endeavours which supposes the Fall and Mans frail sinfull weak condition § 22. Now of keeping of the Law according to exact unsinning obedience a loving God to this perfect height a loving him according to the Abilities God gave and Adam forfeited and here irrecoverably lost it is that our Divines Bishop White against Fisher Ames against Bellarmine Bishop Davenant de Justitiâ Habituali Actuali Bishop Morton de merito Bishop Andrews in his Sermon of Justification Chamier against Bellarmine Hooker against Travers and Generally the Protestants in their discourses of Justification by works and Merit ex condigno supererogation and Fullfilling of the law and the states of Perfection speak when they say God must be thus Loved And the Romish doctrines in many Branches enforce it Of this it is Saint Paul speaks in his Epistles to the Romanes and Galathians when he disputes with the Jew that expected Justification without Faith Justification by their own works according to the tenor of that Part of Moses Law that exemplified the Condition of the first Covenant and affixed the Curse to every one that continued not in every thing that was written in the book of the law to do them And according to this Tenor this Condition of the law the Apostle demonstratively proves against the Jew from the law that no flesh living can be justified because that law expresly testifies that all men have sinned and fell short of the glory of God According to this Condition expressed in Moses law the Jew must acknowledge that if he expects to be Justified his righteousness must be so exact that he must not transgress in any least branch of any the least commandment If he does as his own Conscience and the law tels him plainly that he does he must of necessity acknowledge that by this law nor he nor any man else can be Justified much less supererogate and do more then that law requires And therefore of necessity he must acknowledge himself in a damnable state if he will stand to be Justified by that law and his own righteousness No hope there can be for him unless he look for another righteousness another Covenant a Righteousness without him and a Covenant of Faith This is it that the Apostle so demonstratively proves against the Jew and clearly evidences that as no man can be Justified by that first Covenant so Abraham the Father of the Faithfull and all that ever were Justified were Justified by faith in the Righteousness of the Messiah and the second Covenant made and confirmed in his blood § 23. And this is the Righteousness we preach the righteousness Rom. 10. 6 7 8. of Faith in Christs blood the Condition of which righteousness or Justification and acquitting us at Gods bar is Repentance from dead works and Faith in our Saviours blood the Mediator of the new Covenant and a sincere endeavour to keep all the Commandments of God that Christ has imposed upon us And this the Apostle also as demonstratively proves in his Epistles to the Romans Galathians and Hebrews to have been also contained in Moses law the Ceremoniall part whereof was but the type and shadow of Gospel-Promises and Blessings and Purity and holiness § 24. But then not this but the former Legall Perfection of Charity is the Love that Chamier speaks of in his dispute with Bellarmine when he sayes we must love God according to the Tenor and Prescript of this Law totis viribus Naturae non totis viribus corruptionis And of such a sinless Perfection of love it is also that Master Cawdrey speaks and Doctor Hammond denyes to be obligatory to the Christians Justification that is not cannot be Justified by the works of the law but is therefore by Gods Mercy and Christs Merit and Purchase under the Covenant of Grace And of a love according to this sinless height it is that our Refuter speaks and would make good against the Doctor But bate him his Argument called Petitio Principii and he has not proved it Nay I tell him and shall by and by make it good that it is impossible for him to prove it by any other demonstration then what the Philosopher in his Elench's calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 25. For it is one thing to say that the Law or Covenant of works that required unsinning obedience as the condition of Justification and righteousness by that Law requires us to love God to that height and another thing to say that the Christian is obliged so to love God to Justification For that infers that believers are yet under the law when they are not but under grace which is contrary to the Tenor of the Gospel and yet for all that it may be true as the Apostle demonstrates that the Covenant of works the Law as he calls it did require such obedience and therefore no man can be Justified by that covenant or Law but by such obedience and such a height of Love § 26. If then secondly Man be confidered in regard of those Abilities he has now in the Present state of Grace and under the Gospell dispensation I say that Man according to the Gospell obligation of this Law and the Tenor of the new covenant is bound to love God to the utmost of those Abilities of Grace and the assistance of Gods spirit that God gives and shall bestow upon him bound he is so to love God that he may go on more and more to love him so to make use of the present Talent of Grace that God according to his promise in the Gospell may give more Grace and more Abilities to love him For as the Gospell commands us to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and 2 Pet. 3. 18. 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7. that giving all diligence we should adde to our faith virtue and to virtue knowledge and to knowledge temperance and to temperance patience and to patience godliness and to godliness brotherly kindness and to brotherly kindness charity for if these things be in us and abound they make us that we shall neither be barren nor unfruitfull in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ So God has promised in the Gospell Mat. 13. 11. and 25. 29 Luk. 8. 18. and 19. 26. that whosoever hath and makes use and improves it that hath it not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in possession but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the use and exercise to him shall be given and he shall have more abundance And our Saviour expresly tells us Joh. 10. 10. that he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly And thus man by the Law as understood and expounded according to the tenor and gratious moderation of the Gospel covenant is bound to love God with all the strength he either has or shall have and thus as S. Bernard excellently modus amandi Deum est amare sine modo We can never love enough because our love alwayes
