effective or in plain English the issues and effects of Love yet the termes are not reciprocal and convertible For there are many effects of Love that are not sensible and thus external For instance good Wishes good Prayers are the effects of true Love so also are Joy at the wel-fare of the beloved Persons well doing and Sorrow and Grief at his miscarriage and yet they are not alwaies expressed nor does any prudent man alwaies shew his Joy or Grief or express his good wishes thoughts and desires to him he most tenderly affects The truth is Raynaudus speaks clear and plain to any man of understanding and with him Love effective is nothing else but the effect of the Affection of Love This an Imperate Act which is the Effect the other an Elicit Act the Cause This performed by any of the other Faculties and is purely a transient Act that an immanent Act of the Will wherein this Love affective is subjected His words as you cite them for I have not the Author by me are these Effectivum dicit ipsum illius amoris eliciti effectum translato quippe causae nomine ad effectum is dicitur amare effective qui non ostentat infertilem sterilem amorem sed cum se dat occasio erumpit in fructus dignos amoris Quam esse admodum impropriam amoris divisionem fatetur Gabriel quia amare propriè est in sola voluntate tanquam in subjecto ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur estque Actus transiens uno immanens Voluntatis § 21. And the truth of it is Love cannot as a Genus comprehend nor be equally praedicated of the Habit and the outward expressions of Love 1. Because this Love the Genus of the Habit is seated in the Will and not in any other Faculty wherein the outward expressions are subjected Now since (a) Vid. Keck Log. l. 1. c. 3. can 2 a. Generis perfecti p. 55. Ar. 4. Top. c. 1. tota natura generis continetur in qualibet specie (b) Vid. Burgersdic Log. Institut l. 1. c. 11. §. 15. if the Genus and Species be Accidents they must have both the same Subject Hence it is that Science is not cannot be the Genus of Moral Vertue quia Scientia est in intellectu Virtus in appetitu And therefore (c) Aristot l. 4. Top c. 3. mihi pag. 314. A. Aristotle tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2. I might adde if it were needful in a case so clear that the outward expressions of Love are either Actions or Passions or Patible Qualities but never any thing belonging to the first Species of Quality wherein the Love we now speak of is alwaies placed 3. That Love is an Elicit Act of the Will but the expressions of Love are alwaies Acts imperate 4. That Love is an immanent Act of the Will but the expressions of it are transient and performed by the other Faculties in obedience to the Dictates and Commands of the Will as Raynaudus has well observed § 22. Sed jam dic Posthume de tribus Capellis Martial What is all this Pro or Con to Doctor Hammond who never said any thing to give just occasion to this Digression of our Refuter Go we on then to the next SECT 8. The Refuters Tongue-combat He a man of Business The Pertinency of the Doctors first papers to explain the meaning of the latter Vnjustly censured for speaking cautelously The Refuters understanding the Doctor for a Critick and a Dunce Erasmus's fate the same with the Doctors Critick an honorable title The best Scholars Criticks and who The true Critick an universal Scholar Sextus Empiricus and Crates character of a Critick Quintilianus character of the true Grammarian Aristotle the first Author of Criticisme and Grammar Necessary to compleat the Divine The best way to advance Learning to unite Criticisme and School-learning Pitty the Refuter had not been a Critick His mistake of the word Salvo what it signifies The method of the Schooles in Polemical discourses observed by the Doctor The Refuter saying and unsaying Doctor HAMMOND § 1. ONly I guess not what Temptation he had to chuse that expression which he there makes use of viz. That there Doctor Hammond minceth the matter and speaketh more cautelously adding that what he there saies is nothing to the matter now in hand Whereas 1. those of Will-worship being the First Papers written on that Subject are sure very pertinent to ascertain him of the meaning of the latter written in defence of them JEANES THat your first Papers written on this Subject are very impertinent to ascertain me of the meaning of your latter is easily discernable unto any man that will compare both together however I shall offer to your consideration two reasons to prove the impertinency of them for that purpose 1. In your first papers you speak only of the Expressions of Love i. e. as you interpret your self the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love in your latter Papers you speak of Love it self Now the outward expressions of love are termed love only extrinsecè denominativè participativè from the inward act of Love as some say the imperate acts of the Will are said to be in this sense only free or voluntary 2ly That your first Papers are very short in explaining the meaning of your latter is apparent by this your Reply wherein you extend the Love of God which you affirm to be capable of Degrees beyond the outward expressions unto the very inward acts of Love Doctor HAMMOND ANd 2ly the early cautelous speaking there might have made further latter caution unnecessary JEANES I Had thought that in Polemical writings it had still been needful for a man to continue on his caution for otherwise he may expose himself unto blowes and knocks which he never dream't of Early cautelous speaking is no Salvo unto after-unwariness Doctor HAMMOND ANd 3ly I could not be said to mince which to vulgar eares signifies to retract in some degrees what I had said before and again speak more cautelously when that was the first time of my speaking of it JEANES I Am very loath to enter into a contest with so great a Critick touching the meaning of a word however I shall adventure to say thus much That a man may be said to mince a matter and speak more cautelously at the first time of speaking of it then afterwards at a second time of speaking of it Neither shall I be beaten from this mine assertion by your bare and naked affirmation that to mince to vulgar eares signifieth to retract in some degrees what hath been said before for I appeal to both vulgar and learned eares whether or no we may not say truly of divers erroneous persons that in the first broaching their Errors they mince the matter and speak more cautelously then afterwards when they are fleshed and incouraged with success Doctor HAMMOND
to demonstrate and was sufficient to secure him from your Vse of Confutation that spake clearly of another thing then he meant § 15. But for the present be it granted that the Doctor meant to make advantage by this latter Passage of Aquinas and thence had concluded that as Aquinas denied all increase in the habitual Grace of Christ so he no waies denied but asserted a Capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Christs Love of God and the Expressions of it as appears from this place of Aquinas by him cited in his answer ad 3 m. For does not Aquinas say there expresly that as Christ increased in Age so he did in Wisedom and Grace because according to the process of his Age he did more perfect more wise and vertuous works and that both in things belonging to God and Men also And have we not already cleared it from Aquinas that such as the outward Expressions of Grace are such are also the inward Acts from whence they flow and that the Schoolmen in particular Aquinas do generally maintain from Saint Gregory that Probatio dilectionis is Exhibitio operis If this be clear as indeed it is why then might not the Doctor say truly that the Consent of the Schoolmen was no way denying as most plain it is to any man that will read the places by you cited because they speak not a word expresly of the inward Acts but rather asserting for the Doctor though he positively there speaks must be comparatively understood a Capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Christ's Love of God and the Expressions For that Aquinas speaks plainly of a gradual difference in the Expressions of Christs Love your self do maintain and that this by consequence implies a gradual difference in the inward Acts themselves whereof they were Expressions we have also declared to be the opinion of Aquinas and other of the Schoolmen § 16. But how plain is it I pray Sir that in that place of Aquinas by the Effects of Wisedom Grace are meant such as are only outward Is it because these are most properly termed works § 17. But now suppose Sir this reason be invalid For what I pray Sir do you think of a Mathematical Demonstration Arist l. 2. Eth. c. 6. §. 3. Our Refuters Master Scheibler also calls a mental Syllogisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a work Vid. Scheibler Metaph. l. 2. c. 10. n. 29. p. 703. already quoted Is it not truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opus a work why else does Aristotle say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet I hope you will not say that it is external as it is an intellectual work and purely formed in the brain and there subjected For no necessity lies upon the Mathematician to express by words or writing the Demonstration he has framed But perhaps you heard of the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that in artificial productions such as properly are Poietical the works as they are permanent and lasting so they are commonly external But does not Aquinas expresly say that alio modo proficere quis potest secundum effectus in quantum sc aliquis sapientiora virtuosiora opera facit et sic Christus proficiebat sapientiâ gratiâ sicut aetate And are not the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace as truly nay more properly the Effects of the infused Habit of Wisedom and Grace then any outward Expressions of them For the inward Acts that flow from this Habit as the Effect from the Cause are the proper natural elicite Acts of the Will but the other are imperate transient Acts. Besides I would desire our Refuter to tell me how it is possible for any man to do sapientiora virtuosiora opera or perfectiora opera sapientiae virtutis where the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace are supposed to be the same For I must here remember him of his own distinction and tell him that the * Suppono ex prima 2 da q. 20 21. proprium formale meritum esse in actu elicito Voluntatis actus vero externos per se non addere me ritum actui Voluntatis neque esse formaliter intrinsece meritorios sed solum per extrinsecam denominationem ab actu meritorio voluntatis à quo imperantur extrinsece seu moraliter informantur sicut etiam ab illo denominantur liberi studio si Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 39. sect 1. p. 540. col 1. C. D. Vide Aquin. 1. 2. q. 20. art 1. in corp Cajetan alios in loc outward works are not properly called works of Wisedom and Grace but only by a Metonymy of the Effect and by extrinsecal denomination it is the very same with the outward Expressions of Wisedom and Grace as he saies of the outward Expressions of Love that are Love only by extrinsecal Denomination and the Metonymy of the Effect And therefore †Suarez in tert part Thom. q. 7. p. 315. col 2. E. F. in Comment ad loc infra citat Suarez who without doubt as well understood Aquinas as our Refuter or any man else expounds him in his Commentary on this very place of an intensive growth of the inward Acts themselves of Wisedom and Grace as shall in this Section be manifested in due place § 18. The truth is Aquinas is no otherwise to be understood and though the word Opus a work sometimes signifies that which is external yet it is generally received in the Schooles that a Moral work or Action such as these without doubt are of which Aquinas speakes in this place consists both of the inward Act of the Will and the outward Performance as the two essential Parts that concur to the being and constitution of a Moral Action For this let Suarez speak * Suarez tom 1. in 1. part Thom. disp 38. sect 4. p. 519. col 2. A B. Illud praeceptum saies he directè cadit in ipsum Actum exteriorem qui est objectum interioris Actus Voluntatis qui etiam consequenter praecipitur quatenus cum exteriori componit unum Actum moralem liberum But to make it more authentick let us hear Aquinas himself †Aquinas 1. 2. q. 20. art 3. in corp respons ad 1m. Vide Cajetan in loc Dicendum saies he quod sicut supra dictum est Actus interior Voluntatis Actus exterior prout considerantur in genere moris sunt unus Actus In Corp. And then in his Answer ad primum Dicendum saies he quod ratio illa probat quod Actus interior exterior sunt aiversi secundum genus naturae sed tamen ex sic diversis constituitur unum in genere moris ut supra dictum est The place he refers to is in the 17th Question art 4. in corp Thus Sicut autem in genere rerum naturalium aliquod totum componitur ex materia forma ut homo ex
anima corpore qui est unum Ens naturale licet habeat multitudinem partium ita etiam in actibus humanis actus inferioris potentiae materialiter se habet ad actum superioris in quantum inferior potentia agit in virtute superioris moventis ipsum sic enim actus moventis primi formaliter se habet ad actum instrumenti unde patet quod imperium actus imperatus sunt unus actus humanus sicut quoddam totum est unum sed est secundum partes multa To the same purpose also he speaks ibid. q. 18. art 6. in Corp. To the same purpose Durand * Durand 2. Sent. dist 42. q. 1. B. C. p. 153. col 1. Actus interior exterior sunt boni vel mali moraliter eâdem bonitate vel malitiâ secundum numerum quae est in actu interiori subjectivè in exteriori autem objectivè solum extrinsecé Quod patet dupliciter primò quia nulli actui convenit bonitas vel malitia moralis nisi voluntatio ut voluntarius est dicente Augustino quod peccatum adeo est voluntarium quod si non fuerit voluntarium non erit peccatum Sed actui interiori competit esse voluntarium subjectivè vel intrinsecè velle enim in voluntate est actui autem exteriori non competit esse voluntarium nisi objectivè actus enim exterior est objectum actus interioris voluntatis in hoc solum est voluntarius Ergo c. Though much more might be added to this purpose from other Schoolmen yet this is abundantly sufficient to clear the meaning of Aquinas and Suarez was not mistaken when he understood him of a real increase in the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace which are the formal parts of a moral Work or Action the exterior or outward Work being only the material part of it according to Aquinas his own Doctrine § 19. But he has another Reason behind that will strike it to a hair for he addes And besides an intensive increase in the inward Acts of Wisdom and Grace would argue and presuppose an intensive increase in the very Habits themselves § 20. But are you indeed sure of this good Mr. Refuter How then shall the Author of the Mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity I hope you know the man Sir escape the lash of this Vse of Confutation For though Doctor Hammond never said that there was an intensive growth in any one Act of divine Grace in Christ yet Mr. Jeanes himself has said it of many All that the Doctor ever said was only this that one Act of Divine Grace or holy Love and Charity in Christ compared with another Act was more high and intense as the light of the Sun is more intense though still equal in it self then the light of a Candle or a Starr of the least magnitude when both are compared together He saies that Christs ardency in one Act of Prayer to wit in the Garden was more intense then at another time in another Act when there was not that occasion for the heightning this Ardency He saies that Christs Love of us men was more high more intense in that Act of his Dying for us then in those other of his suffering Hunger Poverty Nakedness and the like He never saies that any one numerical Act was ever gradually intended § 21. But before I come to make this good from our Refuters own words let me be so bold to ask him how he proves that an intensive increase in the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace would argue and presuppose an intensive increase in the very Habits themselves I deny it Sir I deny it and I beseech you let us have no more of your ipse dixit's for a proof For I assure you Sir you have all along shewed your self a most bold obtruder of the crudest notions on the world that I ever yet saw vented and published in print § 22. For are not Sir the inward Acts of the Habit of Grace elicite Acts of the Will and are they not absolutely free as the Will is from whence they flow Though it be not possible for any inward Act of the Will to be gradually more intense then the Habit is from whence it coeffectually with the Will flowes yet is not the Will free ab intrinseco I mean and still naturally at Liberty unless otherwise determined ab extrinseco by some superior command to act how and in what manner it pleases I have already demonstrated it and therefore shall not trouble the Reader with nauseous repetitions but shall recommend that piece of Art to our Refuter § 23. In short then though in acquisite Habits not yet perfect and compleat but only in fieri an intensive increase in the praecedaneous Acts that concurr to the Efficiency and Perfection of the Habit may argue and conclude an intensive increase in the very Habits themselves and * Vide Arist Eth. l. 2. c 2 3. Aristotle hath proved it yet in infused Habits and Habits now perfectly acquired and compleat and full the Intension and Remission of the Acts that are subsequent and now flow from the Habit as the Effect from the Cause does not argue a proportionable increase or decrease in the Habit but only an innocent exercise of the Liberty of the Will if that be not by some superior Cause or Command limited to a constant equality of acting which yet our Refuter has not undertook to make good in respect of all the internal Acts that flowed from that all-full and perfect Habit of Grace in our Blessed Lord. § 24. But now here enters a Conqueror indeed Nothing now but Ovations and Triumphs can serve the turn And that it may be done to purpose behold he sings his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself in a loftier strain then Nero did when he returned from his Conquest of the Graecian Musicians For in the 3d. § he cries Whereas you say in the close of Section the 28 that the consent of the Schoolmen is no waies denying but asserting a Capacity of Degrees amongst the Acts of Christs Love of God i. e. of the inward Acts thereof there will be little sense in your words in themselves and less pertinency unto the matter in hand unless your meaning be as you elsewhere express your self that the inward Acts of Christs Love of God were more intense at one time then at another Well Sir it shall be granted you for asking that it was the Doctors meaning that some inward Acts of Divine Charity in Christ were more high more intense at one time then others were at another But what then why And if this be your meaning saies our Refuter I must needs assume the boldness to tell you that no such matter is visible unto me in any of the Schoolmen But perhaps you may mean such Schoolmen as such a Puisny as I never saw or heard of However you cannot expect belief untill you produce their
