise ab extrinseco determined either instantaneously produce the Acts in this or that degree perfect or else may successively augment them in gradual perfection I shall give you a reason in part borrowed from Aquinas For the gradual Perfection of these subsequent Acts depends not so much upon the Perfection of the Object as the liberty of the Will and the gradual difference in the virtue and efficacy and Conatus of the Agent praecipuè as he saies * Aquin. l. 3. Sent. d. 29. q. 1. art 2. ad 3 m Dicendum quod omnis actus oportet quod proportionetur objecto agenti sed ex objecto habet speciem ex virtute autem à gentis habet motum suae intensionis Sicut motus habet speciem ex termino ad quem est sed intensionem velocitatis habet ex dispositione mobilis virtute moventis sic ergo dilectio speciem habet ex Objecto sed intensionem habet ex parte ipsius diligentis Objectum autem charitativae dilectionis Deus est homo autem diligens est Diversitas ergo dilectionis quae est secundum charitatem quantum ad speciem est attēdenda in proximis diligendis secundum comparationem ad Deum ut scil ei qui est Deo propinquior majus bonum ex charitate velimus c. sed intensio dilectionis est attendenda per comparationem ad ipsum hominem qui diligit c. Aquin. 2. 2 ae q. 26. art 7. in Corp. in actibus animae quae non necessariò secundum totum suum posse agit Sicut naturalia non mensurantur ad Quantitatem objecti tantum sed ad efficaciam agentis conatum in agendo Vnde non melius videt qui majorem rem intuetur sed qui clarius videt I have already made this plain by familiar instances in the Lutenist and Painter and Preacher who do not alwaies operate to the perfection of the Habit but according to the liberty of their own good will and pleasure and as occasion requires And therefore this Maxime of Aquinas is misapplyed by our Refuter For it is only true and to be understood of those Qualities that are intended by successive and Physical alteration but in others it holds not * Suarez Metaph. disp 46 sect 3. § 15. Nam Lumen subito fit secundum aliquos gradus intensionis saies Suarez voluntas nostra subito prorumpere potest in ferventem intensum actum amoris For not to speak of Agentia naturalia instantanea †Ibid. §. 16. Agentia libera quatenus talia sunt non agunt quantum possunt saies the same Suarez sed quantum volunt Where then Intensio est eductio rei intensae de imperfecto ad perfectum according to Aquinas there the Succession in this gradual increase and growing on to Perfection arises either 1. from the distance which is between the Agent and Patient or 2ly from the resistance of the Subject by reason of some contrary Quality or other disposition withstanding the introduction of the present from or else 3ly by reason of the limitation and imperfection of the virtue and force of the Agent as * Suarez Metaph disp 46. sect 3. §. 16 17 18. Suarez Metaph disp 46. sect 4. §. 14. Suarez has at large proved And this is only to be found in natural and Physical alterations that are successive At verò si Agens sit liberum potest pro sua libertate applicare vim suam ad magis vel minus agendum and consequently may either successively increase this gradual perfection in the Acts or instantaneously produce them either more or less perfect according to his own will and pleasure and the perfection of the Habit. § 87. And thus the Proposition and Assumption being both manifestly proved to be so monstrously false or impertinent in the whole and all the several parts the Conclusion cannot possibly concern the Doctor and therefore I shall leave it to our Refuter to make the best of it And so I proceed to the next Section SECTION 14. The Doctors discourse here only ad hominem The Refuters Reply grants all that the Doctors Argument aimes at Where the degrees of any Quality particularly the Love of Christ are for number multiplied in the same Subject there the Quality particularly the Love is more intense Proved This inferrs not Intension to be a meer Coacervation of homogeneous degrees The Refuter reaches not the Doctors meaning The Doctor argues from the Effect to the Cause The reasonableness of the proof The only way to conclude the fervour of the inward devotion by the outward performance Length and continuance in Prayer an argument of high Zeal Suarez and Hurtado 's discourse concerns not the
〈◊〉 more earnestly justified The Refuter's Non-sense What Ardency in Christ it was that was heightned Luk. 22. 43. Comprehensor Viator what In what state whether of Comprehensor or Viator Christ was in a Capacity to pray as that signifies either Petition Deprecation or Thanksgiving and this whether only for others or also for himself Of Prayer and the several kinds Whether though Christ were in a capacity thus to pray yet being God that was able of himself to accomplish whatsoever he might desire as Man it was expedient for him to do so and whether God had so determined What things Christ might and did pray for both for himself and others Mr. Hooker commended Whether Christ did in truth and reality or only in shew pray for a removal of that Cup which he came on purpose to drink Whether these Prayers and Desires were not repugnant to Gods Decree and the end of his coming into the world and his own peremptory resolution to drink it How those desires for a removall of this Cup might be advanced notwithstanding his readiness and resolution to drink it How Christs Ardency in Prayer for a removal of this Cup might be increased above what it either was or there was occasion for at other times Of the greatness of his Agony and bloody sweat How his Zeal in Prayer at this time might be advanced without derogation from the fulness of his habitual Grace the impeccability of his Soul and the uninterrupted happiness of it and perfect Love as he was Comprehensor Strictures on the former part of the Refuters second Answer Doctor HAMMOND § 35. BVt then 2ly saies he suppose we stick unto our own translation yet the place may fairely be so interpreted as that it may no waies advantage the purpose of the Doctor for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more earnestly may be considered in reference either to the Object unto whom he prayed God or the matter against which he prayed the evils with which he conflicted in his agony First then he did not in his Agony pray more earnestly then at other times if we consider his Prayer in reference unto the Object unto whom it was God The religion and inward worship of his Prayer was for Degrees alwaies alike equal His trust and dependance upon God love of zeal and devotion towards God from which all his Prayers flowed were not at one time more intense then at another But now 2ly he prayed more earnestly in his Agony then at other times in regard of the matter against which he prayed the evils which he encountred with which if they were not greater then those that he deprecated in the former prayer v. 42. yet at least they made a greater impression upon his humane nature for they put him into a