endeavours even of the most accomplished pen much more any slender performances of mine For it is with his writings as it was with Apelles Pictures Those that were finished by him and received his last hand are inimitable and the other he left unfinished are not possibly to be perfected there being none equal to himself but himself § 35. Howsoever because it is not easie to unfold the nature of that Ardency in our Saviours Prayer and how it might be heightned without it and because that learned man has there treated of this argument to a far different purpose I shall therefore again attempt it And in this very difficult Passage I shall carefully steer by that Chart and Compasse which that judicious hand has drawn taking in the Observations of the School-men to supply those defects which his Argument in that place did not engage him to treat of § 36. For answer then to this Difficulty most certain it is 1. That Christ did pray for a removal of that Cup which he tasted notwithstanding and consequently had not a promise that the Cup should be removed because it was not effected 2. Most certain it is that notwithstanding God had decreed that he should taste of this Cup yet he had also decreed that Vide Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disp 38. sect 4. p. 528. col 2. D. F. c. disp 37. sect 4. p. 518. col 2. Christ should pray against it otherwise it had been absolutely impossible that it should have come to pass 3. Most certain it is that as God had decreed he should suffer for our Redemption and therefore gave him up for us all so Christ also knew the Decree and had also voluntarily contracted with God his Father for the Performance of it And therefore when he cometh into the world for this purpose he saith Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me Heb. 10. 5 6 7 10. In burnt-offerings and sacrifice for sin thou had'st no pleasure Then said I Loe I come to do thy will O my God By the which will as the Apostle addes we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all And this he perfectly knew in all the minute circumstances not only as God that had decreed them and a Person that was a Party in the Covenant but also as Man For being Comprehensor in his Soul * Vide Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 26. sect 1 2 3 c. by virtue of the hypostatical union he saw all things clearly in verbo and the glass of the divine nature as they call it in the Schools and moreover as Viator he had also †Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 25. sect 3. Joh. 18. 4. an Infused Habit of knowledge whereby he perfectly knew all things at least that concerned himself in the whole course of his Ministration during his abode here on earth And therefore the Scriptures expresly tell us that he knew all things that should come upon him and accordingly we find that he foretold his Death the time the persons the Actors and the manner and the place and every minute circumstance of it Nor can it be said that his sufferings had so clouded and darkned his understanding that for the present he forgot it since none of the Evangelists in recounting his unspeakable and unknown Torments as the Greeks call them in their Liturgie mention any such defect and impossible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was he should forget the peremptory determination of his Father and his own unchangeable purpose most willingly to undergo it Besides his pronouncing the Consummatum est upon the Cross when the whole Scene of his sufferings in all the parts and circumstances of it was now finished shews that not any thing was forgotten by him even in the very height of his sufferings And therefore we find in S. John c. 12. v. 23 24 c him answering and saying to his Disciples in a publick audience The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified Verily verily I say unto you except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and dye it abideth alone but if it dye it bringeth forth much fruit He that loveth his life shall loose it and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal If any man serve me let him follow me where I am there also shall my servant be If any man serve me him will my Father honour Now is my Soul troubled and what shall I say Father save me from this hour but for this cause came I unto this hour Father glorifie thy name And he addes vers 31. Now is the Judgement of this world now shall the Prince of this world be cast out And I if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto me This he said as the Apostle adds signifying what death he should dye § 38. For the resolving this doubt and reconciling the seeming Vide Aquin. 3. part q. 18. art 1. Suarez in Commentar ibid. disp 37. sect 1. Estium l. 3. Sent. dist 17. §. 