another and a greater intension presupposeth remission and imperfection for intensio est eductio rei intensae de imperfecto ad perfectum as Aquinas very often Ergo. § 77. Before I come to consider the strength of this Assumption it will not be amiss to mind the Reader of a known distinction to avoid all Cavils for the future by reason of a Term therein that may be ambiguously construed and it is the Term Actual Love For sometimes it is taken for that which is opposed to Habitual Love and then it denotes the Operation and the Acts of Love and is no other then that which they call Actus secundus in the Schools or that Love which is in Actu secundo And then secondly it is sometimes taken for that which is opposed to potential Love to that which is yet incausis and in fieri as they speak and not in esse and then it denotes only the existence of Love and it is the same with the Habit of Love and that which they call Actus primus § 78. If now the term Actual Love be taken for that Love which is only in Actu primo and has a being in the Soul it is granted that such an all absolute fulness of Love was actually still in the Soul of Christ because this is no other then the actual abode of the habitual fulness of holy Charity and Grace in Christ But then this is nothing to the purpose it having never been brought into Controversie by the Doctor but alwaies granted and allowed § 79. But if it be taken in the first sense as our Refuters words import as it denotes the inward Acts of Christ's Love most certain it is that there was not in him a perpetual All-fulness and perfection of his actual Love so as the Acts and Operations of Grace were either intensively or extensively still commensurate to his habitual Love § 80. This is it which our Refuter asserts in opposition to Doctor Hammond And now that he is most grosly mistaken in it will appear First if we shall consider the Subjectum quod as they call it of this Habit and the Operations of holy Charity the Subject wherein they are seated Christ For though the Habit of holy Charity was alwaies in him in its height and perfection from the first moment of Conception as congruous to the hypostatical union and flowing from it yet there must be an intermission and cessation in the Subject at least of some Operations and Acts of this Grace For we read that Jesus slept and his humane nature did require it as a necessary support of Matth. 8. 24. it And therefore since some Acts of Vertues and Graces can be onely performed by us when awake there must be an intermission and a cessation of them at least when he slept which cannot possibly be said of the Habit of holy Charity which was in him in full perfectness whether sleeping or waking § 81. Secondly if we shall consider the Object of divine Charity there was alwaies an habitual application or inclination in Christ our Blessed Saviour to all the Objects of divine Charity and that according to that order and degree of goodness to be found in them but there could not be an actual application of the Will alwaies to all the several Objects of divine Charity because being finite in his humane nature by that finite humane Will howsoever perfected and advanced by the infused perfection of habitual grace he could not possibly apply himself to an actual embrace of so many and different Objects at one and the same moment and instant of time § 82. Thirdly if we shall consider the several Acts themselves they were so many and infinite for number so different for variety we shall find it impossible that they should be all performed at once though there was alwaies and in every instant of time an habitual disposition and aptitude to the performance of any or of all of them successively as himself should best think fit § 83. If it be here replyed that though the actual Love of Christ could not be in him in its utmost extent and latitude though he could not perform all the Acts of divine Charity at one and the same moment to which he had alwaies an habitual inclination yet this nothing hinders but that whensoever he did perform any Act of holy Charity that Act of holy Charity must be as intensively perfect as the Habit from whence it issues and this was all that you intended in this Objection § 84. To this I answer That as we have already demonstrated the falshood of this Assertion so were it now granted yet this would not serve the turn at present For since by this answer it is granted that all the Acts of this Habit in their utmost latitude and extent cannot be performed at once it necessarily follows that those Acts that may pro tempore be suspended and not have a being without a derogation from the all-fulness of his habitual Love may also have a being less intensively perfect then the Habit or then other Acts of the same Love without any derogation from the perpetual fulness of this habitual Grace For plain it is that these Acts and Operations of divine Grace and holy Charity are not all in individuo the necessary issues of the Habit as those Properties and Accidents are that flow from their Causes by way of emanation and necessity of nature as the light from the Sun but are the free effects of the Will and Habit of Grace from whence they flow and therefore are extrinsecal and contingent to the nature and being and gradual Perfection of the Habit. For since as Porphyry tells us Accidens commune est quod potest adesse abesse sine subjecti interitu if any one Act may be totally and in respect of all Degrees absent and not have a being without derogation from the Perfection of the Habit the same may in 2 or 3 or 5 Degrees of Perfection be also absent since if the whole be accidental to the Habit much more must every part and degree be accidental to it also § 85. And therefore I see not what disadvantage can accrew to the Doctor if this your Assertion be granted as you have laid it down in Terminis For we have already demonstrated that some Acts of Christs Love were not so gradually intense as others were we have also seen it proved by Scripture and Reason and the Authority of Fathers and Schoolmen and Mr. Jeanes and his own Ames among the rest that Christ did truly and really increase and not only in the opinion of men as well in actual Knowledge and Grace as he did in Stature though the Habit was alwaies at the height and perfection Indeed I see not how a true and real increase in the gradual Perfection of the Acts and inward Operations of Wisdome and Grace can any more derogate from the all-ful perfection of the Habit of Grace then a true
Aquinas and Scotus maintain that Proposition which he would confute in the Doctor by their Testimonies JEANES The first Argument which hath been already so fully insisted on but yet with our Refuters leave never yet proved as we have cleerly demonstrated is the all-fulness and perfection of Christs habitual Gâ—â—â—e The habits of all Graces and vertues in Christ were alwaies full and perfect most intense and not capable of further or higher degrees and therefore so were the inward Acts of those Graces and vertues too and particularly the inward Acts of the habitual grace of divine Charity The Consequence of this c. § 1. Well Sir hold you there Are the Inward Acts of those Vertues and Graces and particularly the Inward Acts of the habitual Grace of divine Charity that very actual love of God that was in Termino as they say alwaies at the highest were they the Acts of Christ as he was perfectus Comprehensor as you intimate in your second Argument I desire your Reason for it and do not dictate but prove it I had thought that these had if not all yet the greatest part of them agreed to Christ only as Viator according to the frail mortal condition of his state of humiliation What need I pray had he of Trust and dependency on God for a supply of any want that now as Comprehensor was fully possessed of heaven happiness what need had he to pray or hope the heaven happiness of whose soul did now even during the whole time of his abode here on earth far surmount that of all the Saints and Angels in heaven as you assert in your second argument Have the Saints and Angels in heaven any need of Patience and Meekness and Fortitude and Temperance and Obedience and an humble submission to the Cross does not the Apostle tell us that high and most transcendent Act of Divine Charity shall remain where God is all in all do not the Schoolmen that write de merito Christi say that Christ did not merit but only as he was Viator Why then do you so ignorantly or negligently confound those Acts and Graces that are incompossible as they speak As Comprehensor he could not merit and as Viator he was not in possession of heaven happiness As Comprehensor his holy Love was alwaies in Termino and a necessary effect of the Beatifical vision As Viator it was not a necessary but a free Act of his will and the effect of the habit of divine Grace As Comprehensor he has no need of the Habits and Acts of Vertues but only as Viator in which state he was only in a Capacity to exercise them Either therefore Sir write more distinctly and to the purpose or else forbear troubling the world for the future with your Scholastical notions which are so crude and half codled § 2. Howsoever I observe that in your first Argument you rightly understand the Doctors Notion of The Love of God and take it here as he still does in the large sense as it is all one with holy Charity as containing in its general notion the Acts of all Graces and Vertues whatsoever And therefore because now habemus confitentem râ—um I am resolved to hold you to your Concession and so I come to examine it In short it is this § 3. If the habitual Grace and Habits of all Graces and Vertues were in Christ alwaies full and perfect then so were the inward Acts of those Vertues and Graces and particularly the inward Acts of Charity But the Antecedent is true Ergo also the Consequent § 4. To this Sir I answer by denying the sequele of your Major My Reason is Because all Habits whatsoever whether infused or acquisite that are seated in the Will are free and not necessary causes of the Acts that issue from them And therefore though all natural and necessary causes do work uniformly and equally and produce the same effects where the distance is the same and the Patient equally disposed yet in voluntary free causes it is far otherwise as we have shewed And therefore since the inward or immanent Acts of all Habits are elicite Acts of the Will and not necessary effects their gradual intension and remission in this sense depends not upon the Physical efficaciousness but the free and voluntary exercise of that intrinsick virtue as we have already demonstrated § 5. But he goes on and tells us that JEANES THe consequence of this Enthymeme hath been already sufficiently proved and therefore I shall add nothing for further confirmation of it but the testimonies of some few School-men Aquinas as Capreolus c. § 6. How is this Sir I beseech you make good your promise Did you not just now tell us that you would not barely dictate but prove what you undertook And have you not told the world so long since in your very Title-page And must we now be put off to look for a Proof I know not where I think I have given the world abundant satisfaction already that you have very little reason to refer us to your former Performances They say of the Chickens that are hatched in the furnaces of Aegypt that they all come from the egg lame and imperfect for want of a natural kindly warmth And such abortive cripled lame creatures are all your proofes for want of a truly genuine and Scholastical heat in the brain that brings them forth Though in outward modesty like Caesar you seem to decline the title and office of Perpetual Dictator yet it concernes you in poynt of Interest as it did that great Conquerour not to forego it that you may secure your great victories over Truth and Doctor Hammond But by your so worthy performances in this Part of your argument you give me very little hope that you have better quitted your self by the testimonies of the School men § 7. And thus they follow JEANES AQuinas as Capreolus quotes him lib. 1. dist 17. q. 2. fol. 306. hath this Passage Nihil inquit aliud est qualitatem augeri quam subjectum magis participare qualitatem Non enim aliud est esse qualitatis nisi quod habet in subjecto ex hoc autem ipso quod subjectum magis participat charitatem vehementius operatur quia unumquodque operatur in quantum est actu Aquinas thought you see that a greater vehemency in the Operations of Love argued a greater participation in the Subject of the Habits of Love And again secund â secundae q. 24. art 4. ad tertium Similiter charitas essentialiter est virtus ordinata ad actum unde idem est ipsam augeri secundum essentiam ipsam habere efficaciam ad producendum ferventioris dilectionis actum Vnto this I shall add a third place out of Aquinas quoted by Capreolus lib. 3. dis 27. 28 29 30. pag. 209. Cum Actus Habitus speciem habent ex Objecto oportet quod ex eodem ratio perfectionis ipsius sumatur Objectum autem