bloody sweat Being in an Agony he prayed more earnestly and his sweat was as it were drops of blood falling down to the ground § 36. These are the words of his second answer and they are in the second part the very distinct confession of all that I pretend in this matter and therefore I need not make reflections on the first part of them for whatsoever or how great soever the occasion of the increase of his intension was which I am willing to believe proportionable to the degree of the intension a very weighty occasion that thus inflamed his Ardency yet still 't is confest that on this occasion he now prayed more earnestly then at other times that which now approached made a greater impression on his humane nature which what is it but a proof of the point by me asserted that Christ himself was more ardent in one Act of prayer this in his Agony then in another § 37. As for the greatness of the occasion so profestly great as to cast him into that prodigious sweat falling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were drops of blood that may testifie but it cannot prejudge the ardency which was occasioned thereby § 38. 'T was not in Christ he will easily suppose with me as it is oft discernable in many of us that those which really have no sincerity of love or zeal to God can yet like the Marriners in the Tempest by some pressing fear or danger be awaked to but formal and be they never so loud hypocritically zealous prayers § 39. The Ardency in Christ was sincere ardency accompanied with acts of love trust of the same temper and the heightning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was an addition of Degrees to that Act of Ardency and so of prayer and proportionably of love and trust in God above either what there was or what there was occasion for at other times § 1. To this our Refuter does reply very much yet not a word to the purpose which that I may clearly demonstrate I shall follow him step by step JEANES 1. FIrst you pretend in Sect. 21. of this your Reply that the inward acts of Christ's love of God were more intense at one time then another Now this is not contained expresly nor can it by any Logick be inferred from the words of the second part of my second answer that he prayed more earnestly in his Agony then at other times in regard of the matter against which he prayed c. and therefore this second part of my second answer is not the very distinct confession of all that you pretend in this matter and therefore notwithstanding them you must make reflections on the first part of my answer or else you will never reply thereunto § 2. To this I answer that what our Refuter saies the Doctor pretends in his 21th Section is an undeniable Truth and not only the Doctor but I also after him have most clearly demonstrated that the Inward Acts of Christ's Love of God or the all-full and perfect Habit of Divine Charity were more intense at one time then at another and then further I have proved that of necessity they must be so and this I have further confirmed by evident clear testimonies from some of the prime School-men antient and modern And if the Doctor never pretended to no more then this in any part of his writings then I must tell you Sir that if this Proposition also may be Logically inferred from these words of your second Answer although it be not there expressed then the Doctor most rationally asserted that this second part of your second answer was the very distinct confession of all that he pretended in that matter and therefore he neither then had nor shall hereafter need to make any reflections on the first part of your answer because his reply is very solid and sufficient without it And yet Sir by the way give me leave to tell you that I may to gratifie you make some reflections on it before you and I part § 3. And now that I may clearly prove that this assertion of the Doctors is most rationally logically collected from the words of the second part of
unwilling altogether to spend time in the unprofitable discoveries of another mans mistakes whilst the Reader through a Cloud of dust and smoke that Contention has raised remains unsatisfied in the m◠in business and ground of the Controversie I shall now digress from the Refuter to explain the nature of that Ardency in our Saviours Prayer which the Evangelist testifies was now in his Agony heightned And as those that have a great leap to take do proportionably go back that they may return with the stronger violence and force to carry themselves over so shall I. For in demonstrative discourses not only the great Philosopher but Experience also teaches that the most instructive way though perhaps the more tedious is to proceed from Principles more remote and plain to Deductions more obscure as Euclide has done in his Elements of Geometry The steps then that I shall go by are these 1. I shall enquire in what state whether of Comprehensor or Viator Christ was in a capacity to pray as that signifies either Petition or Deprecation or Thanksgiving and this whether only for others or also for himself 2ly Whether though he were in a capacity thus to pray yet being God that was able of himself to accomplish whatsoever he might desire as Man it was expedient for him to do so and whether God had so determined 3ly What things he might and did pray for both for himself and others 4ly Whether he did in truth and reality or only in shew pray for a Removal of that Cup which he came on purpose to drink 5ly Whether these desires were not repugnant to Gods decree and the end of his coming into the world and his own peremptory resolution to drink it 6ly How these desires for a removal of this Cup might be advanced notwithstanding his resolution and readiness to drink it From these Premisses rightly stated I conceive it will not be difficult to shew how our Saviours Ardency in this Prayer might be advanced above what it either was or indeed there was occasion for at other times and this without any derogation either from 1. the Fulness of his habitual Grace ◠the Impeccability of his Soul or 3. his perpetual and uninterrupted happiness of it or the height of that Actual Love of God which as he was Comprehensor was alwaies in termino and most intense § 19. To begin then with the first And for this it will be necessary to consider that the Schools determine That Christ during the state of his Humiliation was both Dicendum quod aliquis dicitur Viator ex eo quod tendit in beatitudinem Comprehensor autem dicitur ex hoc quod jam beatudinem obtinet secundum illud 1 Cor. 9. Sic currite ut comprehendatis Phil. 3. Sequor autem ut quo modo comprehendam Hominis autē beatitudo perfecta consistit in anima in corpore In Anima quidem quantum ad id quod est ei proprium secundum quod mens videt fruitur Deo In Corpore verò secundum quod Corpus resurget spirituale in virtute gloria incorruptione dicitur 1 Co. 15. Christus autē ante passionem secundum mentem plenè videbat Deum sic habebat beatitudinem quantum ad id quod est proprium Animae sed quantū ad alia decrat ei beatitudo quia anima ejus erat passibilis corpus passibile mortale Et ideo simul erat Comprehensor in quantum habebat beatitudinem propriam Animae simul Viator in quantum tendebat in beatitudinē secundum id quod ei de beatitudine deerat Aquin. 