1. alios ibi Contradictions know we must as Christ was God man so two wills he had answerable to his two natures though his person were but one And both these his divine and humane will were as distinct as his two Natures For the Will whether of God or of Man belongs to the Essence or nature of both and consequently is not a Personal propriety but a Natural attribute and Emanation § 39. Christ then as God must of necessity will the same whatsoever his Father did because though the Persons in the Trinity be distinct yet the Nature is the same and the divine will but one in all the three Persons And then as for his humane will all the works and operations of that were still subject to the will of God and still most exactly conformable to his holy laws and precepts and secret decrees And therefore he saith John 4. 34. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work In the volume of the book it is written of me I delight to do thy will O my God yea thy law is within my heart Psal 40 7 8. § 40. But now as every man else so the Schools also observe Vid. Aquin. 3. part q. 18. art 6. 1. part q. 41. art 2. q. 79. art 9. 1. 2. q. 74. art 7. Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 38. sect 2. Estium l. 3. Sent. d. 17. §. 2. and the Schoolmen generally on this distinction and those other places in the Summes Vide etiam Aristot l. 3. Eth. c. 2 ubi spontaneum seu voluntarium ad plura extendi docet quam Electionem Est enim inquit cum pueru animalibus caeteris nobis commune Adhuc tertio dicitur voluntas naturalis ut
acknowledged it is by the Doctor in this very Paragraph from whence the Refuter draws his Charge that he acknowledges the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured as prejudicial to Christs fulness that I cannot but wonder at the strange boldness of the man that though he saies he would assume that liberty yet for all that he durst lay that to the Doctors charge which he had so clearly so expresly so frequently disclaimed But my wonder must cease when I consider that from a Country-Lecturer he is arrived to be a writer of Scholastical and practical Divinity since he has attained to the Philosophers stone in Theologie and as himself in effect tells us in this Pamphlet he has all the Schoolemen at his fingers end nay just as many no more nor no less then are in Paul's Church-yard the Library at Oxford he may now conclude quidlibet ex quolibet and by his Almighty tincture make an Ingot of a Brass Andiron § 32. And therefore Sir I must again renew my request and desire you in good earnest to tell us where the Doctor does say that Christ's Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before I would you had as carefully observed as you profess you shall readily hearken to the Doctors seasonable Advertisement that he which undertakes to refute any saying of anothers must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable I have carefully read over the whole Section and do not find the very word before in it And yet let me tell you Sir that this word before is the only serviceable word that in probability might seem to infer that Conclusion which you lay to the Doctors charge For he that saies that Christs Love was more intense in his Agony then before does seem to imply that his Love did receive addition and growth in his Agony But this the Doctor saies not nay he frequently and clearly even in this Section disclaimes it This is only your addition and a second misadventure in your proceedings You had formerly added the word further to the Doctors expression and now you will again assume the liberty to adde another word before to it that must conclude the Doctor to mean and speak what he never thought or intended Sir you are a bold man indeed But this is only to cudgel a Jack-of-Lent of your own making And if you make a quarrel and destroy the shadow of the Lion which your self have cast how can you chuse Sir but deserve the Laurel and be cried up for a Conqueror § 33. But perhaps now he is called upon for it so earnestly he will prove his Assumption also by Consequence for he is an excellent Sequele-man thus Whosoever asserts that Christs Love of God was more intense at one time then another viz. in his Agony more intense then in his suffering hunger for us does by consequence assert that Christ's Love of God was more intense in his Agony then it was before But the Doctor asserts the Antecedent Ergo. § 34. Hold you there Sir your Major I deny and there is no connexion and consequence at all in it For though he that saies Christ's Love was more intense in his Agony then it was at another time in another Act suppose of suffering hunger for us acknowledges a gradual difference in respect of the intension of these two several Acts yet he does not acknowledge a gradual heightning or encrease of any one of them For it is not with the intension of these Acts and Qualities that are the issues of the Will as it is with those that are the fruits and effects of Natural Agents The Will here being a free and voluntary Agent may and does (a) Voluntas nostra subitò prorumpere potest in ferventem intensum actum amoris c. Suarez tom 2 Metaph. disp 46. sect 3. §. 15. Si agens sit liberum potest pro sua libertate applicare vim suam ad magis vel minus agendum Suarez ibid. sect 4. §. 14. act how and when it pleases It may instantly produce the most fervent as well as it does a less intense Act or it may heighten the gradual Perfection of the Act by degrees and successively But then (b) Vid. Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 46. sect 3. Natural Agents by reason of the distance of the Agent from the Passum or the resistance of some contrary Quality to be expelled or the weakness of their own virtue must of necessity intend the Quality successively and the higher degree cannot be produced before the lower have been first attained And therefore though one of these Acts in comparison of another is more intense yet neither of them is therefore said to be formally heightned and intended because being the free issues of the Will they might be produced severally in the same indivisible degree of height wherein they after continued and consequently here is no asserting that Christs Love in his Agony was more intended as that signifies a gradual heightning of the same numerical form or Quality then it was before Adde to this that he who saies that Christs Love was more intense in his Agony then in his suffering hunger for us does not by Consequence assert that his Love was now more intense then it was before but only compare two Acts together and notwithstanding this comparison he may yet further assert that Christs Love of God was more intense before his Agony then in it though in his Agony it was more intense then in his suffering hunger for us to wit in that Act of his Love which was immediately terminated in God himself and in which Act of Divine Love all the rest were radicated and planted And indeed of necessity it must be so supposed For though he loved us men and for our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate and made Man and lived and dyed for us yet every step and degree of this Love every one single Act wholly issued from this high transcendent Act of Divine Love the most superlative of all and still he loved us for Gods sake (a) Heb 10. 5 6 7 12. Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure Then said I Loe I come in the volume of the Book it is written of me to do thy will O God By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all And therefore he saies to his Disciples that were troubled when he foretold of his death Joh. 14. 31. But that the world may know that I love the Father as the Father gave me commandement even so I do Though then his Love of God in his Agony and Death was the highest Act of Charity to us men yet this as all the rest was rooted in that higher Act of Love to
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
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
Christ a fuller enjoyment of himself because of a larger measure of Grace then he ha's upon Angels For though the will of Angels be Naturally more perfect then the created Will of Christ yet by Grace it is capable to receive whatsoever is fit for it and God shall bestow upon it § 25. And is not our Refuter a very unsuccessful Man in all his Quotations How can this in any measure concern the present debate For does not here Scotus consider first what was possible for God to do or Christ to receive Does he not also here consider him in the state of Comprehensor and not of a Viator Is not the question moved concerning the possibility of Glory upon the supposal of an Habitual fulness of Grace and not at all of the Acts of Grace Does he not prove by the very words that our Refuter has quoted that since it was possible for Christ to have a fulness of Grace that therefore it was also possible for him to have a fulness of heaven-happiness and this because Glory is the necessary effect of Grace and Acts that necessarily flow and by way of emanation from their Forms and Causes must of necessity be equal in Perfection to the Forms from whence they issue If then our Refuter will say any thing to the purpose he must conclude that all the Inferiour Acts of Vertue and Grace in him did as Naturally flow from the Habits as Glory does from Grace and that Christ had no more proper Freedom to them then he had or has now to the Sight and enjoyment of God which Position as it expresly destroyes the Foundation of his Merit and the Redemption of the world by his death so it is expresly contrary to the Scriptures and all the Fathers and Schoolmen and Orthodox Divines in the world for ought I could ever learn § 26. And thus having shewed the absolute impertinency of his Testimonies to the matter in hand I come to prove that both Thomas and Scotus maintain that very Proposition which he would confute in Dr. Hammond by the Testimonies of Aquinas and Scotus § 27. I shall not trouble the Reader with what I have already observed to this purpose from Aquinas The Passage I insist on is taken from Lib. 3. Sent. d. 29. q. 1. Art 2. The question is Vtrum ordo Charitatis sit attendendus secundum affectum vel secundum effectum It is affirmed against this when it was objected thus 2. Actus mensuratur secundum rationem Objecti sed quamvis plura sint quae ex charitate diliguntur tamen in omnibus est una ratio dilectionis sc divina bonitas quae est Objectum charitatis Ergo ad omnia quae ex charitate diliguntur aequalis affectio est The Conclusion is the very same with our Refuters who affirms that the Inward Acts of Christs Love were all equal though the Outward Acts were not that his Love was the same quoad affectum but not quoad effectum To this the answer is Dicendum quod quamvis sit eadem ratio communis diligendi in omnibus tamen illa ratio non aequaliter participatur in singulis ideo nec aequalis affectio eis debetur So again Art 3. of that question in his answer ad Quintum he saies Quod Deus ubique aequaliter diligitur tamen divinum bonum in isto esse non est tantum amabile sicut ipsum esse in Deo quia non aequè perfectè in omnibus est The sum of all those determinations in short is this That though the Habit of Divine Charity respecting God and our Neighbours be one and the same yet because of the different Participation of the divine goodness the formal Object of Charity which is infinitely perfect in God and but unequally communicated to the creature there must of necessity be a gradual difference in the Acts of divine Charity because every thing must be beloved according to the order of the divine goodness shining in it § 28. The place in Scotus which for the present I insist on is taken out of the 3. book of the Sentences dist 14. q. 3. The question is Vtrum anima Christi noverit omnia in genere proprio Now whereas to this it had been objected First Luc. 2. Jesus proficiebat aetate sapientia coram Deo hominibus Secondly Heb. 5. Didicit ex his quae passus est obedientiam Thirdly Fuit Viator igitur