Doctor This love infinite Not positively Categorematicè but negatively and Syncategorematicè acknowledged by Bellarmine and others Hinders not freewill-offerings of love These asserted by Bishop White Doctor not confuted though Bellarmine may Bellarmine and Ames at no great odds here Concerns not the Doctor Refuters artifice censured Doctors comfort and precedent in this persecution of the tongue 473 SECT XXIX His authorities oppose not the Doctor why urged by Protestants Bellarmine acknowledges the places and inference But such love simply impossible even in Paradise How Austin Bernard hold it obligatory how not Bellarmine the Refuters adversary His authorities from Aquinas Scotus his charity to his Reader First from Aquinas answered His meaning Bellarmine and he agreed Doctor and all Protestants will subscribe to this of Aquinas His second from Aquinas answered Perfection of life state according to Aquinas not pertinent Aquinas opinion summed up Scotus his manner of writing How God may be loved above all things according to Scotus Henriquez opposed by him Love melting strong This genuine that a passion sensitive Scotus love of God above all things intensivè extensivè agreeable to Chamier He rejects the reason grounded on Austin Bernard His authority pruned At large Contrary to the Refuters inference from him His sense cleared from D' Ordellis Cavellus The sense of the old Schoolmen from Durand Austin and Bernard's opinion the same with Durands and the Doctors proved How urged by Chamier These Fathers opinion summed up What perfection required of Christians according to them What proposed Refuters discourse impertinent Distinction Quatenus indicat finem non quatenus praecipit medium not invented by Bellarmine Taken from Aquinas By whom used to expound S. Austin Agreeable to Austin Cajetan for freewill offerings 480 SECT XXX The Refuters return His proof impertinent weakens a known truth Christs agony a fit season for heightning ardency in prayer As Comprehensor he enjoyed an intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence Hence a love necessary Love as Viator Beatifick love hindred not the free exercise of this love and graces nor his happiness his grief in the sensitive appetite Suarez Hence a gradual difference in the acts of love as Viator Particularly in prayer Fallacy à dicto secundum quid His confounding of terms Grounds Motives Occasion What. Christ as Comprehensor still had cause to love God but no grounds motives nor occasions As Viator he had Refuters contradictions Tautologies Love of desire complacency distinguished not divided One oft begins the other Bishop Andrews Natural love of desire in Christ What hope in Christ Love of concupiscence though first in men yet otherwise in Christ Threefold love of complacency in Christ Experimental love of desire and complacence in him capable of increase Both heightned at his passion Ardency of these and of prayer different Of which the Doctor Vanity of the Refuters Title-page 520 SECT XXXI Poor Refutor Doctor digresses not Affliction a fit season to heighten devotion Christs ardency our instruction The Doctor heightning Christs actual love derogates not from his habitualfulness Charitas quamdiu augeri potest c. variously cited The Doctors mistake The words not Jeromes but Austins This lapse how possible Venial Occasion of Austins writing to Jerome His severall proposals of solving the doubt His own upon the distinction of righteousness Legal Evangelical Place in Austin at large How applyed against Papists How not M. Baxters censure of our differences in point of justification Place impertinent to the Refuters conclusion Ex vitio est how here understood against M. Cawdrey and the Refuter and the Doctor Denotes originall corruption This how called by Austin Signally vitium in opposition to a saying of Pelagius Parallel places for this meaning Pelagius objection Answered Austin and the Doctor accord but not the Refuter Doctors exposition of Austin Corrected Dilemma's Confidence springs from ignorance Chedzoy-confidence Learned Protestants and Papists and himself assert what he sayes all else deny but the Doctor A new Jury of them against him for the Doctor Erasinus Cajetan Tolet. Outward works of wisdome and grace in Tolet what Estius Jansenius L. Brugensis Beza Piscator Deodate Assembly notes Cameron Raynolds How Christ grew in actual grace the habitual still invariable Illustrated by two instances Erasmus and Doctor Eckhard assert Christs growth in habitual perfection This charged on Luther Calvin c. by Bellarmine with probability on Calvin How they acquitted Refuters conclusion complyes with the sowrest of Jesuites Maldonates censure of the Lutherans and Calvinists Answered Stapletons like censure Answered They and Bellarmine if they speak consequently must mean the same with us Whole recapitulated Refuters unhappiness Doctors safety 540 SECT XXXII Zeal and loud noise different M. Cawdrey grants all in controversie Heightning outward expressions à posteriori conclude the increase of the inward acts Outward and inward acts both compleat the moral action How proportioned Difference of Christs obligation to purity and ours All born in sin First covenant how in force how not Cannot oblige to sinless Perfection Man reprieved from the final execution of its curse by Christ Objections Answered New covenant how aggravates damnation What required by it Law holy How a rule The subject matter as well of the second as the first covenant Difference of obligation to its purity under the first and second covenant Law abrogated not as a rule but as a covenant Second covenant allows growth toward perfection which the first did not What the Doctor speaks of Refuters first reason Terms of the first part of his assumption distinguished Applyed Second part of his assumption Answered Aquinas serves not the Refuters interest Exteriour acts of 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 denies Christ to be the meritorious cause of our salvation He confounds Christs naturall liberty of will with the moral 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 understood What Suarez intends Defenders advise to the Refuter 595 SECT the Last The close Refuters deliberate answer abortive His civility His appeal to the Readers judgement His stiling himself the Doctors Refuter His challenge of the Doctor to a rejoynder Clearness in dispute approved by the Defender Why the Refuter plainly dealt with The Libeller his own executioner Defenders proposal and promise The Refuter may take his leave for the present and if he please rest for ever Refuters strange complement at parting Why the Defender as the Refuter subscribes not his name but keeps unknown 638 Names of AUTHORS Cited Examined and Illustrated in this TREATISE A Aelianus Aelius Lampridius Ainsworth Alphonsus à Castro Ambrosius Amesius Andrews B. Aquinas Argentinus
the smallest misadventures our Refuter will appear guilty of and therefore I shall not fix upon it especially since it matters not much if the Doctor be proved obnoxious to the Error charged upon him what the Reason was that first did move him to confute it § 3. Yet for his comfort I must tell him that as his first undertaking was altogether groundless so this whole Process is ridiculous and only a great heap of Errors and mistakes § 4. For first he very ignorantly or wilfully confounds the Immanent Acts of Love with the Action of Loving things that are toto genere different For this is a Praedicamental Action and the other are Qualities specifically distinct from the habit of Love as shall in due place be demonstrated And he could not but know that the Doctor positively does maintain it in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore must not by the Rules of Art be supposed to be otherwise without a Pittiful begging of the Question till the contrary has been proved against him This Argument then of which he is so confident that he shall submit it to the Doctors most severe examination at the very first glance appears an empty Paralogism that cannot conclude any thing against the Doctor For the Syllogism let it be put into whatsoever form this Refuter can devise will consist of four terms the Doctor by the Acts of Love in the Conclusion to be brought against him meaning the Quality of Actual Love and the Refuter in one of the Premisses by the Acts of Love understanding the Predicamental Action of Loving and consequently there can be no opposition because it cannot be ad idem § 5. But then secondly suppose we his Discourse were artificial yet it will not at all concern the Assertion of the Doctor For Intension and Remission is properly a gradual heightning or abatement of the same Numerical Form as we shall hereafter prove But the Doctor never affirms as I can find that the self-same Numerical Act of Holy Love in Christ was more intense at one time than at another which this Argument supposes He only affirms that Christ in one Act of Divine Love or holy Charity for this alone the Doctor means as shall in due place be evidenced though this Refuter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes it for that high and most transcendent Act of Love that was immediately fixed on God as its proper Object was more ardent than in another as in his dying for us than in his suffering Hunger Poverty Nakedness for our sakes or that this inward Act of divine Charity in Christ was more ardent and intense than those other were Now this Assertion as it is a Truth clearly demonstrable and shall in due place be made good so it is not any wayes concerned in this Argument of the Refuter § 6. For though true it is that Actions are not intended but by reason of Qualities yet this nothing hinders but that one individual Action may Comparatively and Respectively be more intense than another even where the gradual height of both is supposed to be still Simply and Absolutely invariable still the same For instance Illumination is a proper Praedicamental Action and yet Sense and experience tells us that the illumination of the Sun and the illumination of any one of the fixed Stars are gradually different and yet the illumination of both is still the same in it self and never varies but by accident in respect of the variety of the Medium or distance because the Original light of the Sun and Stars is still invariable * Aristot li. 2. de Generat corrupt c. 10. text 56. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes the great Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Causa necessaria ad aliquod agendum determinata est agitque quando quantum potest Burgersdic Log. li. 1. c 17. theor 13. Vid. commentar Agentia pure naturalia recte se habentia ad unum natura sunt determinata ut sublatis impedimentis externis non possunt non id producere ut patet exemplo corporum coelestium c. Wendelin Contemp. Physic Sect. 1. Part. 1. c. 4. p. â—00 So also Scheibler Metaphys l. 1. c. 22. tit 8. art 2. n. 96. For all natural Causes continuing still the same do alwayes work alike because they work by a necessity of nature and to the utmost of their strength and might § 7. And therefore notwithstanding this Refuters Argument I see no reason why also it may not be so in respect of the several individual Acts of Christ's Love and that though they in themselves be supposed to continue still invariable of one equal intension in themselves they may not yet in comparison and respect of one another be said to be more or less ardent and intense § 8. For thirdly to shew this Refuters Discourse yet more impertinent though most certain it is as the Doctor clearly grants and maintains that the Habit of Divine Charity in Christ was de facto alwayes at the height and in its utmost fulness that a finite Nature was capable of yet it is not therefore necessary that every Act of holy Charity should be alwayes in its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and full height nor will it thence follow that every Act of this Habit should be equally intense with the Cause from whence it flowes but may differ in degrees not only from the Habit but also from all other Acts springing from it unless this Refuter can by other Arguments than this prove a necessity of the gradual determination and equality of intensness of the several Acts with the Habit. § 9. Now all things that are any wayes determined must of necessity be determined either ab intrinseco or ab extrinseco from some internal cause and necessity of nature or from some outward bounds and limitations § 10. Ab intra there can be imagined no determination possible as his Master Scheibler may teach him For the Habit or Principle of these Immanent Acts is not necessary and determined in its Operations but an absolute * Of the difference between Natural Voluntary Agents Vid. Scheibler Metaphys li. 1. c. 22. tit 8. art 2. n. 96. De actibus liberis censeo etiam certum nec de potentia absoluta posse liberos esse nisi effectivè fiant à potentia libera cujus sunt Actiones ut in superioribus tactum est Suarez Metaphys disp 47. Sect. 2. §. 9. p. 557. free Cause as the Will it self is wherein it is subjected with which it coeffectively still concurres to the Production of the Acts because as it is confessed by this Refuter in this very Argument it is a Moral Habit that is only seated in the Will § 11. Ab extra the Habit cannot be supposed to be determined in its Operations to one absolute height and degree of intensness without a manifest Petitio Principii till it be proved against the Doctor For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Blessed Saviour that he commanded it to be frequently inscribed and set upon his Palace walls If the Doctor had immediately before so fully and so clearly expressed himself in this particular that it is impossible it should be more evident why then did you not rather judge his meaning by the Plain then like another Delius Natator Dive for that in the Obscure which God knowes he never meant § 13. There are three very excellent Rules in the Civill Law which I shall recommend to our Refuter for a Vse of Instruction to guide and direct him better to mannage his Vses of Confutation The first is Semper in dubiis benigniora praeferenda sunt 1. Digest de Regul Juris l. 50. tit 17. leg 56. 2. Ibid. leg 96. In all doubtful cases the fairest glosse and construction is to be preferred as the best The second is In ambiguis orationibus maxime sententia spectanda est ejus qui eas protulisset That in all ambiguous doubtful speeches we must especially regard the meaning and sense of him that delivered them The 3. Ibid. leg 114. third is In obscuris inspici solet quod verisimilius est aut quod plerumque fieri solet That in things that are dark and obscure we must use to regard that which is the most probable and likely to be true or that which most commonly is wont to be done The reason and equity of them is so great that they are universally approved of For what writing or speech is there in the world wherein the obscure and doubtful expressions are not and in Justice ought not to be expounded by the plain Is not this the course in all Courts of Judicature in the world Is it not usual in all Contracts and familiar in all Discourses and Disputes And is it not a ruled case both in the Pulpit and the Schooles to unriddle the dark and doubtful intricate places of Scripture by the more clear and manifest How else Sir would you be able to Answer a Julian or a Porphyrie or make return to a Socinian § 14. And shall not the Doctor have so much favour allowed him as to obtain common Justice Or shall that be a fault in him which is not so in all other Writers It is not only the Fate of Riddles and Oracles to be obscure * 2 Pet. 3. 16. Saint Paul in his Epistles has many things hard to be understood as well as Ezechiel and the Revelation Words and Language Sir are too narrow to express the notions of the Mind nor are they alwayes faithful interpreters to others of those Thoughts they were designed to represent § 15. And therefore Sir I beseech you to allow this Plea at least for the Doctor and if there be in this Paragraph any seeming contradiction to his own true and proper meaning and former plain expressions let the one reconcile the other and though you and the Doctor differ in judgement yet be not so uncharitable as to make him at variance with himself § 16. But this only upon supposal that you have not misquoted the Doctor and that he had truly contradicted himself § 17. But the truth is the Doctor needs no such defence The matter is clear to any man that will not wilfully mistake And thus the Case stands The Doctor in the former Paragraph had declared his Opinion of Christs all-full perfect habit of Divine Love which he acknowledges was alwayes in him so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees And this he is not only willing to assert but also to demonstrate And an Argument he borrowes from that very Sentence that the Refuter first cavilled at and it proceeds à Posteriori from the Effect to the Cause thus If Christs Love of God in the Act and exercise was capable of Degrees more intense at one time then another and had in its latitude or amplitude several Degrees one different from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in because issuing from the Habit of Divine Love then this habitual Love of God must be acknowledged all-full and perfect alwaies in him so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees But the Antecedent is true and therefore also the Consequent The evidence of the Sequele is supposed grounded upon two very known Maximes Nihil est in Effectu quod non prius erat in Causa and Nihil dat quod non habet And therefore if the Acts be the Effect and the Habit the Cause * De Habitibus infusis longe diversa ratio est nam sine illis non habet potentia ullum principium intrinsecum proportionatum propriis actibus talium habituum Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 6. §. 14. especially in all supernatural productions where the Will can do nothing of it self but by the assistance of the supernaturall concurrence of the Habit whatsoever perfection is to be found in the Acts must also be acknowledged to have been in the Habit from whence the Act springs The Assumption he proveth in the 13 th Paragraph thus The Degrees of which Christs Love of God is capable are by me thus exprest That his Love was more intense at one time that is in one Act then at another in another Act but still the higher of those Degrees of Intenseness was as truly acknowledged to be in Christs Love at some time viz. in his Agony as the lower was at another and so all the Degrees which are supposed to be mentioned of his Love are also supposed and expresly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other To make this Discourse more clear and evident I shall put it into form and thus prove the former Assumption If the higher of these Degrees of Intenseness of which Christs Love of God is capable was and must be as truly acknowledged to be in Christs Love at some time viz. in his Agony as the lower was at another then all the Degrees which are to be supposed to be mentioned of his Love are also supposed and expresly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other and then by consequence it will follow as in the former Assumption But the Antecedent is true and therefore also the Consequent I confess the Doctors Discourse and manner of arguing is here Crypticall and * Brevis esse laboro Obscurus fio Horat. obscure and his labouring to be brief has made him leave out some words which has brought a cloud or'e his Discourse But he supposed he writ to a Schoolman to whom dark phrases are no strangers Howsoever I shall endeavor to cleer all by a familiar instance Suppose I should commend Titius or Sempronius for a most exquisite Musician that had the Habit of his Art in its utmost perfection and for proof of it should say he could play at first sight the hardest Lesson could be set as well as