3 part q. 15. art 10. in Corp. Vide eund ibid. q. 11. art 2. in Corp. Estium l. 3. Sentent dist 16. §. 2. Suaresium Cajetanum caeteros Commentatores in Thom. loco suprae citato Comprehensor and Viator Now a Comprehensor is he that enjoyes the fulness of Happiness which state the Apostle points at 1 Cor. 9. 24. when he saies Sic currite ut comprehendatis So run that ye may obtain and a Viator is he that is yet in the way that leads and tends to happiness which state the Apostle points at Phil. 3. 12 13. Sequor autem si quo modo comprehendam But I so follow if by any means I may obtein The one is in possession the other in the way to happiness Now as Man consists of a Body and a Soul so the perfection of his Happiness is lodged in both these The Soul is perfectly happy inasmuch as in the supreme and noblest part the Mind and Vnderstanding it sees and enjoyes God The Body is then perfectly happy when it shall be raised a spiritual body and advanced to a state of Power and Glory and Incorruption and Mortality shall be wholly swallowed u◠of Life Now Christ by virtue of the hypostatical union had a full sight and all-absolutely perfect Fruition of God from the first moment of his Conception in the soveraign part of his Soul the Mind and so was Comprehensor But then in respect of the inferior part and Faculties of the Soul wherein he was subject to natural infirmities and Passions as men are and in regard of his Body that as yet was passible and mortal he was not yet possessed of Happiness till after his Death and Passion But now Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more Death has no more dominion over him And consequently till his Resurrection Rom. 6. 9. and exaltation at the right hand of God in respect of these he was only Viator § 20. Christ then in this state taking upon him the form of a servant was obliged to the most high and noblest piece of Service that consists in the religious worship and veneration of God And therefore when the Devil tempted him to fall down and worship him he saies Get thee behinde me Satan for it is Matt. 4. 10. written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve There is the Duty And to the Samaritans he John 4 22. said Ye worship what ye know not but we worship what we know for salvation is of the Jewes There is the Fact and accomplishment § 21. Now there are two more principal Acts of Religion to which the rest may be reduced Sacrifice and Prayer Not to speak of the first because it concerns us not at present Prayer may be taken either more generally as it is according to Damascene | Damascen l. 3. Orthod fidei c. 24. in principio Ascensus intellectus in Deum for any inward Act of the mind whereby the Soul is elevated and mounts up to God by contemplation meditation devotion and the like or else more specially and properly as it is according to * Aquin. 2. 2. q. 83. art 1 2. 3. p q. 21. art 1. in corp Aquinas Explicatio propriae voluntatis apud Deum ut eam impleat †Oratio non
so as man now in the state of a Viator and Candidate of immortality as Tertullian phrases it he should procure a supply of them by Prayer and not without And this to testifie in that nature his submission and obedience and dependence upon God his Piety and Patience and holy Love and Charity and to leave us his own great example in these so holy Christian graces As then there was an oportet and a necessity lay upon him first to suffer and then to enter into his Glory because God and so foreordained and manifested this his decree by the Prophets that he should thus open the way for us and leâ—â—â— us himself into his glory so necessary it was that he should poure out the desires of his Soul in Prayer because God had ordained that his Prayers should be the means to accomplish his desires And therefore though he foreknew they should certainly come to pass yet notwithstanding he prayed because he also foreknew that his Prayers were to be the necessary means to effect them As therefore we read in the second Psalm that God saies unto his Son Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for thine Psal 2. 8. inheritance and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession Joh. 17. 1 2. so we read in Saint John that our Saviour prayeth for that which God did promise in the Psalm Father saies he the hour is come glorifie thy Son that thy Son may also glorifie thee As thou hast given him power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him And the event has declared that God has made good his promise and answered his Sons prayers For we see he has his dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth And bless God we do Psal 72. 8. that we are a part of it No defect then was there in his Person as if he of himself were not able to supply whatsoever his humane nature should need and therefore must procure them by Vide Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 45. sect 1. per totum Prayer but only that God for congruous reasons respecting his own glory and our advantage was only pleased he should so procure them as †Non defuit Deo alius modus possibilis redimendi genus humanum sed nullus fuit hoc convenientior Vide Augustin de Trin. l. 13. cap. 10. Davenant Exposit in Col. c. 1. ver 20. p. 104. dye he did for our Redemption not for want of other sufficient means to procure our salvation but that God for great reasons which the Fathers and the * Vide Durand l. 3. Sent. dist 17. q. 2. p. 185. B. Schoolmen have observed had so decreed Christ then as Christ had no need of Prayer because by reason of the dignity of his Person he was able to perform whatsoever he pleased without it And even in his Humane Nature de facto he had a power of working miracles by his word and command without any necessity of Prayer But then though simply and absolutely speaking Christ had no necessity of Prayer yet ex hypothesi and in sensu composito as they speak and upon supposal of Gods decree he could not do many things as Man but by Prayer § 30. Since then God had so decreed because Christ as man in the state of a Viator was not only capable but it was well beseeming him to pray the Scriptures give us frequent instances of his Prayer in all the several kinds of it both for himself and others § 31. But then it is to be understood with this difference as Vide Durand l. 3. Sent. dist 17. q. 2. art 1. p. 185. A. Durand has well observed For himself he prayed for corporal Blessings only or the removal of corporal Evils but when he prayed for others he as well petitioned for spiritual as corporal Blessings and the removal of temporal and spiritual Judgments and Afflictions For prayer being only for the supply of some want since he himself could not be defective in any spiritual blessing in whom the fulnesse of habitual grace and the fulnesse of the Godhead did constantly dwell that as Comprehensor in the noblest part of his Soul enjoyed the fight of God and the fulnesse of heaven happinesse there was no reason he should pray for what he did not could not want As therefore in the inferior faculties of the Soul he was subject to Passions and Infirmities and was of a body frail and passible and mortal so for that only he prayed But then other men for whom he prayed being as well defective in spirituals as temporals he indifferently prayed for both in their behalf § 32. To make this evident from the Scriptures First then give thanks he does to God his Father for the raysing dead Lazarus at his intercession and groaning in the Spirit Joh. 11. 