habuit cognitionem competentem Viatori § 29. To these he thus answers in order Patet ad primum per hoc quod Textus Evangelii non est exponendus ut tantum proficiehat secundum apparentiam quia secundum Augustinum 83. quaest q. 9. contra Apollinaristas Evangelistae narrant historias ideo verba eorum vera sunt ut exprimuntur non sic à aliis sermonibus tropic is scripturae sacrae Et hoc etiam declarat authoritas Ambrosii Apostoli ad Hebraeos quia vere in eo aliquis sensus profecit non quod aliquorum cognitionem abstractivam habitualem acquisivit sed intuitivam tam actualem quam habitualem And then to the third he answers quod illa cognitio quae est ex multis Actibus experientiis quoad cognitionem intuitivam semper est necessitatis quoad hoc competebat Christo quia fuit nobiscum Viator Scotus tom 2. lib. 3. sent dist 14. q. 3. § 8. p. 102. ex edit H. Cavelli § 30. The summe is that S. Luke is to be understood literally and that Christ did truly and not in outward appearance only grow and increase in the Perfection of Actual Knowledge and Grace and that this must agree to him as Viator But there is another passage in the same Author in due time to be cited where he proves that the Act of loving God as Viator cannot be so perfect as it is and must be in him as Comprehensor though the Habit of them both be one and the same It is lib. 3. sent dist 31. q. 1. § 9. p. 213. And so I come to our Refuters second Argument SECT 19. The Refuters second Argument Christ on Earth Comprehensor true but Viator also Proved from Scripture Aquinas Scotus in the places referred to by the Refuter From Suarez also None but the Socinians deny Christ to be thus Comprehensor His Beatisick Love as Comprehensor an uniform because necessary Act. Fruitless here to enquire wherein the essence of Happiness consists according to the Thomists or Scotists It follows not because Christs Love as Viator was more intense at one Time in some Acts then at another in other Acts that therefore his Happiness as Comprehensor was at that time diminished Proved The Doctor never denies the Fulness of Christs happiness as Comprehensor The Refuter's grave Propositio malè sonans His Argument a Fallacy à dicto secundum quid Christ's twofold state Though the infused Habit of Grace in him alwaies full yet not so the Acts. The Reason Mr.
This most intense Love of God is due unto God by an obligation of gratitude for hereby as Doctor Francis White against Fisher out of Bernard we are indebted and owe to the Almighty omne quod sumus omne quod possumus whatsoever we are and whatsoever we are able to do § 2. To this I answer First that this is not the Conclusion that he undertook to make good For he promised to evince by these following Reasons That this commandment enjoyneth a love of God with as high a degree as is possible unto the humane Nature which this Proof no way reaches For it is one thing to love God with our utmost forces and endeavours and as much as we can and another thing to love him with as high a degree as is possible to the humane nature The former may be and is obligatory to the Christian though this latter is not § 3. Secondly I therefore answer That all is granted that this Argument contends for § 4. Obliged we are not onely by an obligation of congruence and gratitude but also by many other obligations not here named to love God with a most intense love with the utmost of our forces and endeavours The Doctor grants and expresly proves it by the Testimony of the son of Syrach Ecclus. 43. 30. When you glorifie God the Lord exalt him as much as you can and when you exalt him put forth all your strength for you can never go far enough i. e. sayes the Doctor how far soever you exceed the Particular command you are yet within the compass of the generall one of love he means and in respect of that can never be thought to have done enough though the Particular Act or the degree of it be somewhat that you are not particularly obliged to The words are full and high and to all the Argument pretends to § 5. Because God is infinite in perfection infinitely good and infinitely amiable we that are finite in our Natures and Operations can never love him enough and as much as he deserves and because all our sufficiency is from God Naturall gratitude if there were no other Rule and Law would oblige us to imploy all that strength and sufficiency in his service from whom alone all is derived And because when we have done all we can we should yet be short of loving him sufficiently and to the height of his worth and Perfection still labour we must that we may yet more and more love him and because this life is too short endeavour we may and must to be admitted into heaven where we may love him to the utmost height we can or shall ever attain and because we cannot love him infinitely as his goodness deserves we yet may love him eternally Ratio diligendi Deum est Deus ipse modus sine modo saies S. Bernard sweetly that never speaks otherwise The onely Reason and Motive to our Love of God must be his own Goodness and the onely Measure of this Love must be Love without Measure Because God is Infinite in Perfection our Love must also be Infinite not absolutely as God is but onely in a sort that befits our finite condition Our Love must be infinite Syncategorematicè as they speak in the Schools though Categorematicè it cannot That is though the word Infinite cannot be predicated of our Love in casu recto yet it may in casu obliquo though it cannot be Positively infinite yet Negatively it may and must though still it will be finite yet it must have no set no determinate bounds and limits Though our love cannot be infinite yet we must infinitely love him love him in infinitum and never think we can love him sufficiently and unto the utmost height beyond which we neither can nor need to go Our work and labour of love must be like to the Arithmeticians