his Father because they all issued from it and in every Act though he loved us yet it was only for Gods sake § 35. But yet to make our Refuter's Discourse as strong as he can desire I shall for the present suppose that the Doct. had positively and in termes terminant affirmed that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before what then will be the issue will it then appear that he does the Doctor no wrong and that he is able to infer his Conclusion against him Certainly not For now the Major will be proved altogether as inconsequent as the Assumption has already been evidenced to be false It is this He that saith that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before affirmeth that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further Degrees then yet it had But c. Ergo c. The whole strength and force of it does depend and rest upon this only Supposition That any gradual heightning in the Acts of Christs Love must of necessity infer a gradual heightning in the Habit. But this is most notoriously false For the Acts of Love in Christ howsoever heightned and advanced can never possibly increase the Habit. § 36. For first (a) Habitus infusi non producuntur neque augentur effective per proprios Actus etiam in proprio Subjecto Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. q. 13. disp 31. pag. 416. col 2. 4. Neque Habitus operativi ut charitas aliae virtutes infusae possunt per se producere sibi similes Et ratio reddi potest quia haec est communis ratio Habitùs operativi ut scil non est productivus alterius Habitus sed solum actuum Vel certe dici potest Gratiam esse eminentem quandam participationem Divinae naturae quae propterea postulat ut solum per influxum Divinitatis naturâ suâ participari possit ideo non est qualitas activa sui similis sed à solo Deo ut à principali causa producibilis Suarez ibid. col 1. D E. Infused Habits such as this as they cannot be produced so neither can they physically and effectively be augmented by any Acts or humane endeavours as already it has been proved (b) Dicunt aliqui Christum Dominum per Actus virtutum quos exercebat acquisivisse augmentum harum virtutum sed hoc nec verè nec satis consideratè dictum est nam rationes quae probant habuisse Christum hos Habitus à principio probant similiter habuisse illos in gradu Heroico ut hîc dixit D. Thomas vel ut clarius dicamus habuisse in sua summa perfectione quam habere possunt vel secundum legem Dei ordinariam vel secundum naturalem capacitatem facultatem hominis cui hi Habitus eorum actus accommodantur vel denique in summa perfectione quam in ipso Christo unquam habituri erant Secondly When any Habit already is in the utmost height that the Subject is capable of no Acts howsoever gradually intense can possibly increase it Now it is supposed on both hands that the Habit of Grace holy Charity in Christ was already in him in all fulness in gradu heroico as Aquinas calls it (*) Concedo ergo per hos Actus neque Habitus neque augmentum eorundem Christum acquisivisse quia Actus non intendit Habitum nisi sit intensior illo Christus autem à Principio habuit Habitus vel magis vel aequè intensos quà m futuri essent Actus Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. q. 7. art 3. disp 19. sect 2. p. 300. col 1. C D E F. Aquin. 3. part q. 7. art 2. Suarez commentar in loc Actus nullo modo augent Habitum jam sibi aequalem Vid. Suarez Metaph. tom 2. disp 44. sect 10. §. 14 15 16 17. Habitus sicut generatur per Actus ita etiam intenditur non intenditur autem nisi per Actus intensiores ut infra dicemus Suarez ibid. sect 6. §. 2. pag. 431. col 1. Vide etiam ibid. §. 5. Thirdly No Acts can possibly intend even an Acquisite Habit unless they be more gradually perfect then the habit supposed to be intended by it But in this present case the Habit is not acquired but infused and all the Acts howsoever heightned or intended must also be acknowledged to issue and flow from it And consequently since the Effect cannot be more noble then the Cause they can never advance the Habit or make it gradually more intense then formerly it was But of this again in due place § 37. But then fourthly If there were any truth any Consequence in this Major it will directly strike against the Scriptures as well as Doctor Hammond For do not they every where magnifie this last Act of Christs Love manifested in his dying for us as the most transcendent and superlative and which is not to be parallelled amongst all his other acts of Love towards us (a) Joh. 15. 13. Vide Maldonat Jansen alios in loc Greater Love saies our Saviour has no man then this that a man lay down his life for his friends And the Apostle in Saint (b) Tu majorem habuisti Domine ponens eam etiam pro inimicis Bernard serm Fer. 4tâ hebdom sanctae Rom. 5. 10. Bernards opinion seems to go higher for when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son And again (c) Rom. 5. v. 6 7 8. For when we were yet without strength in due time Christ dyed for the ungodly For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die But God and Christ let me adde for (d) Esay 53. 7. oblatus est quia ipse voluit commendeth his Love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us Well then might Saint John cry out in Contemplation of this Love Ecce quanta Charitas (e) 1 Joh. 3. 1. Behold what manner of Love the Father hath bestowed upon us And again (f) Jo. 3. 16. Sic dilexit So God loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son And again (a) 1 Jo. 4. 9 10. In this was manifested the Love of God towards us because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world that we might live through him Herein is Love not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins This this was Love the height and commendation and full manifesting of it His Birth his Life his Doctrine and Miracles his suffering Hunger and Nakedness and Poverty for our sakes were all high Acts of Love But hereby as Saint Iohn speaks (b) 1 Joh. 3. 16. perceive we the Love of God because he laid down his life for us And therefore the Apostle in the place formerly insisted on to express the
destroy your Major When the Sun and Stars produce Gold and Silver and Brass and other Minerals when they produce Stones of all sorts and kinds in the bowels of the earth are not the cause and effect at least as Species subalternae placed under the same Genus of Substantia corporea When an Asse begets a Mule or a Man produces Worms and Vermin in his head and entrailes and when a woman brings forth monstrous births in stead of legitimate issues as Serpents Moles and Froggs and other such like of which among (b) Ita nonnullas mulieres Serpentes Talpas Ranas Mutes Aves aliaque animalia enixas fuisse inter historias relatum est Imo verò in Apuliâ Lombardiâ frequentem esse talium animalium generationem multi Authores referunt idque Genus animalium ideo vocari Fratrem Lombardorum à Gordonio Tornamirâ aliisque Barbaris Medicis Arpa seu Arpia nominatur quod hujusmodi monstrum multos plerumque habeat pedes quos etiam sermone illo barbarico Arpas nominant Lazar. River Observ med Cent. 2. observ 100. p. 201. Vid. Schenckium Lycosthenem de Prodigiis Physitians there are many true stories I pray Sir must not the cause and effect be both ranged under the same immediate Genus proximum which is Animal So when light produces heat are not the cause and the effect both put in the same Praedicament under the same Genus of Patible Qualities To keep closer to the business more immediately in controversie The habit of Love (c) Dicendum est habitum simul cum potentia efficere actum hunc esse proprium finem ejus Vid. Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 5. n. 6. sect 6. n. 12. Scheibler Metaph. l. 2. c. 8. tit 4. art 2. n. 59. art 4. punct 2. n. 104. Vid. etiam Aquin. 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. in corp Et Cajetan in loc latè Scot. l. 1. Sent. dist 17. q. 2 3. 4. Sent. dist 49. q. 1. effectively concurs with the Will to the production of the inward Acts of Love and yet I say that Love as a Genus is equally praedicated of the Habit and the inward Acts of Love as has already been demonstrated and may in due time be further proved notwithstanding any thing you have or can say to the contrary And this is abundantly more then sufficient to shew the falshood of your Major when you say that no one word can as a Genus whether proximum or remotum summum or subalternum for you absolutely deliver it equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect § 17. But perhaps you had read somewhat like it concerning the First most universal Cause God and his effects or perhaps you had heard the like concerning the Cause and the Effect in Actu Signato and therefore you would apply it to all Causes and Effects in Actu also Exercito And so much be spoken to your third Argument § 18. I come now to your First And this though it be not altogether so absurd yet is false enough in conscience For whereas you say that nothing can as a Genus be equally predicated of things put in several Predicaments but the Habit of Love and Expressions of Love are put in several Predicaments therefore Love as a Genus doth not equally comprehend them both Here Sir your Assumption is too infirm For let me ask you Quanta est Minor Is it not universal And if it be not your Syllogism will be false and you will conclude an Vniversal contrary to all Rules of Art and Reason from a Praemisse particular If it be universal as the Mood and Figure and Conclusion requires for rightly framed it is in Celarent thus Whatsoever things are put in several Praedicaments cannot have the same Genus But the Habit of Love and the Expressions of Love in general are put in several Praedicaments Ergo the Habit of Love and Expressions of Love in general cannot have the same Genus I say it is false and you will never be able to prove and make it good if any one instance can be produced to the contrary What say you now Are not Joy and Grief and the other Passions of the mind frequent expressions of Love * Joh. 11. 35 36. when Jesus seeing Mary and the women weeping for Lazarus groaned in the Spirit and was troubled and also wept said not the Jewes truly Behold how he loved him But now I hope you will not say that these Passions of the mind are any thing else then Patible Qualities and ranked in the third Species as Habits are in the first And consequently true it is that all the Expressions of Love are not though true it is I grant of many or most of them that they are put in several Praedicaments And if so your Conclusion though most true in it self does not follow by virtue of these Praemisses because your Assumption is false And so much for your First § 18. Your Second and Fourth have somewhat in them I confess of the Face of an Argument An argument I say For though you have slit it into two and divided it from it self by another what-ye-call't between yet it differs no more then Socrates in one suit does differ from himself in another The matter is the very same though the words be different and both the Minors depend upon one and the same Medium § 19. But good Sir let me advise you that though now you have the good luck to light upon a right proof of your Conclusion yet do not for the future obtrude your Arguments upon the world without any more confirmation then your bare Ipse dixit For I assure you Sir you have all-along in this Discourse shewed your self so unhappy a Disputant that even now when you have clear and evident truth in your Conclusion men would not believe that it followed from your Praemisses if Raynaudus had not been brought in to your assistance who has said more to the purpose in that small passage you have quoted from him then you have done in the whole page besides § 20. And yet I must be bold to tell you that though Raynaudus be your Friend you do not throughly understand him and that Author in the place quoted means more then you seem to apprehend Your words are these Raynaudus makes mention out of Gab. Biel of a distinction of Love into Affective Effective and what is this Effective Love but the Effects and Expressions of Love Thus you Now the subject matter of your present discourse leads me necessarily to understand your interrogation of the outward sensible effects and expressions of Love And if this be your meaning I must tell you that Raynaudus is not so to be understood and plain it is from that Author that Love effective is not only the outward sensible effects and expressions but also something else For though it be true that all the outward sensible effects and expressions of Love be Love
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be argumentative you shall have my hearty leave to triumph o're the Doctor as you please And now I give you thanks for this answer with which your own papers have supplied me § 5. But now we have need of an O yes For he will condescend to discover to the world his own secret thoughts that surpass those Contemplations of Columbus that first drew him on to the search of a New world Say on Sir and we shall give you as venerable Attention as the votaries of Apollo Pythius did to the Oracle when it spake § 6. Now hereupon saies our Refuter I thus reasoned in my mind You Mr. Doctor were to be understood either of the Habit or the inward Act of Love for as for the outward Expressions of Love it is without dispute that they cannot be said to be Love properly but only by a Trope If you should have said which he never did but alwaies declared the contrary that you spake of the Habit of Love then you would have expresly impugned the All-fulness of Christ's habitual grace which yet the Doctor does alwaies profess to acknowledge and if you should say as now you do that you meant the inward Acts of Love as he alwaies did why then I concluded that you would even hereby impliedly and by consequence have opposed the Perfection of Christ's habitual grace because the intension of the inward Acts of Love proceedeth from the intension of the Habit of Love and is therefore proportioned unto it But of this more fully in the place above mentioned And thus he saies he has shewed us what invited him to his Vse of Confutation § 7. Well we see what rouzed the good man But yet I cannot chuse but suspect the whole for a plain sophistical Elench since all that followes the Because upon which alone as the Basis the whole Argumentation is founded is a very gross mistake But they say the Ephesian Temple one of the Wonders of the world was built upon a Quagmire § 8. And therefore good Sir notwithstanding your because I must needs deny your sequele and because I deal fairly with you I shall give you my Reasons for it § 9. It is true the intension of the inward Acts of Love must proceed from the intension of the Habit so as it is (a) Potentia ex vi Habitûs non potest efficere Actum intensiorem quam sit ipse Habitus quia nulla forma remissa potest per se conferre ad effectum intensiorem ut supra disp 18. fusiùs tractatum est Suarez Metaph disp 44. sect 6. n. 3. impossible that the Act should per se be more intense and perfect then the Habit. Because the Act is the Effect and the Habit is Cause of the Act now no Effect can be more noble then its Cause because Nihil dat quod non habet aut eminenter ut in causis Aequivocis aut formaliter ut in Vnivocis For I speak not now of Causes per Accidens because they have no place here § 10. But then though the Act which is the Effect cannot be more high and intense then the Habit from whence it effectively flowes and so the intension of the Act must proceed from the intension of the Habit and is therefore in this sense (b) Propter necessariam proportionem inter Habitum Actum non potest Habitus remissus per se efficere intensiorem Actum se quia Habitus non inclinat nisi ad Actus similes illis à quibus fuit genitus teste Aristotele 2. Eth. c. 1. teste etiam experientiâ c. Suarez ib. n. 4. Denique etiam in Habitibus infusis docent communiter Theologi ex vi illorum non posse Potentiam efficere Actus intensiores ipsis Habitibus quamquam in eis posset esse major ratio dubitandi vel quia tales Habitus sunt perfectiores suis Actibus vel quia non solum