41. And praise God he does that he had hid the doctrines he preached from the wise and learned and revealed them to babes Mat. 11. 25. Pray he does for St. Peter that his Faith fail not Luke 22 31 32. And pray he does for his Apostles and the Church that God would keep them from the evil of the world and that his joy might be fulfilled in them and that they might be sanctified through the truth Joh. 17. 15 16. Pray he does for his own most glorious exaltation and the enlargement of his kingdom Joh. 17. 1 2. And he looks up to heaven and he blesses the Fishes and the loaves that he brake for a temporary repast Mark 6 41. So also at his last supper when he took bread he gave thanks Luke 22. 19. On the Crosse he prayes for his crucifyers Luke 23. 34. And in his bloody Agony in the garden he prayes for a removal of the bitter cup of his sufferings and death Luke 22. 42. And of this strong crying and tears the Apostle takes notice Heb. 5. 7. § 33. And hitherto all is clear and plain But now we are fallen upon a difficulty indeed For it is not easily understood how Christ should so earnestly pray for a removal of that Cup which he came on purpose to drink off For had he a promise to be heard in this particular also If he had since God is faithfull in his promises why was it not then performed And if he had not why then does he pray where he had no assurance of the grant of his request shall I say or rather where he was assured it must be denyed Or shall we say that God decreed that he should pray for a removal of that cup which he had also preordained should be drank off notwithstanding § 34 This difficulty is very largely solidly handled by the most incomparably judicious Hooker which might justly supersede Hookers Eccl. Pol. l. 5. §. 48. Plin. Nat. hist l. 35. c. 10. mihi pag. 343. all after
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
and blood as precisely and by its self considered without relation to the end which God had appointed which Sense could not judge of § 54. And now if it here be said that these two Acts of the will volo nollem I will and I would not though they are not properly and simply contrary yet as they both respect the same material Object they are in some regard opposite and one may in part hinder and retard the motion of the other and therefore there may be some kind of reluctancy some kind of unwilling willingness in Christ and the Acts of his will § 55. To this I answer that though it may be and ordinarily it is to in all other men yet it was not so in Christ For those Acts of the Will are then only in this respect opposite and trasâ—â—ng one another when one of them proceeds as Suarez expresses it praeter rationem deliberationem voluntatis â—ut when the inefficacious Act and desire of Nature is ab ipsamet voluntate praeordinatus deliberatus is foreseen and preordained and still guided by the deliberation and counsel of the Rational Appetite it cannot at all hinder or retard in the least the rational desires of the Will because they proceed and spring up in Nature only by its good will and deliberate consent § 56 And therefore thirdly since there is found no contrariety and opposition between the natural and sensual and rational desires of Christs humane will and all are conformable to his divine will and since all were most just and honest in themselves and the issues of Nature and Reason and Grace which are the works of God no wonder it is that now God should preordain that all these should work according to their proper Motions and inclinations since hereby God is glorified and the truth of Christs humane Nature declared and his Patience and Meekness and Courage and Mercy and Piety and Love both to God and man so highly magnified § 57. And then fourthly Christ might as innocently express these natural desires in Prayer to God and petition for a removal of them so far forth as they were burdensome and dreadful to Nature with submission to Gods will and a resolution patiently and freely to submit to what God has otherwise resolved Vide Hookers Eccl. Pol. l. 5. §. 48. pag. 283 284. and appointed For what I may lawfully desire that I may as lawfully pray for with submission to Gods will so far and according to the respects as I may desire it As then these inclinations of Sense dreading death were the issues of nature so Reason might be the †Christus oravit secundum sensualitatem in quantum sci Oratio ejus exprimebat sensualitatis affectum tanquam sensualitatis advocata c. Aquin. 3. part q. 21. art 2 in corp Vide Cajetan ibid. in Comment ad art 3. Oratio potest esse alicujus dupliciter uno modo sicut proponentis alio modo sicut ejus pro quo proponitur Primo modo Oratio non potest esse nisi rationis nullo modo sensualitatis quia oratio proponitur Deo Illius est ergo orare ut proponentis orationem cujus est in Deum tendere istud autem non est sensualitatis quae non transcendit sensibilia sed rationis Secundo modo potest esse oratio seusualitatis tanquam ejus pro quo proponitur sic oravit Christus quando petivit calicem passionis hujus à se transferri Durand l 3. Sent. d. 17. q 2. B. Advocate of Sense and express these desires in a Prayer for the removal of them so long as Reason still so rules and governs Sense that it patiently submits to Gods pleasure and desires it only with condition that God so sees fit And this we find to have been the condition of our Saviours Prayer First the Condition is expressed and then the Will is resigned to Gods ordering and pleasure and finally resolved and shut up in that Father if it be possible let this Cup pass from me yet not my will but thine be done § 58. The only * Sed hinc quaeritur cum ratio sciret sensualitatem non exaudiendam quomodo hanc proposuit petitionem Nich. d' Orbellis l. 3. Sent. dist 17. q 2. difficulty that remains is to consider with what propriety and congruity Christ might thus pray Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me when he knew it was not possible it should be removed because God had from all eternity decreed and absolutely resolved he should drink it when he himself had contracted and covenanted with his Father and came into the world for no other end § 59. To this I answer first that since Christ de facto did thus pray without doubt most congruous it was that he should so pray though we knew not the reason of it For plain it is that thus he prayed for a removall of this bitter Cup since all the Evangelists do punctually record it and S. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews does further confirm it and as plain it is that he himself did know that it was impossible the hour should be removed from him because he himself does so declare his knowledge even when he prayes for a removal of it Now is my soul troubled saies he Joh. 12. 27. and what shall I say Father save me from this * Vbi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnino mortis tempus denotat Grot. Annot. in Matt. 26. vers 39. hour but for this cause came I unto this hour Nor can it here be said that any thing either now or in his bloody Agony did †Cum autem verba haec Christi quae sequuntur uno nexu cohaereaÌ„t non est putandum quicquam illi velut impraemeditatum excidisse quod prius dixerat vere proprie per id quod posterius est emendari cum multo rectius dicatur uno codemque tempore Christum exprimere voluisse tum quid vellet tum quid velit c. H. Grot. Matt. 26. vers 39. Vide Luc. Brugens ibid. Hooker's Eccles Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 282. fall from him without due pondering and regard or that his present Griefs had distracted his Thoughts and troubled his Reason or disturbed his Memory so that he should need to correct and amend what he before had spoken amiss As this were unworthy the Saviour of the world so more truly we must say that Christ did at one and the same time express the desires of Nature and Grace of Sense and Reason both his absolute and effectual Will and Resolution and his inefficacious desires and the present necessities of Nature § 60. For Prayer as Mr. Hooker has most excellently well Hookers Eccl. Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 284. observed has other lawful uses then only to serve for a chosen mean whereby the Will resolveth to seek that which the Vnderstanding certainly knoweth or is perswaded it
nostrâ personâ nostroque reatu necesse habuit ad Dei tribunal se instar peccatoris sistere hinc horror ille pavor qui ad deprecandam mortem cum coegit non quia tam acerbum illi foret è vita migrare sed quia ante oculos erat Dei maledictio qua peccatoribus incumbit c. Calvin Comment in Psal â—2 vers 2 3. Vide Hug. de Sacrament lib. 2. par 1. c. 10. cited by Hooker l. 5. §. 48. pag. 283. What should now frail flesh and blood but tremble Could it chuse but stand amazed and cry for help If nature ever were astonished now it was in Christ If flesh and blood could ever tremble now it must If †Vide Calvins Institut lib. 2. cap. 16. § 11 12. ever Sense and Nature could have need of Reasons help to call for aid to him that alone could help this was the proper season For what say the Evangelists of it He began to be troubled in Soul saies Saint John c. 12. v. 27. to be in an Agony as Saint Luke c. 22. v. 44. to be sorrowful as S. Mat. c. 26. v. 37. to be sore amazed and very heavy as S Mark c. 14. v. 33. So that he saith to his Disciples my soul is exceeding sorrowful unto Death Here is trouble horrour and amazement and exceeding sorrow even unto death So great the Agony was so high was his astonishment that now in a Cold night in open air lying flat upon the ground he (a) Vide Suarez in 3. part Thom. q. 46. art 8. disp 34. sect 2. tom 2. pag. 406. sweat for very fear and not an ordinary common sweat but a sweat of blood and this not diaphoreticus a thin faint sweat tainted with the thinner and more serous part of the blood whereof Instances are given from (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist de histor animal l. 3. c. 19. p. 891. B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist lib. 3. de partibus Anim. cap. 5. p. 1156. F. Duas nimirum agnoscit causas Aristoteles unam sanguinis tenuitatem aquositatem alteram verò raritatem laxitatem cutis pororum apertionem quibus nonnulli tertiam addunt nimirum facultatum nutritioni inservientium debilitatem si scil retentrix debiliter contineat expultrix verò fortiter expellat Sennert Institut Medic. lib. 2. part 3. sect 2 c. 8. de causis Sanguinei Sudoris pag. 548. Cum sudor nihil aliud sit quam pars sanguinis aquosa quae in venis est cur quemadmodum omnibus pars illa per sudorem effluit non possit in paucissimis quibusdam qui raâ—issimo sint corpore subtiliorem sanguinem habeant sanguis ipse tenuior loco sudoris effluere quemadmodum videmus omnes subito correptos metu sudare ita Christum qui delicatissimae naturae erat non dicamus naturaliter apprehenso ignominiosissimo genere mortis sanguinem sudavisse Audio de his qui viderunt aut cognoverunt ante annos duos Luteriae Parisiorum hominem robustum bene valentem auditâ in se capitali sententiâ sudore sanguineo fuisse perfusum Maldonat in Comment ad Matt. 26. vers 36. fol. 620. C. D. Crudled drops A singular or at least very rare example in nature being the effect of an extream anguish Deodat in loc Vide Bezam Jansenium in loc Aristotle and others but grumosus a sweat of gross and clotted blood great drops of blood and those so many that they went through all his cloathes trickling down to the ground in great abundance So great so miraculously strange a sweat it was that some * Notandum Hilarium l. 10. de Trinitate D. Hieron l. 2. cont Pelag. indicare in plerisque Graecorum Latinorum Codicibus non inveniri neque de Angelo confortante neque de Sudore sanguineo verum haec erasa videntur à quibusdam qui verebantur Christo tribuere tam insignia humanae infirmitatis argumenta Jansenius in loc So also Beza Maldonate on the place Alii non delent verbum sed sensum extenuant quasi non revera sanguinem Christus sudârit sed Proverbiali formâ dictum sit sudâsse sanguinem i. e. vehementi timore correptum fuisse sicut vulgo de his dicere solemus qui valde anxii impediti sunt guttas eos sanguinis sudare Ita Euthymius Theophylactus explanant Mald. in loc Confer Janscn hic cum Theophylact. Euthymio H. Grotius agrees in his Notes on the place p. 816. good Expositors are willing rather to understand it by a Trope or a Proverb then according to truth and reality in the letter Howsoever plain it is that so great his grief astonishment and agony was that he had an Angel sent to comfort him How could Nature left alone and naked but stand amazed to enter these so bloody lists Well might he now take up Davids complaint and say De profundis Out of the depths have I cryed unto thee O Lord. Nothing now of comfort and protection was left the Godhead now restrained its comfortable influence and left the Manhood all naked to the encounter and nothing left him for relief but his Prayers Here here was a time for ardency and zeal and a most heightned devotion One Deep did now call upon another and for his encouragement in these his addresses to the throne of grace he had Gods own assurance Call upon me in the day of trouble and I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorifie me He had all the feares and burdens of nature and the astonishment of sense and the horror of frail flesh and blood alarming Reason to be their faithful advocate in Prayer And therefore to deny a heightning of his ardor proportionable to his fears is to make him insensible of his present burden and to phansy Nature not to be desirous of relief But the Evangelist has assured us that as reason tells us this was a proper season for the growth of Christs ardency in Prayer so it was actually heightned and being in an Agony he prayed more earnestly then at other times he did when he had not such occasion His prayers being now the interpreters of Natures burden they must of necessity be heightned in fervor according to the height of the present distress And therefore the Apostle tells us that in the daies of his flesh when he was now encompassed with all the miseries and frailties of nature he offered up Prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to help him These strong cries and tears (a) Coegit haec absurditas multos interpretes ad cap. tandum effugium Itaque dixerunt Christum potius ex vulgi opinione quam proprio sensu ita conquestum esse sed interea non viderunt se multum detrabere ex beneficio redemptionis dum Christum à terroribus quos peccatoribus incutit Dei Judicium prorsus immunem fuisse fingunt Inanis
of Grace to find help in time of need Our Saviour in this has left us an example and he has further given us instruction that though nature teaches without any other Tutor that we now especially should multiply our Prayers and heighten our ardour and fervency yet from his great example and Precept and instruction we should also learn still to close up our most ardent most heightned devotions with a submission to Gods will though in such an Agony as this of our blessed Saviour we may pray the more earnestly for the removall of this bitter cup yet still when we cry out Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me we must add with him yet not mine but thy will be done And this is the entire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Perfect clear demonstration of all that the Doctor undertook in Reference either to M. C. or this Refuter And I wonder how he should not see it and if he did see it why he so should cavill at it § 7. We go on then with our Refuter JEANES I suppose the antecedent to the relative is in these words May it not be a season for that pious mans ardency to receive some growth for his zeal to be emulous of those waves and poure it self out more profusely at such then at a calmer season And then there be two things that you affirm that I deny not of the Person of Christ 1. That a tempestuous time a time of affliction was a season for Christs ardency to receive some growth 2. That 't was a season for his zeal to poure it self out more profusely at such then at a calmer season As for the first sentence a time of affliction was a season for Christs ardency to receive some growth if by Ardency you understand the ardency of his Love of God I deny that it did receive any growth for to ascribe growth unto it is to charge it with imperfection Charitas quamdiu c. § 8. I wonder Sir that after so long a dispute with the Doctor you should yet be to seek of his meaning Review the whole section and tell me whether the Doctor has not fully cleared his intention The Ardency he speaks of is the Ardency and fervour of Prayer which he sayes in this so proper season as now our Saviours bloody Agony did receive some heightning and growth And this he affirms from the Authority of Saint Luke This is the utmost he ever undertook to demonstrate from the first to the last of this discourse and his very title-Page will make it good And therefore here Sir you oppose not the Doctors position but another of your own framing For though Ardency in Prayer be an act of Piety and devotion and consequently of Charity and the Love of God as that is commonly taken in scripture because by a Metonymy it is an effect and fruit of our Love of God yet the Love of God properly and formally taken for that transcendent Love that is immediately fixed on God is formally and really distinct and clean another thing from Ardency in Prayer as properly and formally taken Of the last and such like Acts of Charity as these the Doctor speaks of of the former onely our Refuter And therefore though it were granted that the Acts of this Love as properly taken were not could not be gradually augmented yet this notwithstanding Christs Ardency in Prayer might upon a just occasion be heightned The opposition here as it is plain is not ad idem § 9. But then I deny that to ascribe growth or rather graduall heightning and increase even to the Acts of this love in respect of his state of viator will argue any imperfection in this love as respecting this state or derogate any thing from the Perfection of his habituall fullness of Grace as has most evidently been already demonstrated and I shall further instantly confirm from our Refuters own assertions § 10. But though he has very little reason on his side yet at last he has met with great Authority the Authority of S. Austin JEANES For to ascribe growth unto it Christ Love is to charge it with imperfection Charitas quamdiu augeri potest saith Austin profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est § 11. The words I acknowledge to be Saint Austins but I observe they be diversly quoted by learned men Chamier Chamier tom 3. lib 11. c. 14. §. 1. Davenant de Justit habit Act. c. 17. p. 286. et c. 24. p 327. Master Cawdreys triplex Diatr p. 110. and Bishop Davenant both cite it from the 29. Epistle of Saint Austin and rightly as we shall see anon But M. Cawdrey he quotes it from the 62. Epistle of S. Jerome But there it is not and I believe not in any part of that volume that contains the genuine Epistles of that Father And therefore I conceive that he might possibly take the place upon Trust unless he followed some more antient edition For I find in Marianus victor's censure of the ninth Tome among S. Jeromes works that all those pieces there digested which were formerly ascribed to S. Jerome were put heretofore in the fourth volume of his works and read in another Order then now they are Doctor Hammond in his Account to the triplex Ham. Account c. 6. Sect. 8. §. 33 34. Diatribe he quotes it from the ninth Tome of S. Jerome page 159. and rightly as to the place for in my Colen Edition of 1616. I find it in that page 159. col 2. G. § 12. But then I must withall acknowledge a mistake of the learned Doctors For the place is not in Jeromes Epistle to S. Augustine as he supposes and sayes all along § 13. For first this appears by the Inscription of the Epistle Hieron Tom. 9. epist 44. p. 157. edit Colon as it lyes in the ninth Tome among S. Jeromes works For it is Augustinus Hieronymo de eo quod scriptum est Qui totam legem observaverit And the inscription of Augustinus Hieronymo is to be found in the top of every leaf all along that Epistle in that very edition Secondly it appears from the very beginning of that Epistle quod ad te scripsi honorande mihi in Christo frater Hieronyme quaerens de Animá humanâ c. Thirdly it is evident from the body of the Epistle For the Author twice quotes S. Jeromes treatises against Jovinian Quam eorum vanitatem in Joviniano illo qui hâc sententiâ Stoicus erat de Scripturis sanctis dilucidissimè convicisti ibid. 158. Col. 1. D. Nam tu quidem in eodem ipso opere splendide contra Jovinianum etiam hoc de Scripturis sanctis diligenter probasti ibid. p. 159. Col. 1. A. and highly commends them § 14. The truth is the Epistle is S. Austins and extant in the second Tome of his works his Epistles those which by Erasmus and all are censured and acknowledged