Operation in Progressive Multiplication The further he goes on in his work the more is the Product and the greater still his Task And if this will content our Refuter he has mine and the Doctors free grant and I hope in this we shall be friends § 6. Nay if it were of any concernment I undertake that Vid. Bellar. de aetern Foelicit l. 3. c 8. de Gemit Columb l. 2. c. 3. c. 10. Fran. de Sales of the love of God l. 3. c. 1. l. 10. c. 1 2 3 4 5 6. alibi passim Jo. Euseb Nierembergius de Adorat in Spiritu veritate l. 1. c. 9. l. 3. c. 6. l. 4. c. 4 5 9 10 12. alibi passim Bellarmine at least in his Meditations and Prayers will acknowledge it whatsoever he does or shall do in his Polemicks and if I find not this and much more then this in F. Sales of divine Love and Nierembergius the Jesuite in his book de Adoratione in Spiritu and all the rest I have seen that write Sermons and Commentaries I am very much mistaken and I shall not believe what I read with mine own eyes and think that in a waking dream I read mine own Protestant Phansies and not the writings of Jesuites and Papists But because magna est veritas praevalebit It is much for the honour and Justification of the Protestant Doctrine that even its adversaries and opposers in their modest sober thoughts in their more humble and mortified considerations do approve and acknowledge what we so eagerly contend for § 7. If our Refuter shall here reply that he has gained all he desires in this one concession and that then there can be no Nidabah no free will offerings no uncommanded degrees of Love § 8. I shall answere that I am very glad I have pleased him and hope he will think that I am no enemy to him but onely an opposer of Errours a Lover of Truth and a defender of its Advocates and Patrons whether Master Jeans or Doctor Hammond But then withall I must adde that there must and will be free-will offerings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be found in the Law of Moses which if he can reconcile with his Argument and Principles I doubt not but to reconcile this very argument to the Doctors Exposition and Concessions And indeed we have already done it or let our Refuter call in his School-abilities to help me For he I am sure as a Divine and Expositor of Scripture is bound to reconcile the seeming contradictions of that as well as the Doctor is bound to give an answer to all Objections that may or can be brought against his doctrine § 9. Indeed I am half perswaded that upon a serious review and more setled thoughts our Refuter himself will acknowledge that it is no very difficult Task For though it be granted that a most intense actuall Love of God is due unto God by an obligation of gratitude because hereby as Doctor Francis White against Fisher out of Bernard we are indebted and owe to the Almighty omne quod sumus
indifferent to the inward acts nay rather more then to the outward expressions of them otherwise he could not be the meritorious cause of our salvation § 68. If here he shall reply though this be true in respect of all other men yet the case is otherwise with Christ The reason here is peculiar unto him above all other men whilest he lived here on earth he enjoyed the beatificall vision and the naturall and necessary consequent thereof is a most intense actuall love of God I accept of his answer But then withall I must desire him to tell me how he can reconcile this position with the many Scriptures that so clearly assert the meritoriousness of our Saviours whole life and glorious example as well as of his death and passion For if Christ had onely a proper freedome of will and active indifferency to the outward expressions and not to the inward acts of virtue and charity but did perform them all ex necessitate by a necessity of his glorified state and condition and clear intuitive sight of God it was not possible he should merit by any of them as has already been observed § 69. If he understand his assertion in the second Notion of liberty for a morall indifferency of the action it self plain it is that Christ had no more morall freedome and indifferency to many if not to most of the outward expressions then to the inward Acts themselves For where the outward act and expression does aeque cadere sub praecepto and is aswell the object and matter of duty commanded as the inward act there both outward and inward act are equally necessary to be bone or omitted I desire him to tell me what greater liberty and indifferency there was to Christ in respect of the outward acts of all the negative precepts of the moral law more then to the inward acts what liberty and indifferency there was in respect of the outward acts of many of the affirmative precepts more then to the inward acts was he not aswell bound at least in most cases to the outward acts of adoration of honouring Gods name of reverence to parents and the like as he was to the inward acts But then what thinks he of all the Mosaicall rites and ceremoniall observances which clearly consisted in the exterior Act As he was born of Abrahams seed and under the law so was he not bound upon pain of excision to be circumcised the eight day And consequently being thus circumcised did he not become a debtor to the whole Mosaicall law ceremoniall and judiciall that consisted chiefly in the outward acts as well as to the morall and this upon condition of the curse annexed to the very least breach of the least tittle that was written in the book of Moses law was he not bound to the outward sanctification of the Sabboth the rites and ceremonies of the Passover and the like as well as all other persons circumcised Once more what thinks he of our Saviours obligation to the outward acts and exteriour expressions and performances of his prophetick office As the spirit of the Lord was upon him anointing him to preach the Gospel to the poor c. So an * Joh. 12. 