dant facilitatem sed etiam potestatem nihilominus quia revera sunt Habitus dantur cum debita proportione ad Actus ut ex vi illorum fiant Actus connaturali modo ideo quantum est ex intrinseca virtute talium Habituum non valet Potentia efficere intensiores Actus ipsis Habitibus sed si eos interdum elicit est ratione alterius auxilii Divini Suarez ibid. n. 5. Vid. ibid. ampl n. 6 7. proportioned unto it yet let me ask you Sir is it necessary vice versâ that the Act should be alwaies as high and perfect and intense as the Habit I trow not Sir And if it appear so in the issue as without doubt it will then you have put a Fallacy upon your self and by a down-right mistake fallen upon your Vse of Confutation § 11. For instance I hope you will not say that any Lutenist can ever play better then his Art can guide him or that his playing shall regularly and per se exceed his skill or that the Painters fingers should out-do his Art unless the †This story is at large in Strabo Geograph l. 6. p. 180. edit Basil which Erasmus in his Adagies Tit. Taciturnitas laudata Adag Acanthia Cicada seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has thus elegantly rendred Strabo Timaeum citat authorem quendam in Pythiorum certamine Eunomum Locrensem Rheginensem Aristonem in canendi certamen venisse Aristonem Apollinem invocasse Delphicum ut sibi canenti fieret auxilio quod à Delphis Rheginenses olim essent profecti Eunomus respondit Rheginensibus nè certandum quidem omnino de Musica apud quos Cicada vocalissimum animal voce careret Vtrisque ceâ—taâ—tibus cum in Eunomi Cithura una inter canendum chorda frangeretur Cicada supervolans astitit ac vocem alioqui defuturam suo cantu supplevit atque ita victor declaratus statuam Cithara di posuit cum cicada citharae infidente Vide etiam Erasmum Tit. Auxilium Adaâ— Chordae vice Grass-hopper as I remember to have read that once in the Pythian Games he did come in to mend the Musick which the Artist failed in or the * Est in ea Canis mirè factus ut quem pariter casus ars pinxerit Non judicabat se exprimere in eo spumam anhelantis posse cum in reliqua omni parte quod difficillimum erat sibi ipsi satisfecisset Displicebat autem ars ipsa nec minui poterat videbatur nimia ac longiùs à veritate discedere spumaque illa pingi non ex ore nasci anxio animi cruciatu cum in Pictura verum esse non verisimile vellet absterserat saepius mutaveratque penicillum nullo modo sibi approbans Postremò iratus arti quòd intelligeretur spongiam eam impegit inviso loco tabulae illa reposuit ablatos colores qualiter cura optabat fecitque in Pictura Fortuna Naturam Hoc exemplo similis Neaclem successus in spuma equi similiter spongiâ impactâ secutus dicitur eum
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
cannot exceed it For then the Act which is the Effect should be more noble then the Habit which is the Cause and there should be something in the Effect that was not in the Cause contrary to that received Maxime Nihil dat quod non habet aut eminenter aut formaliter And you know I have already told you that I speak only of Habits infused though the reason be the same of Habits acquired that are now compleat and full and of the Acts that flow from them And if this be your meaning you are a most egregious Sophister and speak nothing to the purpose and then I deny the sequele of your Enthymeme And let me tell you withall that from the Antecedent in this sense it will be impossible to inferr your Conclusion against the Doctor And therefore secondly I say that the Intension of Christs actual Grace is not exactly proportioned to that of his habitual Grace so as the actual Grace does alwaies equal the fulness and height and Intension of his habitual Grace And as this is the Proposition to be proved against Doctor Hammond so when you shall make it good Eris mihi magnus Apollo et Phyllida solus habeto I shall Virgil. Ecl. 3. acknowledge you for a Schoolman and a Confuter of Doctor Hammond § 9. But to clear this by a known and received Instance It is an undoubted Truth in Natural Philosophy that (a) Sennert Epit. nat scient l. 1. c. 5. p. 47. Edit Oxon. in qualibet viventium specie dantur intrinseci magnitudinis parvitatis termini extra quos Natura viventia nec producere nec conservare potest And this according to the frequent Determination of the (b) Aristot 1. Phys c. 4. §. 36. 2. de Anima c. 4. §. 41. et 4. de gen Animal c. 4. polit 7. c. 4. Aquinas part 3. q. 7. art 12. ad primum Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 18. in expos q. 7. art 12. ad primum p. 315. great Philosopher Suppose we then the greatest height of man in nature to be 4 Cubits and the least to be 1 it will be impossible to find any man above 4 cubits high or under 1 but all will be either 4 or 3 or 2 or 1 or of some other intermediate Stature between one and four So again suppose we any one degree of Iâ—â—â—â—sion for the height of the Habit be it 8 or 7 or 5 degree of Intension the intension of the Act that flowes from the Habit as the Effect from the Cause will never exceed the degree of intension in the Habit so in this sense it will be exactly proportioned to the intension of the Habit. But what will you thence conclude that because it cannot exceed that therefore alwaies the Act equals the intension of the Habit Then Sir you may as well prove that all men are of an equal stature because none is taller then four Cubits or shorter then one the two extreams of Natures Boundary § 10. And now Sir though it be a very sufficient answer to your Objection to deny your Antecedent yet before I part with you I promise you to prove that the Acts of Christ's Grace are not nay cannot alwaies be exactly proportioned unto that of his habitual Grace so as still to equal it in Intension § 11. And now whereas in the close of this Paragraph you inferr from the former Objection and say that it is not then so clear as the Doctor pretends that the Testimony of the Schoolmen belongs not even in mine own opinion to the matter you had and have in hand I must say that I see not from whence this Inference is deduced § 12. For do the Schoolmen any where say that the Intension of Christs actual Grace is exactly proportioned unto that of his habitual Grace Nay do they any where say that Christ's actual Grace is not capable of Intension and Remission as they do of his habitual If Aquinas in the places quoted by the Doctor which is of your own Citation denies only an increase of Christs habitual Grace and nothing else as is plain to any that shall read the places you have cited and do not you your self quote them only for that very purpose as has already been demonstrated from your own Papers is it not then as clear as the Sun at noon that the Testimony of the Schoolmen by you cited belongs not even in your own opinion as you have all along in those Papers expressed it for of that the Doctor only spake and not of that which you should afâ—â—â— declare to the matter the Doctor had and has in hand which is â—â—e gradual difference in the Acts of Grace in Christ and not the gradual difference in the Habit which he alwaies did believe to be full and compleat still one and intirely the same without possibility of addition or decrease § 13. And therefore this being so evident in the second § you are put to a new Shift For thus you say As for that place you quote out of Aquinas it is plain that therein by the Effects of Wisedom and Grace are meant such as are outward for those are most properly termed Works § 14. Now Sir I thought it had been you that had first quoted this place of Aquinas And all that the Doctor had to do was to shew that even that Schoolman whom you had cited to countenance your Vse of Confutation spake nothing against him for all that he said or that you quoted him for was only for asserting that Christ could not possibly increase according to the Habit of Wisedom and Grace which could not possibly concern him that spake only of the gradual difference in respect of some Acts of Grace and holy Charity And now Sir I pray tell me does not Aquinas speak fully to this and nothing else And did not you therefore quote him in your Vse of Confutation And if this be so then did not Doctor Hammond rightly infer that this Aquinas in this Testimony spake nothing against him To what purpose then do you divert the Reader to another thing that was never in controversie between you and the Doctor Whether the Effects of Wisedom in this place of Aquinas be either inward or outward it is no whit material to the present debate For Doctor Hammond sought no advantage by it All that he had to prove was only this That when Aquinas and the other Schoolmen in the places by you quoted denied all intensive growth of Grace and holy Charity in Christ they were only to be understood of the Habit as they had in express terms declared in the very places by you cited As for the Acts that flow from those Habits and their intensive perfection whether they were all equal in themselves or gradually different as it concerned them not in point of Argument there to determine so they had said nothing at all concerning them which was all the Doctor aimed at
aliis hujusmodi Ratio verò reddi potest quia in his Qualitatibus inveniuntur omnia quae ad hanc Latitudinem intensivam sufficerè possunt Nam omnes illae fiunt per proprias actiones absque diminutione naturali vel si aliquae earum manent naturaliter ab aliquibus formis ut calor à forma ignis frigus à forma aquae habent tamen contrarium à quo impediri possunt minui per se etiam seu per propriam actionem fieri possunt Rursus hae qualitates ex vi suarum rationum essentialium includunt indivisibilitatem repugnantem huic Latitudini intensivae alioqui habent proprias Entitates accidentales in quibus possunt esse capaces hujus Latitudinis Qui discursus probat optimè si in aliquo genere dantur qualitates intensibiles ut revera dantur in his maximè dari Suarez ibid. sect 2. § 13. p. 490. But more particularly to the present purpose thus Et in qualitatibus subjectis spiritualibus in quibus non est extensio partium est id evidentius quia etiam in illis qualitas recipit hoc augmentum intensivum ut amor vel voluptas circa idem Objectum unde etiam ex Principiis fidei certa redditur haec veritas nam Gratia Charitas Fides augeri perfici possunt in eodem subjecto indivisibili etiam absque aliqua extensione ex parte objecti illud ergo augmentum non potest esse nisi intensivum Suarez ibid. sect 1. § 1. pa. 380. With Suarez agrees your own Scheibler l. 2. Metap c. 8. art 2. punct 1 2 3 4. Vid. § 208. § 13. 1. If you say as formerly that these immanent Acts are not Qualities but Actions to this I must reply That as I have formerly demonstrated the falshood of this your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so were it granted unto you it would not profit in the present case For suscipere magis minus non convenit actioni passioni nisi ratione suitermini quatenus in illo est latitudo intensionis So Suarez ibid. sect 2. § 2. and your own Scheibler saies that in Relatione Actione Passione datur intensio remissio secundariò mediante qualitate ut docet Arist l. Categ c. 9. And that there might be no doubt what Quality Vid. Burgersdic Log. lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 36. Theor. 23. §. 1. he means he addes Idem est in actionibus passionibus Ita frigefactio calefactio dicuntur intensiores vel remissiores ratione Terminorum quos producunt Caloris sc vel Frigoris sic in aliis Scheibler ibid. c. 8. art 2. punct 4. § 209. Since therefore Actions and Passions are intended only by reason of their Termes suppose the Acts of Christ's Love were Actions not Qualities they must be intended secundariò only ratione Terminorum and not in regard of the Habit of Love from whence they flow as the Effect from the Cause and Principle § 14. 2. If you say that though the Acts of Grace in all other men are per se capable of intension and remission but it is otherwise in Christ in whom by virtue of the hypostatical union and the good pleasure of God both the Habits and all the Acts of Grace were in summo in that absolute and indivisible height that they could be neither encreased nor diminished I answer that although this were all granted yet it does no whit help you here For the Habits and Acts of Divine Charity in Christ were not specifically different in him from those in all other men but gradually only And therefore since magis and minus non variant speciem quod convenit speciei convenit omni individuo sub specie contento it necessarily followes that as the Habits and Acts of Divine Charity in all other men are essentially per se capable of Intension and Remission it must be so also in Christ since in him they are not specifically but only gradually different from the rest and that it is by accident only I speak in respect of the infused Graces and Acts themselves that they be not capable of being gradually more or less perfect And then further let me tell you that though the Schoolmen do all generally hold that the habitual Grace of Christ in particular the infused Habit of Charity though it were as high as possibly it could be even in the person of Christ quoad potentiam ordinariam yet being but a created because an infused Grace and consequently in its own nature sinite therefore virtus divina potest facere per potentiam scil extraordinariâ—m aliquid Aquin p. 3. q. q. n. 12. ad 2. majus melius quam sit habitualis Gratia Christi You know it is Aquinas in this he is generally approved and followed by the Schoolmen Dicendum est igitur saies Suarez as Quanta sit haec perfectio in Anima Christi eodem modo judicandum est sicut supra in simili dubio de perfectione Gratiae respondimus est enim summa quae de potentia ordinaria esse potest quamvis de potentia absoluta possit esse major ut hîc etiam circa articulum quartum cum D. Thoma notatum est magis ex sequenti disputatione patebit Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disp 26. p. 360. col 3. C. Vide ibid. sect 2. p. 367. col 2. A. B. we have formerly noted quanquam Christi gratia fuerit tam intensa ut juxta ordinem divinae sapientiae nulla intensior esse potuerit de potentia tamen Dei absoluta potuisse fiâ—ri intensiorâ—m tam in ipsa anima Christi quam in Angelo vel in alia anima And for this he there cites Aquinas Lombard Gabriel Biel Capreolus Aureolus Gregor Ariminens and Ocham Suarez in 3. part Thom. q. 7. art 13. disp 22. sect 2 p. 322. col 1. C. 2. A. B. C. where he does not barely dictate but prove it Nay our Refuter himself acknowledges that there is more moderation in this opinion then in that of their Adversaries Mixture of Scholast and Pract. Divinity pag. 231 232. § 15. 3. But then as for the Acts of this Divine Grace it is so farr that they all should be in the same perfect height as the Habit was that we have seen it proved from the Schoolmen and others that Christ did gradually increase in the perfection of the Acts of Wisedom and Grace as he did in Stature and our Refuter is of the number § 16. But because he is still harping upon Consequences and that I may not only free the Doctor from guilt but from all suspition of it I shall now undertake to demonstrate That the Acts of the All-perfect Habit of Divine Grace in Christ or holy Charity were not only de facto gradually different in themselves and so not at all commensurate with the height and intensive perfection of the Habit but also that they must
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