Charity here signifie not outward sensible expressions but morall duties Proved from Aquinas Cajetan Suarez His second Reason His Ignorance and Confusion in it Necessity Liberty of three kinds What. He denyes Christ to be the meritorious Cause of our Salvation He confounds Christ's naturall liberty of Will with the morall liberty of the Action Contradicts Scripture Christ how no more free to the outward Expression then the inward Act. How indifferent Actions determined Christ how free to the use of outward Expressions how not Proof from Suarez examined Grossely misunderstood What Suarez intends Defenders advise to the Refuter JEANES As for the second sentence that a Tempestuous time a time of Christs affliction was a season for his zeal to pour it self out more profusely then in a calmer season This is not I grant denyed by me if by this more profuse pouring out of his zeal you onely understand the outward expressions of his zeal but I cannot but extreamly wonder that you affirm this to be the utmost that you undertook to demonstrate to M. Cawdrey or to justifie now against me For first in your answer to M. Cawdrey c. § 1. SIr I must here declare to all the world that I am quite tyred with your Impertinencies What The Doctor so weak and shallow as to think zeal and the more profuse pouring it out at such a time to be nothing else but a louder Noise and a deeper sigh and perhaps a Groan Is this all the honour our Refuter will allow to this heightned Ardency of our Saviours Devotion Is this the encrease and all the Earnestness of it was this worth the recording by the Evangelist for our after-instruction No Sir the Doctor knows too too well the difference between true zeal and loud noise He knows this is a Fruit of the Spirit a Flame in the soul that mounts up to the throne of Grace a Flame that is quickned and made active and vigorous by the Wind and Storms of Affliction that blow upon it It is of the heightening these inward Acts of Piety and zeal and fervency in Prayer that the Doctor understands Saint Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the graduall Intention of these and the like Inward Acts the Doctor has not onely justified against M. Cawdrey but I also all along have demonstrated against you And therefore your following Reasons to prove a difference between the Inward Acts and the outward Expressions might have been spared and you lose time to no purpose in evidencing that which was never denyed and is so plain in it self that it needs no confirmation § 2. But let us hear Reason howsoever for now perhaps we shall find it at parting JEANES For first in your answer to M. Cawdrey you affirm by ††If it be not a fault in the Printer Master Jeanes is much mistaken for it should be by consequence if I understand Logick consequent that Christs Love of God was capable of further and higher degrees but Love is predicated of the outward expressions thereof onely analogically Analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas dicitur de urinâ Secondly In this your reply c. § 3. To the first I could wish Sir you had told us the Place for as yet I know not where to find it I remember indeed the Doctor asserts and makes good in his Treatise of will-worship that Christs Ardency in Prayer was heightened in his Agony and M. Cawdrey in his Triplex Diatribe acknowledges Cawdrey Triplex Diatribe p. 116. the Proof and sayes Christ was above the Law and did supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and so in the degree of affection in Prayer it self c. And as this is all the Ardency that the Doctor either directly or by consequence affirms of Christ so this of M. Cawdreys is the very distinct confession of all that the Doctor in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contends for And will you be so cruelly passionate to wound a Friend that you may strike him you count an Enemy because he tells you the truth If M. Cawdrey be Orthodox then surely Doctor Hammond is unjustly opposed and if the Doctors Tenet be erroneous then M. Cawdrey himself must fall under that use of Confutation that was first written in his Defence Either then Sir take in your bloody flagg of defiance that you hang out with such Terrour and Menace in your Title-Page or let the world plainly understand your new and exquisite Policy to confute by an Apology and though you name onely Doctor Hammond yet you also mean M. Cawdrey though as the world now goes you must seem to abet him Compare your Title-Page and this very passage together and see whether it fits best M. Cawdrey or the Doctor But not to intrude upon your secret thoughts and designs you plainly here manifest to the world that you have read the Doctors Account and Answer to the Triplex Diatribe And therefore I must proclaim you inexcusable as well for not understanding if not plainly perverting the Doctors sense so expresly there declared as for not taking notice at all of the Answers he made to many of your Objections before you undertook to Refute his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 4. And therefore what you add But love is predicated by the outward expressions thereof onely analogically Analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas dicitur de urinâ is nothing at all to this purpose § 5. For the Doctor confounds not the Outward Expressions with the Inward Acts but onely à posteriori concludes the heightening of the one by the multiplying and aggrandation and growth of the other As then the Philosopher collects and demonstrates the Cause by the Effect as the Mariner portends the greatness of the storm by the leaps and playing of the Porcpisce and other signs and observations as the Mathematician from the print of Hercules foot in the sand or snow did find out the true dimensions of his Body so S. Gregory has told us that probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis that the performance of the outward work is the true Index and Touchstone and proof of our Love And nature it self teaches us without any other Tutor to conclude the Inward Affection to be greatest where the Outward Expressions of Love are most eminent § 6. Though then Love as you say is predicated of the Outward Expressions thereof onely analogically analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas de urina yet since the Outward Expressions if true and genuine and not hypocriticall and counterfeit are the Fruits and signs of the Inward Affection we may then by the Graduall difference of them conclude the Rise or Abatement of that Love as the Physician judges of the health or sickness of his patient by his urine and other symptomes § 7. And therefore Sir if you will but grant me as you do the Doctor that a Tempestuous time a Time of Christs affliction was a season for his zeal to pour