49 50. cap. 18. ver 37. Luk. 2. 49. obligation from God his Father lay upon him to do it And Luk. 4. 18 21. therefore sayes he to his parents that found him in the Temple disputing with the Doctors and asking them questions How is it that ye sought me wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers business To conclude what thinks he of the death and passion of our Saviour was it not an high act of charity and love both to God his Father and us Men and yet plain it is that an absolute necessity lay upon our Saviour for performance of the outward act and manifestation of this love bound he was to suffer and to lay down his life for his sheep For ought not Christ to suffer these things and then to enter into Joh. 10. 49. Luk. 24. 26 27. Heb. 10. 5 6 7 8 9 10. his glory For what sayes he himself Sacrifice and burnt-offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me Then said I lo I come in the volume of the Book it is written of me to do thy will O God by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all And it is observable from Suarez even in this very question to which our Refuter here referrs that this Precept did directly and immediately first fall upon the outward act and expressions Quod maxime declarari potest in praecepto illo moriendo pro hominibus nam illud praeceptum directe cadit in actum ipsum exteriorem qui est objectum interioris actus voluntatis qui etiam consequenter praecipitur quatenus cum exteriori componit unum actum moralem liberum Suarez in 3 part tom 1. disp 37. sect 4. where the question is Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera p. 519. col 2. A. and immediately and by consequence onely on the interiour inasmuch as the outward is the object of the inward act of the will and together with it does compound and constitute one compleat morall action § 70. If here he shall reply that he spake not of the outward expressions that were matter of duty and under command but onely of those expressions of the inward acts that were left indifferent such as are the outward prostrations and gestures the words and other signs of the inward ardency in prayer though it is evident that his words indefinitely proposed must reach to all the outward acts and expressions of the inward acts of divine love that necessarily issued from the beatificall vision yet I shall for the present accept of this answer though nothing at all to the words and the purpose of this his second reason which he sayes is peculiar to Christ above all other men But then withall I must tell him that this grant and acceptation will do him no service § 71. For though it be true even in respect of the outward acts and expressions of the inward ardency and devotion in prayer that no law of God has interposed to determine and necessitate the outward act of devotion either quoad speciem or quoad exercitium either for kind or degree as that we should use this gesture suppose of standing kneeling or prostration c. this form of words these lifting up the eyes or hands to heaven and the like but has left us at liberty to use what we shall see fit in either kind whensoever we pray yet since the law of God and religious prudence requires that all things be done decently and in order in Gods worship it evidently follows that whatsoever outward gestures or words or signs or expressions he should make use of they were of necessity to
counsels but perfection life does not aff 491 492 493. Whether Scotus maintains that the first great law of love requires that perfection of Christians by way of duty that is onely attainable in heaven neg 496 c. Whether Durand maintains the same neg 504 c. Whether S. Austin and S. Bernard do assert the same neg 509 c. Whether the distinction of Quatenus indicat finem and quatenus praecipit medium were invented by Bellarmine to avoid the Refuters testimonies of Aquinas and Scotus 517 c. and whether it is agreeable to the sense of S. Austin aff 519. Whether the clear intuitive knowledge and happiness and necessary love of Christ as comprehensor had any influence on or altered the nature and freedome of the acts of his love and virtues and graces as viator neg 522 c 529 634 635 636 637. Whether Christ as comprehensor though he had alwayes sufficient cause to love God to the utmost height yet could have any more grounds and motives thus to love then he had occasions neg 530. 531. Whether as viator he might have occasions grounds and motives to heighten his love and ardency in prayer aff 532 533. Whether as viator he were capable of hope aff 535 536. Whether the love of desire and complacency immediately fixed on God were in Christ as viator capable of increase and de facto augmented aff 533 534 535 536 537 538. Whether it may be rightly inferred from this saying of S. Austin Charitas quam diu augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est that to ascribe growth to the ardency of Christs actuall love is to charge it with imperfection and sin neg 550. Whether the phrase ex vitio est be to be causally understood as denoting our originall corruption aff 558 c. What was S. Austins opinion concerning original sin and whether all born in it aff 560 c. 605 606 c. Whether the Refuter be very unjustly confident that besides this Replyer D. Hammond no learned man either Protestant or Papist hath ascribed any such growth to the actuall love of God And whether severall eminently Learned both Protestants and Papists have asserted it aff 570. c. How Christ might increase in actuall grace the habituall still continuing in one equal fullness 583 584 585. Whether the first Covenant since the fall of man were ever in force to justification or obligatory by way of duty to any but Christ neg 605 c. Whether God under the second Covenant requires sinless perfection to the justification of believers neg or onely faith and evangelicall righteousness aff 460 462 610 611 612. Whether