of Zeal and Devotion which flow from these as the effects from their cause and of which only the Doctor spake as we have abundantly demonstrated that differed one from another in gradual Perfection We have already proved it of our Saviours Prayer in the Garden § 80. The Acts then of Love and Trust and dependance upon God and of Zeal and Devotion to him may be considered either precisely and abstractly in themselves and by themselves as flowing from peculiar Habits and Vertues of the same names which are the causes and fountains from whence all our Prayers flow for pray we do to God because we love and honour and reverence and trust and depend on him or else as they are the Acts issuing from Prayer as they are the consequents and â—manations Aquin. 2. 2. q. 83. art 3. in Corp. as I may so speak that visibly shine in it and per modum connotantiae result from it For as Aquinas truly Ad religionem proprie pertinet reverentiam honorem Deo exhibere ideo omnia illa per quae Deo reverentia exhibetur pertinent ad Religionem Per Orationem autem homo Deo reverentiam exhibet in quantum scil ei subjicit profitetur orando se Deo indigere sicut authore suorum bonorum unde manifestum est quod oratio est propriè religionis Actus As out of Religion we pray to God so in and by our Acts of Prayer we give him religious reverence and worship And therefore as Cajetan well observes there Cajetan in 2. 2. Thom q. 83. art 3. are three things considerable in Prayer First the thing prayed for the object of our desires and prayers and in this we acknowledge Gods fulness and superlative Goodness because we desire to have our wants supplied from his store and therefore we ask it of him Secondly the Petition it self and thus we honour God also because our very Petition and Act of Prayer is an Act of subjection and an acknowledgement of Gods power to help us for he that asks any thing of another does eo ipso acknowledge his own wants and by this very Act does submit himself to his will and power he does also in this his asking profess a Power in him to whom he prayes to relieve him a goodness and mercy that will encline him to make use of this his Power to his relief and a wisedome and gracious Providence to over rule and order all things that they may best serve for his relief Thirdly the Petitioner who by his mind and understanding does petition God for Prayer is an Act of the Vnderstanding the prime and most noble part of man and thus he also honours God in this in that he subjects the noblest part of his Soul to him makes use of that to express his desires and acknowledgement of his Power and Goodness § 81. And now as by all these we honour God in Prayer so our Religion and worship in the first and second respects are capable of augmentation and God may be more or less honoured by them Nay in the third also this is possible of increase when the Petitioner as we say in our Liturgie does offer up not only his mind but his whole soul and body and every part and faculty of it in Prayer the Mind to conceive the Will to censent the Tongue the Hand the Eye the Knee all to testifie and acknowledge our homage But in the first and second there can be no doubt When we petition God for spiritual and heavenly blessings we more honour him in this Act of Prayer then when we ask him only temporal because we hereby more acknowledge his transcendent Perfection Grace and Goodness Honoramus Cajetan in locum ut supra saies Cajetan Deum petendo tanto magis quanto vel ex modo petendi vel ex re petita profitemur ipsum esse supra omnia Creatorem provisorem c. So also when with greater longings of spirit stronger ardencies and desires we petition him hereby we acknowledge our greater trust and confidence in his Power to help us which more magnifies and honours him We should not come with so much eagerness unless we had the greater confidence in his Wisdome Power and Goodness § 82. And thus Prayer being an Act of Religion as Aquinas truly which in the Act of Prayer is capable of increase this may and ordinarily is gradually intended though the former were not And yet we have already seen that our Saviour did as well increase in the Perfection of the Acts of Wisdome and Grace as he did in Stature and this acknowledged by our Refuter himself § 83. In short then the Acts of Religion and Devotion and Love and Trust in Christ praying or these Acts from whence his Prayers did all issue as our Refuter has it might be still gradually the same and yet the Acts of Zeal and Devotion and religious worship of and in his Prayer might be and often was upon occasion augmented particularly in his prayer in the Garden And this was all that Doctor Hammond intended His words are plain The Ardency in Christ was sincere ardency accompanyed with Acts of Love and 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 And so at last I have gotten liberty to follow our Refuter's Motion SECT 17. The Refuters three Arguments to prove the Act of Christ's Love alwaies equally intense impertinent to the present Question His confident proposal of them to be examined as rigidly us the Doctors pleases and his vain Ostentation in placing them in his Title-page censured The Ambiguity of the Phrase Christ's Love of God distinguished from Crellius Estius Aquinas and others In what sense still used by the Doctor § 1. He goes on most magnificently and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with much pomp and ostentation he threatens to beat the Doctor with the very Muster-Roll of his Forces JEANES His Actual Love of God was in termino as they say was alwaies at the highest and most intense and this I shall not barely dictate but prove by three arguments which I present unto you to be examined as rigidly as you please 1. The all-fulness and perfection of Christs habitual Grace 2. His perpetual and uninterrupted happiness 3. His impeceability § 2. Well Sir if this be all you aime at you might have spared your pains in these three Arguments For this was never yet questioned as we have already demonstrated The Doubt only is whether those Acts of divine Charity or holy Love in Christ which belonged to him as Viator and by which he merited such as those of Prayer Mercy Charity and the like to which he had an absolute freedome were capable of intension and remission It concerns not that
Charitatis est summum bonum igitur perfecta Charitas est quae in summum bonum fertur in tantum in quantum est diligibile The Habit of Love is then perfect when 't is carried towards God as the chief when God is loved so far forth as he may be loved to wit by a Creature when God is not loved thus inintensely the Habit of Love as Aquinas thought was imperfect With Aquinas also Scotus accords l. 3. dis 13. q. 3. Possibile est animam Christi habere summam gratiam ergo summam fruitionem Consequentia probatur quia actus naturaliter elicitus ab aliqua forma aequatur in perfectione illi formae Vnto these two great School men I shall add the testimony of a Philosopher of great subtility and repute Pet. Hurt de Mendoza De anim dis 16. sect 8. pag. 672. Intensio actus secundi supponit aequalem intensionem in actu primo cum actus secundus supponat primum § 8. But what Sir if not one of these Testimonies any more concern the present controversie then any thing else in their whole writings and that Thomas and Scotus directly assert what Doctor Hammond maintains and you oppose must you not appear to be a rare School-man and that you quote Aquinas and Scotus to purpose For your credit Sir I doubt not but I shall demonstrate both these § 9. But First I pray Sir why cite you not Aquinas from his own writings why do you quote him twice from Capreolus For what if Capreolus has misquoted Aquinas or not rightly understood him what if he onely made use of those words that might best serve for his present purpose and left out those that might clear the present difficulty or what if he quoted Aquinas only to refute him as usually the latter School-men do the former Now as these may be possible so if either of them be certainly so what then I beseech you is become of your proof from Aquinas You should therefore like a man that would write solidly and as becomes a Master of Controversies have referred us to the place it self in the Author that so we might by the Antecedents and Consequents rightly have considered whether you have not mistaken the meaning of your Author § 10. But for the present we will suppose that these are the words of Aquinas or that which I rather beleeve because I find some things tending to it in that Author Capreolus has given us the ful meaning of the place And therefore I shall now consider how they serve to our Refuters advantage § 11. The Sequel or Enthymeme to be confirmed by the Testimony of the School-men is this That seeing the Habits of all Vertues and in particular that of divine Grace and holy Charity in Christ were all fully and most intensively perfect in him therefore the inward Acts of those Vertues and Graces must be all as full and equally perfect in themselves and with the Habits But do any of these Testimonies speak to this purpose For shall I therefore conclude because an Infant in swadling cloathes cannot naturally exceed the stature of a man that therefore he equals it Or because the Act cannot possibly exceed the Habit from whence it issues in gradual Perfection that therefore of necessity it must be still as perfect as the Habit I grant indeed as Hurtado has it that Intensio Actus secundi supponit aequalem intensionem in actis primo that the second Act cannot possibly exceed the first in gradual perfection quia Actus secundus supponit primum because it issues from the first as the Effect from the Cause and the †Sed contra est quod effectus non excedit virtutem causae c. Aquin 2. 2. q. 24. art 6. §. Sed contra Effect cannot possibly be more noble then the Cause because all its perfection flows from it Aquinas therefore thought truly as you tell us from Capreolus that a greater vehemency in the operation of Love argued a greater participation in the subject of the Habits of Love The holier Acts that any man does perform without doubt the more holy he is And where the Lutenist plays excellently I may justly conclude that he is a skilful Musician But shall I vice versâ conclude that therefore of necessity he must always play to the very height of his skill This this is to be proved and nothing else Tell us not therefore from Aquinas that Charit as essentialiter est virtus ordinata ad actum unde idem est ipsam augeri secundum essentiam ipsam habere efficaciam ad producendum ferventioris dilectionis actum This without controversie is an undoubted truth And I shall help you with a reason from Suarez Propter necessariam proportionem inter Habitum Actum non potest habitus remissus per se efficere actum intensiorem se quia habitus non inclinat nisi ad actus similes ill is à quibus fuit genitus teste Aristot 2. Eth. c. 1. teste etiam experientiâ ita enim facile operamur sicut consuevimus tam in specie operum quà m in modo Et ratio est quia Habitus non est nisi veluti impulsus quidam seu pondus relictum in potentia ex vi praecedentium actuum actus autem praecedentes non habent vim inclinandi potentiam ad motus perfectiores sed ad summum ad similes alias si iidem actus efficcrent inclinationem in potentia ad actus intensiores pari ratione dici posset aequales actus intendere ipsum habitum neque ulla superesset ratio ad oppositum probandum Denique etiam in habitibus infusis docent communiter Theologi ex vi illorum non posse potentiam efficere actus intensiores ip sis habitibus quamquam in eis posset esse major ratio dubitandi vel quia tales habitus sunt PERFECTIORES SVIS ACTIBVS mark that Sir vel quia non solum dant facilitatem sed etiam potestatem Nihilominus quia revera sunt habitus dantur cum debita proportione ad actus ex vi illorum fiant actus connaturali modo ideo quantum est ex intrinseca virtute talium habituum non valet potentia efficere intensiores actus ip sis habitibus sed si eos interdum elicit est ratione alterius auxilii divini de quo alias Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 6. § 4 5. § 12. But let us view the place at large as it lies in Aquinas The question is Vtrum Charitas augeri possit The answer is affirmative In corpore Respondeo Dicendum quod Charitas viae potest augeri c. And then in his answer ad tertium he sayes Dicendum quod quidam dixerunt charitatem non augeri secundum suam essentiam sed solum secundum radicationem in subjecto vel secundum fervorem sed hi propriam vocem ignoraverint Cum enim accidens sit ejus esse est inesse unde nihil est aliud
ipsam secundum essentiam augeri quam eam magis inesse subjecto quod est magis eam radicari in subjecto Similiter etiam ipsa essentialiter est virtus ordinata ad actum unde idem est ipsam augeri secundum essentiam ipsam habere efficaciam ad producendum ferventioris dilectionis actum Augetur ergo essentialiter non quidem ita quod esse incipiat vel esse desinat in subjecto sicut objectio illa procedit sed ita quod magis magis in subjecto esse incipiat The passage that Capreolus alludes to in Aquinas is as I suppose partly taken out of this answer ad tertium and partly from the body of the answer to the following question Art 5. Vtrum Charitas augeatur per additionem The words are these Relinquitur ergo quod nullo modo charitas augeri potest per additionem Charitatis ad charitatem sicut quidam ponunt Sic ergo charitas augetur solum per hoc quod subjectum magis magis participat charitatem id est secundum quod magis reducitur in actum illius magis subditur illi Hic enim est augmenti modus proprius cujuslibet formae quae intenditur eo quod esse hujus formae totaliter consistit in eo quod inhaeret susceptibili c. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 24. art 5. in Corp. § 13. And now Sir will any man suppose that you ever consulted the places that you quoted since they make so little so nothing to your purpose For first does not Aquinas here treat of the Habit of Charity and not the Act Does he not consider it in abstracto and precisely as they speak according to the nature of the Form simply and in it self considered and not as it is in Concreto in this or that subject planted what it is naturally apt and disposed to doe not what it actually still performs And secondly does he not here all along and in the other questions also consider Charity as it belongs to Sinners and as it is capable of Increase and not as it is in Christ in all fulness and perfection How then can this any way serve your turn You are gotten into a Quick-mire and the more that you strive the more deeply you will plunge your self § 14. In short then I say Though Necessary causes and Natural forms do always work uniformly because by a necessity of Nature they work ad ultimum virium to the utmost of their Power and Efficacy yet in Voluntary Causes it is otherwise They work not always according to their Power but according to their Will and Pleasure and this because they are naturally free and undetermined in their Operations Of this kind are the Habits of Grace and Charity and all other vertues whether in Christ or in all other men § 15. Your Argument then here is guilty of a double fallacy For first you argue à Potentia ad Actum affirmativè thus The most perfect Charity or that which is more gradually perfect may or has a power and efficacy to produce the most or more noble Act therefore of necessity it must or always does so Though this may be allowed in Natural and Necessary Causes yet how it fails in Voluntary Causes and Effects there is no man can be ignorant Secondly you argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter thus Because the Act can never be more noble or intense then the Habit therefore of necessity it alwaies equals the Habit in gradual perfection How these two fail I have already so often demonstrated that I am ashamed to speak to the same purpose so often but our Refuter will have it so and therefore we must obey him § 16. To your next place of Aquinas quoted by Capreolus though here also I suppose that Author has given us the Meaning not the words let Aquinas himself answer and let his words themselves to which I suppose Capreolus alludes shew how it makes nothing to your purpose They are in the body of the answer of the 8th Article Vtrum Charitas in hac vita potest esse perfecta To which he answers Dicendum quod Perfectio charitatis potest intelligi dupliciter uno modo ex parte diligibilis alio modo ex parte diligentis Ex parte quidem diligibilis perfecta est charitas ut diligatur aliquod quantum diligibile est Deus autem in tantum diligibilis est in quantum bonus est Bonitas autem ejus est infinita unde infinitè diligibilis est Nulla autem creatura potest eum diligere infinitè cum quaelibet virtus creata sit finita Vnde per hunc modum nullius Creaturae charitas potest esse perfecta sed solum charitas Dei quâ seipsum diligit Ex parte verò diligentis tunc est charitas perfecta quando diligit tantum quantum potest Quod quidem contingit tripliciter Vno modo sic quod totum cor hominis actualiter semper feratur in Deum Et haec est perfectio Charitatis Patriae quae non est possibilis in hac vita in qua impossibile est propter humanae vitae infirmitatem semper actu cogitare de Deo moveri dilectione ad ipsum Alio modo ut homo studium suum deputet ad vacandum Deo rebus divinis praetermissis aliis quantum necessitas praesentis vitae requirit Et ista est perfectio Charitatis quae est possibilis in via non tamen est communis omnibus habentibus charitatem Tertio modo ita quod habitualiter aliquis totum cor suum ponat in Deo ita scil quod nihil cogitet vel velit quod divinae dilectioni sit contrarium Et haec perfectio est communis omnibus charitatem habentibus Aquin 2. 2. q. 24. art 8. in Corp. And hence it is that when in the same question art 4. it had been thus objected 2. Praeterea id quod est in termino non recipit augmentum sed Charitas est in termino quasi maxima virtutum existens summus amor optimi boni ergo Charitas augeri non potest An objection just to the design and drift Aquin. 2. 2. q. 24. art 4. Obj. 2. respons ad 2. of our Refuter To this according to the former doctrine he answers Dicendum quod Charitas est in summo ex parte Objecti in quantum scil ejus Objectum est summum bonum ex hoc sequitur quod ipsa sit excellentior aliis virtutibus non tamen est Charitas in summo quantum ad intensionem Actus § 17. How say you now Sir Because Aquinas and Capreolus from him tell us that Charity in regard of the Object is infinite will you therefore conclude it is infinitely perfect also in regard of the Subject and the Intension of the Act Will you argue because God is infinitely Lovely that therefore by us Men he is infinitely Beloved Aquinas only speaks to the
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.