proportionably intended aff p. 253 254 255 256. Whether the multiplication of the outward acts of prayer and a longer continuance in them and a repetition of the same words argue a greater ardency of inward affection and true devotion aff 257 c. Whether though the merit of every act of Christ were infinite in regard of his person yet it were finite in regard of the real physical value of the works themselves And consequently Whether one work of his might in this respect be more valuable and meritorious then another aff p. 270 c. 574 580. Whether the English Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed more earnestly be just and best aff 279 c. Whether the ardency of Christs inward devotion were heightned in his agony aff 283 c. 322 c. 328 c. 543 c. VVhether Christ in the state of his humiliation was both comprehensor and viator aff 292 346 347 c. 525. VVhether Christ being alwayes comprehensor upon earth were in a capacity to pray aff 293 c. VVhether Christ being still God as well as man it were convenient for him to pray And God had so decreed And Christ de facto did pray And for himself as well as others And with a difference aff p. 296 297 298 299 300. VVhether Christ in truth and reality and not in shew did pray for a Removal of that cup of his passion which he knew his Father had determined he should drink and when himself came into the world for that very purpose aff p 301 c. VVhether Christs agony and prayer for a removal of this bitter cup implyed any unwillingness in him to suffer or contrariety of desires in himself or repugnance to the will of God neg p. 306 c. VVhether Christ and consequently we from the authority of this great example might lawfully and rationally pray for a removal of that cup which God had absolutely decreed he should drink aff p. 315 316 317 318 319. Whether as the greatness of our Saviours agony in the garden exceeded all his former sufferings so his ardency in prayer for a removal of it were proportionably intended aff 322 c. 537 538. Whether affliction be a fit season for the heightning our devotion and more then ordinary fervour in prayer And God now calls for it And Christ by his own example has instructed us what to do in such cases aff 327 328 522 523 528 542 543 544 545. Whether the inward acts of Christs habituall grace were alwayes in termino and at the highest and belonged to him as comprehensor neg 3â—7 338. Whether Aquinas Capreolus Scotus assert that the inward acts of Christs habituall grace were all equally intense in gradual perfection neg 334 c. Whether Aquinas and Scotus assert the contrary and that which the Doctor maintains aff 342 343. Whether it were possible for Christ to merit and only as viator aff 348 349 525 526 527 626 627 628 And by what acts 365 366 367. Whether he that affirms that the inward acts of Christs love of God or holy charity were lesse intense at one time then another does deny Christ to be happy in his soul at those times neg 351 c. Whether he that affirms that the acts of Christs love or holy charity were more intense at one time then another does by consequence make him guilty of the breach of the first great law of love neg 361 c. Whether Christ as viator had the same abilities to love God as he had as comprehensor and the charity of the Saints on earth can possibly equal in perfection the charity of the Saints in heaven neg 369 c. Whether he that makes use of any Scripture exposition to be found in Bellarmine or other Popish writer is eo ipso guilty of a complyance with Papists neg 378 379 380. Whether D. Hammonds exposition of the first great commandment of love be the same with Bellarmines neg 386. Whether the Doctors exposition be agreeable to that of the Fathers and most learned of Protestants aff 400 401 402 c. How reasonable it is 433 434. Whether the state of Adam in innocence were a state of proficiency aff against M. Cawdrey 421 456 612. Whether the Saints and Angels in heaven all love God to the same indivisible degree neg 423 466. Whether the Saints and Angels in heaven differ in degrees of glory aff 423 424 425 466 467. Whether Christians are now bound sub periculo animae to that degree of innocence and prudence and perfection of Adam in paradise neg 425 426 429 430 446 447 605 606 607 608. Whether Christians are now bound by the first great law of love to all the degrees of love either in this life or the next so that whatsoever falls short of the utmost height is sinful as Chamier asserts neg 431 432 486 487. Or to as high a degree as is possible to the humane nature as the Refuter Neg. 433 445 446. Whether the first great law of love excludes all possibility of freewill-offerings neg 442 443 c. And consequently Whether there be certain acts of religion and degrees of piety to which no man by any particular law is obliged which yet when spontaneously and voluntarily performed are approved by God and accepted of him as freewill-offerings over and above what any law in particular requires as the Doctor maintains aff 383 442 c. 446 447. Whether this Doctrine of Gospel-freewill-offerings inferrs the Romish Doctrine of supererogation neg 448 c. And whether the Doctor has freed it from this charge aff 436 437. Whether the Doctor asserts lukewarmness in love neg How it differs from sincerity And whether Christianity be a state of proficiency and growth aff 438 c. 455 456. Whether God is to be loved above all things objective appretiativè intensivè And whether the Doctor approves all aff 442 443 444 496 c Whether the Christian is bound to aspire to and endeavour after the loving of God according to the perfection of the Saints in heaven aff 446 447 448 467 472. Whether the modus of virtue and charity falls under the precept neg 453 454. Whether charity may be increased in infinitum aff 458 468 469 502. Whether the creature may be obliged to love God as much as he is lovely neg 459. Whether we are bound to love God as much as we can in this life and infinitely and without measure aff 460 464 465 474 475 476 505 619. Whether the quality or grace of divine charity or holy love admits of an eight or any set highest degree to which all are bound to arrive at neg 467 468 469 470. Whether Aquinas maintains that the first great commandment of love requires of Christians by way of Duty that perfection of love that is onely attainable in heaven neg 485 c. Whether perfection of state according to Aquinas admits of uncommanded acts and