from the more profuse pouring out of the outward expressions of devotion at the time of our Saviours agony may rightly be concluded the increase of his inward ardency aff 598 c. Whether Aquinas means by the exterior acts of charity moral duties and not outward sensible expressions aff 617 c. Whether the will of Christ had the same equall natural and proper freedome to the inward acts of love and the outward expressions of it aff 628 629. Whether Christ had more morall freedome and indifferency to many or most of the outward acts and sensible expressions then to the inward acts of charity neg 629 630 631. Or might indifferently use any outward gestures or actions or expressions in prayer then what pro hic nunc were prudentially decent and fit neg 632 c. Whether every act of piety and charity that is meritorious or remunerable is quoad exercitium and in individuo determined in respect of outward circumstances affirm 632. Whether Suarez asserts that the will of Christ had a naturall and proper freedome or active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward sensible expressions onely and not to the inward acts of the love of God or holy charity neg 633 c. Authors omitted in the Catalogue Petrus S. Joseph Suarez F. Errata Epist ded p. 4. l. 26. Raunandus Raynaudus Treatise p. 123. l. 21. love good 139 8. intrinseco extrinseco 167. 13. inward outward 377. 23. perfectly perfect 387. 24. aliud aliud nisi 393. 23. the form and that form of 415. 32. Deum ex parte De um amari ex parte 422. 6. de quibus praecepta de quibus dantur praecepta 562. 11. ut omnino non ut omnino 581. 24. as with out as we in all things without 640. l. 12. would call would you call Smaller literall escapes the Reader will amend and pardon THE END A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane London Books written by Doctor Hammond and Printed for Richard Royston and Richard Davis A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Hen. Hammond D. D. in fol. the second Edition enlarged 2. A Paraphrase Annotations upon the books of the Psalms briefly explaining the difficulties thereof by Hen. Hammond D. D. fol. new 3. The Practical Catechism with other English Treatises in two volumes in 4. 4. Dissertationes quatuor quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis Primaeva Antiquitate adstâ—uuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum in 4. 5. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries in 12. 6. Of Schism A defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists in 12. 7. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice in 12. 8. Paraenesis or a seasonable exhortation to all true sons of the Church of England in 12. 9. A Collection of several Replies and Vindications published of late most of them in defence of the Church of England now put together in four volumes Newly published in 4. 10. The Dispatcher Dispatch'd in Answer to a Roman Catholick Book intituled Schism Dispatch'd in 4. new 11. A Review of the Paraphrase and Annotations on all the Books of the New Testament with some additions alterations in 8. 12. Some profitable directions both for Priest and people in two Sermons in 8. new Books and Sermons written by J. Taylor D. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays of the year together with a discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity Sacrednesse and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ third Edition in fol. 3. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12. 4. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying in 12. 5. The Golden Grove or A Manuall of daily Prayers fitted to the daies of the week together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness in 12. 6. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance rescued from popular Errors in a large 8. newly published 7. A Collection of Polemical and Moral discourses in fol. newly reprinted 8. A Discourse of the Nature Offices and Measure of Friendship in 12. new 9. A Collection of Offices or forms of prayer fitted to the needs of all Christians taken out of the Scriptures and Ancient Liturgies of severall Churches especially the Greek together with the Psalter or Psalms of David after the Kings Translation in a large octavo newly published 10. Ductor Dubitantium or Cases of Conscience fol. in two vol. Now in the Press Books written by Mr. Tho. Pierce Rector of Brington THe Christians Rescue from the grand error of the heathen touching the fatal necessity of all events in 5. Books in 4. new The new Discoverer Discover'd by way of Answer to Mr. Baxter with a rejoynder to his Key for Catholicks and Disputations about Church government 4. new The Sinner Impleaded in his own Court whereunto is added the grand Characteristick whereby a Christian is to be known in 12. newly printed The Lifelesness of Life on the hither side of Immortality with a timely caveat against procrastination Books in Fol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae Anglicane Suspiria The Tears Sighs Complaints and Prayers of the Church of England setting forth her former Constitution compared with her present condition also the visible Causes and probable Cures of her Distempers by John Gauden D. D. of Bocken in Essex fol. new The Royalists defence printed at Oxon. 4. The Regall apology printed at Oxon. 4. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas by the Archbishop of Tuam 4. printed at Oxon The Image unbroken or a vindication of his Majesties Book entituled A Pourtraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his solitudes and sufferings in 4. by B. Bramhall in a reply to Milton Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae or the Works of that Great Monarch and Glorious Martyr King Charles the first 8. with a short view of his Life and Death Place this CATALOGUE at the end of the Book The End