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
the Doctor to be understood The Doctors censure of the Refuters additions just 42 SECT VI. The Refuter acknowledges his own ignorance of a generally received opinion Love a genus to the habit and the act Proved for the Refuters instruction His charging his ignorance on Aristotle Aristotle his Master why vainly quoted He speaks not to the present controversie The assumption onely denyed 72 SECT VII The Refuters reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of love into the habit and the act found in the tract of Will-worship and the answer to M. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions referr first and immediately to the inward acts of love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doctor never asserts that love was univocally predicated of the habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a clear truth His third most false In univocal productions the cause and effect still comprehended under the same genus sometimes also in equivocall His assumption of his first reason infirm His second and fourth reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally predicated of the habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor 78 SECT VIII The Refuters tongue-combat He a man of business The pertinency of the Doctors first papers to explain the meaning of the latter Unjustly censured for speaking cautelously The Refuters understanding the Doctor for a critick and a dunce Erasmus's sate the same with the Doctors Critick an honourable title The best Scholars criticks and who The true critick an universall Scholar Sextus Empericus and Crates character of a critick Quintilianus character of the true Grammarian Aristotle the first author of criticisme and grammar Necessary to compleat the Divine The best way to advance learning to unite criticisme and school-learning Pity the Refuter had not been a critick His mistake of the word Salvo what it signifies The method of the Schools in polemicall discourses observed by the Doctor The Refuter saying and unsaying 91 SECT IX The Refuters impertinent referring to former performances His vain pretences of proof The Refuters reasonings with himself inconsequent proved The intention of the act proportioned to the intension of the habit so as not to exceed it unless by accident but not alwayes to equall it Proved by instance of the Lutenist and Painter and Preacher Habits not necessary but voluntary causes unless ab extrinseco determined 104 SECT X. The Refuters saying is the onely proof that actuall love is in the predicament of action The contrary proved by Suarez Smiglecius Scheibler In actuall love the action and the terminus of it considerable The Refuters remarques in Scheibler impertinent His oracles nothing to the purpose The propositions to be proved Immanent acts in what sense qualities Scheibler not slighted Aristotle his character of Eudoxus agreeable to the Refuter His words not home to the Refuters purpose proved from reason and Suarez Habitual and actuall love both qualities and species of the same genus proved from sundry places in Suarez The Refuters further impertinencies Immanent acts of love in what sense dispositions in what not from Smiglecius Aquinas Acts of two sorts 112 SECT XI The Doctors explication from the Refuters concessions The Refuters reply and valiant resolution His first charge answered His second charge answered in three distinct propositions 1. Expressions gradually different may and in Christ alwayes did flow from a love equally intense in the habit This not the question 2. Nothing naturally hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from acts of love gradually the same Proved Gods outward favours and expressions different The inward act of his love still one and invariable Proved against the Socinian Gods love one infinite and substantiall act against Crellius In what sense God in Scripture said to love some more some less The doctrine of the Schools safer then that of the Socinian God by one immutable act dispenses all the variety of his favours Illustrated The variety in Gods outward favours whence it arises Confirmed from Lombard Aquinas Scotus Applyed to the Refuter 3. In men the outward expressions ordinarily vary according to the graduall difference in the inward acts of love Proved by reason and the authority of Gregory Durand Aquinas Estius The Doctors assertion hence proved as fully as the thing requires The Doctor not ingaged to prove that expressions gradually different could not proceed from a love equally intense The third charge answered No mystery in the word proportionably The correspondence between the inward acts of love and the outward expressions to be understood not according to Arithmetical but Geometrical proportion 131 SECT XII The Doctors proof of the vanity of the Refuters use of confutation made good from the Refuters mixture The Refuters reply and endeavour to make good his charge by consequences impertinent The Refuters momentous objection strikes as well against himself and other his friends as the Doctor The weakness of it The intention of Christs actual grace so proportioned to that of his habituall grace as not to exceed it but not so still as to equall it Illustrated by a clear instance The Schoolmen no where say that the Intension of Christs actuall grace is exactly equal to that of his habituall Aquinas of the Refuters not the Doctors ciration He speaks fully to the Doctors purpose What meant by works and the effects of wisdome and grace in Aquinas An intensive growth in the inward acts of wisdome and grace argues not an intensive increase in the habits Asserted also by the Refuter Cleared by a distinction The Chedzoy challenge The vanity of it Christ did gradually increase in the acts of wisdome and grace as he did in stature Proved from the Refuters mixture from Ames Vorstius Grotius Hooker Field Suarez Estius others both Fathers and Schoolmen and reformed Divines The Defenders advice to the Refuter to be more wary in his challenges 171 SECT XIII The Refuters melancholy phansie his acknowledging the Doctors innocence The Doctor constantly speaks of the gradual difference in some acts of charity never of the habit The Refuters consequence hereupon His monstrous Syllogism examined The acts of Christs love were primariò perse and not onely secundariò and per accidens capable of degrees demonstrated Actions and passions intended and remitted onely in regard of their termes The habits and acts of charity in Christ gradually onely and not specifically different from those in all other men God in his extraordinary power may create something greater and better then the habituall grace of Christ Asserted by Aquinas Suarez and many other Schoolmen and the Refuter himself The acts of the habit of grace in Christ de facto gradually diflerent in themselves and from the habit The phrase The love of God variously taken in Scripture proved In what sense the Doctor constantly takes it Demonstrated The greater good to be more intensely beloved There
is an order in the acts and degrees of love Asserted by the Schools Of the order in the love of Christ The habit of love to God and our neighbours one and the same quality proved God and our neighbours not to be loved with the same equality and degree of affection Actus efficaces inefficaces what they are That they were in Christ Of the gradual difference between them Hence demonstratively proved that the first great law of charity Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart c. does not alwayes oblige us pro hic nunc to the highest degree and noblest act of Divine love Of the gradual difference between the free and necessary acts of Christs love Phrase actuall love distinguished The acts and operations of grace in Christ were neither intensively nor extensively still commensurate with the habit Proved In what sense Aquinas's rule urged by the Refuter holds 205 SECT XIV The Doctors discourse here onely ad hominem The Refuters reply grants all that the Doctors argument aims at Where the degrees of any Quality particularly the love of Christ are for number multiplyed 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 onely way to conclude the servour 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 Doctor The Refuters ignorance notwithstanding his confidence Quantitas virtutis molis No absurdity in the Doctors discourse if as the Refuter falsly charges him he had concluded a greater ardency in Christs devotion from the multiplying of the severall acts of prayer Continuance in prayer a demonstration of fervour Frequent repetitions of the same words in prayer an argument of an heightened fervour of Spirit 251 SECT XV. The pertinency of the Doctors Argument and impertinence of the Refuters charge The Doctors argument à posteriori from the necessary relation between the work and the reward Not understood by the Refuter The outward work more valuable in Gods sight for the inward fervour and devotion The Refuters petitio principii Works in a Physicall sense what and what in a Moral The Refuters discourse of the infinite value of Christs merit arising from the dignity of his person Nothing to the purpose The dignity of a morall action according to the physicall entity of the act or according to the dignity of the person performing it The actions of Christ in regard of his person infinite in value Not so in regard of their substantial moral goodness Proved and acknowledged by our Refuters own Suarez Consequently in this regard they might exceed one another in moral perfection The Doctors argument that it was so in Christ The appositeness of the proof The Scriptures say the same 265 SECT XVI The second part of the Refuters second answer The distinct confession of all the Doctor pretends to The English translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more earnestly justified The Refuter's nonsense 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 onely for others or also for himself Of prayer and the severall 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 M. Hooker commended Whether Christ did in truth and reality or onely 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 276 SECT XVII The Refuters three arguments to prove the act of Christ's love alwayes equally intense impertinent to the present question His confident proposal of them to be examined as rigidly as the Doctor pleases and his vain ostentation in placing them in his Title-page censured The ambiguity of the phrase Christs love of God distinguished from Crellius Estius Aquinas and others In what sense still used by the Doctor 333 SECT XVIII The Refuters first argument contradicts his second and proves not his conclusion Reduced to form The Sequele denyed The reason His authorities concern not the question His citing Aquinas from Capreolus censured The conclusion to be proved Hurtado's and Aquinas first saying from Capreolus true with the reason of it from Suarez but not pertinent A view of the place in Aquinas He speaks of the habit c. not the act The different workings of necessary and voluntary causes The Refuters argument guilty of a double fallacy His next place of Aquinas from Capreolus impertinent His gross ignorance or prevaricating in his third place of Aquinas Scotus testimony impertinent Aquinas and Scotus maintain that proposition which he would confute in the Doctor by their testimonies 337 SECT XIX 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 beatifick 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 Refuters grave propositio malè sonans His argument a fallacy à dicto secundum quid Christs twofold state Though the infused habit of grace in him alwayes full yet not so the acts The reason M. Jeanes and others guilty of this propositio malè sonans as well as the Doctor The piouâ—â—y credible proposition of the Schoolmen
learning in this point of which he professes himself so totally ignorant I should think fit to referr him to Ruvio's Logica Mexicana as grave an Author as his Scheibler or the Author of the Collegium Complutense § 28. His words most pertinent to this purpose are these Cum omnis motus vel actio sit via in terminum per ipsum productum quaelibet harum actionum sc appetitus sensitivi proprium habet terminum quidem terminus transmutationis corporalis sensu percipitur Terminus vero actionis appetitus non percipitur sensu quemadmodum neque actio ipsa Iram enim nisi aliqua alteratione Corporis ostendatur vel certe verbis aut signis non agnoscimus sed cum sit Actio corporea absque dubio habet proprium terminum nomine ejusdem actionis significatum ut ostendunt Operationes Voluntatis similes Dum enim Voluntas rem aliquam Amore prosequitur Actio ipsa Amandi suum habet terminum in eadem voluntate productum nempe Amorem actualem quemadmodum actio Intellectus verbum mentale sed eodem nomine significamus Actionem Terminum nempe Amoris Actualis Ita ergo de Actibus appetitus intelligendum est Amorem sensitivum Irae Gaudii motus suos habere Terminos inneminatos quos iisdem nominibus ac actus ipsos nominamus nempe actualem Amorem actualem Iram Gaudium Et rursus quemadmodum Amor actualis per Actum Voluntatis productus Verbum mentale per Actum Intellectus sunt Qualitates cum tamen Dilectio Intellectio sunt Actiones pari ratione de Actibus Appetitus sentiendum est c. Ruv. Log. Mexicana lib. Praedicam c. 8. q. 4. in solut dubii 2. p. 1184 1185. § 29. But yet if this Author should seem too obscure and mean for a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinities perusal I shall refer him to that very Suarez whom he himself recommends to the Doctors inspection and yet not so much to his Authority as his Reason though yet oportet discentes credere among whom in this point he confesses himself to be His words are these * Vide Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. Prima erat instantia de Actibus immanentibus quam multi expediunt negantes illas esse Qualitates sed Actiones tantum quae inter Thomistas videtur esse valde recepta opinio ut infra videbimus tractando de Praedicamentis Actionis ut ibi ostendemus tamen negari non potest quin illa actio aliquem habeat terminum intrinsecum qui per eam fiat ut ibidem ostendemus ille autem terminus non potest esse nisi Qualitas ut facile patebit discurrendo per caetera Praedicamenta Item secundum hos Actus verè dicimur Quales nempe boni aut mali scientes Amantes irati c. Item hi actus sunt formae ultimo actuantes ac perficientes ipsas substantias quibus insunt ergo convenit illis communis ratio Qualitatis supra assignata Atque haec sententia est communis inter authores cam tenet D. Thomas opusc 48. Soncinas 5. Metaphys q. 36. Latius l. 9. q. 21. Ferrariensis 2. contra Gentes c. 82. 2. de Anima q. 12. Hervaeus quodlib 9. q. 8. Aegid tract de Mensur Angel q. 10. Et in eadem sententia est Scotus 1 Sent. d. 3. q. 6. § Hic sunt Quodlib 12. § Ad tertium Principale quem sequuntur Scotistae praesertim Antonius Andreas 9. Metaphys q. 4. idem sentiunt Durand Gabriel 1 Sent. d. 27. q. 2. Thus Suarez Metaphys disp 42. sect 5. § 13. § 30. Howsoever though he thinks fit to referr the Doctor because he is a Critick to learn some Metaphysicks from Scheibler yet I will be so civil to him because he is a Schoolman to referr him for his learning in this point to one of the subtlest of those Doctors And let Scotus be the man it is l. 1. Sent. d. 27. q. 3. § 19. ad tertium The place is short but full and not taken notice of by Suarez And the words are these Ad Tertium concedo quod Notitia est proles verè genita sed productio illa non est actualis intellectio quia ut dictum est supra actualis intellectio non est Actio de genere Actionis sed est Qualitas nata terminare talem actionem quae significatur per hoc quod est dicere vel in communi per hoc quod est elicere non igitur Verbum est aliquid productum actione quae est intellectio quia ipsa intellectio non est productiva alicujus sed ipsa est producta actione quae est de genere actionis sicut dictum est supra He here referrs to the place quoted by Suarez 1. Sent. d. 3. q. 6. p. 110. col 2. n. 31. ib. q. ult p. 130. ex edit Cavell where he has very solidly proved it § 31. And thus we have Reason and Authority sufficient to clear this point That Actual Love is a Quality flowing from the Habit of Divine Love that terminates the immanent Action of Loving which for want of sufficient words are both comprehended under the same common name of the Immanent Acts of Charity or Divine Love And therefore to come to his second Argument § 32. Though as he truly sayes Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate yet these Qualities that terminate immanent Acts and are produced by them particularly the Quality of Actual Love that proceeds from the energetical operation and working of the divine Grace of holy Charity of which the Scriptures and Fathers and all Divines are so full must not be excluded out of the number of Entities for this Refuters Grave saying till he can more solidly prove that all immanent Acts and particularly this of Divine Love are purely Actions not terminated in Qualities of the same name with the immanent Acts or Actions themselves And so I come to his first Argument the Forlorn hope of the Cause § 33. If they be Qualities they must most probably be ranked under the first of the four Species c. § 34. To this let the same Suarez to make it more authentick give answer Metaph. tom 2. dist 42. sect 5. § 15. Supposito ergo saies he quod hi Actus sint Qualitates videri potest alicui esse collocandas in tertiâ specie tum quia sunt termini suarum Actionum tum etiam quia Aristoteles Passiones Animae in illâ specie collocat ut Iram Gaudium c. quae tamen Actus immanentes sunt sed hae rationes non urgent jam enim diximus esse terminum Actionis non esse adaequatam vel essentialem rationem illius tertiae speciei Passiones autem animae per se ipsae ut sunt actus immanentes non pertinent ad tertiam speciem sed secundum id à quo accipiunt nomen Passionis nimirum ex alteratione
great a Master Go on and prosper in your study of him so long till you rightly understand him and know how better to apply his Maximes to your advantage then you have done in the present Controversie § 9. For what I pray Sir saies Aristotle to misguide you in the case Is this it you mean in the place quoted from his Topicks 1. Top. c. 15. n. 11 Is it this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas alas Sir why should you conjure up Aristotles Ghost to speak an Oracle and Truth that never was yet questioned You might have saved the Printer the labour of troubling his Greek Characters Smiths Elements of Logick had been sufficient to prove that which every Fresh-man in Logick knows to be an undoubted Axiome But you were willing to let us know you had Aristotles Organon in your study and that you could quote him in Greek § 10. But good Sir I pray tell me how could your great Master Aristotle misguide you in the point depending betwixt you and the Doctor Was it ever denied by your Adversary that Entia primo diversa cannot be put in the same Praedicament or has he any where asserted that a word is not ambiguous that is attributed to things that are put in divers Praedicaments To this only speaks Aristotle But by the way give me leave to tell you that either the Printer or your Amanuensis were mistaken in this Quotation For it is not to be found in the 15th but in the 13th Chapter at least in my Edition wherein there are but fourteen Chapters in that Book Howsoever the words I acknowledge and pass by the Lapse as veniall and if you can now prove that Love which the Doctor makes the Genus of the Habit the Act is a transcendental thing and found in several Praedicaments like the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he in that place instances in I shall then acknowledge the force of this Quotation from Aristotle but till you can make this appear and make good your Assumption I cannot take it for an Oracle that the Habit and the Act of Love are Entia primo diversa things put in several Praedicaments because that you have asserted it You may spare your pains Sir in proving Axiomes and your Major should have been granted you for asking without Aristotles authority Till the Minor which is only the matter in debate betwixt you and the Doctor be made good and you can prove that Actual Love is not a Quality but a simple Praedicamental Action I must say that since Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem you have concluded nothing against the Doctor And so I take my leave of this Section with a Nego Minorem SECT 7. The Refuters Reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act found in the Tract of Will-worship and the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions refer first and immediatly to the inward Acts of Love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doct. never asserts that Love was univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four Reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a Clear Truth His third most false In univocal productions the Cause and Effect still comprehended under the same Genus sometimes also in aequivocal His Assumption of his First Reason infirm His second and fourth Reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor § 1. THe Doctor now having cleared the Ambiguity of the Phrase that gave the Captious advantage to the Vse of Confutation and shewed that he spake of another matter then the Author of the Mixture did comes now to shew that this was no new-coined distinction on purpose invented to decline the force of that Vse Doctor HAMMOND 15. THis Distinction I thought legible enough before both in the Tract of Will-worship and in the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey 16. In the former the Refuter confesseth to find it reciting these words of mine It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another Where the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love § 2. To this our Refuter makes a very large reply but nothing to the purpose thus JEANES THe distinction which you thought legible enough before in your Tract of Will-worship in which you say that I confess to find it is such a distinction between the Habits and Acts of Love as that Love equally comprehends them both as Species Now I utterly deny that there is any such distinction in those words of yours which I recite It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then another And the reason of this my denial is because love as a Genus doth not comprehend the expressions of Love equally with the Habit. 1. Nothing can as a Genus be equally praedicated of things put in several Praedicaments but the Habit of Love and expressions of Love are put in several Praedicaments therefore Love as a Genus doth not equally comprehend them both 2. The Habit of Love is formally and intrinsecally Love the expressions of Love that is as you expound your self § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination from the inward acts of Love and therefore Love doth not as a Genus equally comprehend the Habit and expressions of Love Raynaudus in Mo◠discip dist 3. n. 144. makes mention out of Gabriel Biel of a distinction of Love into affective and effective and what is this effective Love but the effects and expressions of Love But now that he doth not take this to be a proper distribution of a Genus into its Species appeareth by what he saith out of the same Author concerning the division Effectivum dicit ipsum illius Amoris eliciti effectum Translato quippe causae nomine ad effectum is dicitur amare effectivè qui non ostentat infertilem ac sterilem amorem sed cum se dat occasio erumpit in fructus dignes amoris Quam esse admodum impropriam amoris divisionem fatetur Gabriel quia amare propriè est in sola voluntate tanquam in subjecto ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur estque actus transiens non immanens voluntatis 3. No one word can as a Genus equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect The Habit of Love is the Efficient cause and the sincere and cordial expressions of Love are the Effect therefore Love is not predicated of them equally as a Genus 4. That which is predicated properly of one thing and tropically of another cannot equally comprehend them both
impertinent referring to former performances His vain pretences of proof The Refuters reasonings with himself inconsequent proved The intension of the Act proportioned to the intension of the Habit so as not to exceed it unless by Accident but not alwaies to equall it Proved by instance of the Lutenist and Painter and Preacher Habits not necessary but voluntary causes unless ab extrinseco determined Doctor HAMMOND 18. BUt the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey which occasioned it was I think as cautious also 1. in the words recited by the Refuter viz. that Christ himself was more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another 2. in the words following in that Answer but not recited by him viz. that the sincerity of this or that Vertue exprest in this or that performance is it we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath Degrees where the this or that performance are certainly Acts of the Vertue consisting in a latitude and having Degrees viz. in that latitude no way implies him that hath Vertue in that latitude viz. Christ to want at present and in that sense to be capable of further Degrees 19. I am willing to look as jealously as I can on any passage of my own which falls under any man's Censure and therefore finding nothing in the words set down by him as the ground of the Refutation which is any way capable of it I have reviewed the whole Section and weighed every period as sufficiently as I could to observe whether I could draw or wrest that Consequence from any other passage not recited by him 20. And I find none in any degree liable except it should be this in the beginning of the Section where setting down the Argument as it lay in the Tract of Will worship I say 't is possible for the same person which so loves God i. e. with all the heart to love him and express that Love more intensely at one time then another as appeared by the example of Christ 21. And if this be thought capable of misapprehension by reason of the and disjoyning Love from the expressions of it and so the expressions belonging to the Acts the Love be deemed to denote the habitual Love I must only say that is a misapprehension for that by loving with all the heart in the first place I certainly meant the sincere habit of Love by Love in the latter place the inward acts of Love and by the outward expressions of Love the outward expressions of those inward Acts and of those Acts only I speak and of those expressions when I say they are more intense at one time then another JEANES I shall here briefly represent unto you that which made me think you guilty of detracting from the All-fulness of Christs habitual Grace and refer you for confirmation hereof unto what I have said in the beginning of this my Discourse The undenyable consequence of what you say in answer to Mr. Cawdrey is as I have proved that Christ's Love of God was capable of further Degrees Now hereupon I thus reasoned in my mind You were to be understood either of the Habit or of the inward Act of Love for as for the outward Expressions of Love it is without dispute that they cannot be said to be Love properly but only by a Trope If you should have said that you spake of the Habit of Love then you would have expresly impugned the All-fullness of Christs habitual Grace and if you should say as now you do that you meant the inward Acts of Love why then you would even hereby impliedly by consequence have opposed the perfection of Christ's habitual Grace because the intension of the inward acts of Love proceedeth from the intension of the habit of Love and is therefore proportioned unto it But of this more fully in the place above mentioned Thus having shewed you what invited me to my Vse of Confutation I shall pass over the three other Sections which you your self I presume would have spared if you had been privy unto that which I now acquaint you with § 1. The Doctor in the four former Paragraphs had truly stated the Question in Debate and clearly set down his own meaning and after the most impartial survey of every suspicious period in the quoted Section had found nothing that with any ingenuity could be forced to speak contrary to his present judgement here expressed And now our Refuter in stead of convincing the Doctor and disproving any thing here said steps in and tells us that he shall briefly represent to the Doctor that which made him think him guilty of detracting from the All-fullness of Christ's habitual grace and refer him for confirmation hereof unto what he has said in the beginning of his Discourse § 2. Say you so Sir I see then your skill in Musick is but little because you are alwaies harping upon one string But good Sir forbear in charity forbear for know you not that Occidit miseros Crambe repetita Magistros Juvenal Howsoever if you can allow us no new Arguments it is not fit nor can you in justice expect to receive any but old Answers And therefore have the Patience to look back and you shall find this your invincible Demonstration proved no better then a ridiculous Sophisme and a Farrago of Mistakes § 3. But he goes on with Triumph and the Galliardise of a Conqueror and saies The undeniable consequence of what the Doctor saies in answer to Mr. Cawdrey is as he has proved that Christ's Love of God his habitual Love he must mean if he speak any thing to the purpose for the Doctor positively maintains a gradual difference in the Acts of Christs Love was capable of further Degrees § 4. But good Sir I beseech you do not talk too much of Proof Where where have you performed this so wonderful Atchievement In good earnest tell us that we may erect for you no less then Bacchus monuments and Hercules Pillars with a Ne plus ultra inscribed for a Motto and a Trophee of your great Acquests For my own part I cannot yet tell where to find it but all along I see that your Proofs and your Conclusions are at far greater distance then your self and Doctor Hammond For little hope there is they should ever be reconciled though in good time you and the Doctor may You seem indeed to speak to you in your own Rhetorical expressions which I hope Jeanes Answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 15. will therefore please you most vehemently to assert your Conclusion and to affirm that you have proved it But you must pardon me if I entertain not your vehement Asseverations for solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae Pray Sir review your Proofs again and put more strength into your Arguments If you can make good that they contain any disproof of what the Doctor has said unless begging of the Question and your own 〈◊〉
pingeret poppyzonta retinentem equum Canem ita Protogenes monstravit Fortuna Plin. Natur. hist lib. 35. ca. 10. mihi pag. 346. tom 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist lib. 6. Eth. ca. 4. §. 3. Painters rage casually directs his Pencill to draw the Dogges and Horses foame which all his skill and frequent attempts could not reach to The Perfection of the Act still argues the Perfection of the Habit and the intension here must be derived from the former But then though the Painter cannot limne beyond his skill nor the Lutenist play unless by chance yet I hope the Lutenist and Painter is not morally or naturally bound and necessitated alwaies to play and limne as well as they can § 12. To come closer I suppose Mr. Jeanes to be a good Preacher for I have seen a good Sermon of his in print concerning Abstinence from all appearance of evill and he would do well to think of his own Doctrine but yet I cannot think him bound either by Gods law or man 's to preach alwaies as well as he can Nor do I beleeve he makes his Sermons with the same care and pains and sets them off with the same Learning and Rhetorick when he preaches weekly to his Parish at Chedzoy as when he preaches before the Judges in the face of the Country And yet still the intension of the Act must proceed from the intension of the Habit. A man of lower parts and less learning and Judgement and Rhetorick then himself cannot speak or write so well as he himself can And yet he himself is not alwaies bound to exceed a meaner Scholars performances and many times Prudence Discretion will invite him to stoop and condescend to the weakness and Capacity of his Auditors § 13. For the * Dicendum est ergo quòd Habitus determinat Potentiam ad hoc ut ipsa Habitu perfecta sit proprium principium perfecti operis in quo sua consummatur perfectio Et quoniam Habitus est quo quis operatur cum vult non cum habet propterea est quo quis operatur infra ejus Potestatem quantum vult non quantum potest ut patet in Artificibus ideo non mireris si Actus Potentiae habituatae non sunt semper perfectiores Actibus Potentiae non habituatae Cajetan in 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. pag. 98. col 4. K. Habitus in tantum potest esse Principium Actus Liberi in quantum possumus eo uti cum volumus non ergo dat ipse Habitus libertatem sed potius ut ita dicam illam accipit à Potentia in qua residet quatenus Potentia est quae Habitu utitur ut in ejus facultate positum est illo uti vel non uti c. Vid. amp Suarez Metaph. disp 19. sect 5. n. 8. Dicimus Qualitatem ex se habere talem naturam intensibilem non ratione alterius quamvis quoad existentiam redigatur in actum magis vel minus perfectum ab agente inaequali vel in virtute vel in approximatione vel in voluntate si sit liberum Suarez Metaph. disp 46. sect ◠n. 3. vid. ibid. sect 3. n. 9. n. 15 16. sect 4. n. 14. p. 497. col 1. Suarez disp 19. sect 2. sect 4. n. 8. c. Voluntas ab objecto proposito non semper determinatur ad unum certa est recepta ab omnibus eà mque ex professo probat D. Thomas 1. 2. q. 10. art 2. Nam perinde est dicere Voluntatem non necessitari ab alio quod non determinari ad unum ab illo Sed est certum non necessitari ab omnibus objectis ergo nec determinari ad unum Igitur quoad Exercitium solum in Patria ab infinita bonitate Dei clarè visi determinatur ad unum juxta receptam doctrinam quoad Specificationem verò à Bono in communi aut aliis similibus objectis c. Suarez Metap disp 19. sect 6. n. 9. Vid. ibid. sect 5. n 7. Habits whereof we speak being seated in the Will do ordinarily partake of the nature of the Will wherein they are subjected and concurring still effectively with the Will to the production of the Act must still be free and voluntary causes to act not necessarily ad ultimum virium but how and when and in what manner and measure he that has the Habit shall think fit unless the Will be otherwise limited and determined For instance The blessed Saints and Angels in Patria love God ad ultimum virium necessarily and yet freely as freedome is improperly taken because such is the excellency of the Object God which now they know face to face being Comprehensores and in Patria as they speak in the Schooles that he cannot chuse but most necessarily and most ardently be loved But then this determination is wholy extrinsecal to a Habit ut sic and praecisely considered and only by accident in respect of the Knowledge and Perfection of the Object which cannot chuse but be alwaies most perfectly loved where it is so perfectly known § 14. And Thus to speak in your own Complement which you vouchsafe in the Close of this Section to spend upon the Doctor having shewed you the ground of your mistake that invited you unto your Vse of Confutation I might pass over not only the three other Sections but the rest of your whole Book which you your self I presume would have spared if you had been privy to that which I now acquaint you with But we must attend you in your motion SECT 10. The Refuters Saying is the only proof that Actual Love is in the Praedicament of Action The contrary proved by Suarez Smiglecius Scheibler In Actual love the Action and the Terminus of it considerable The Refuters Remarques in Scheibler impertinent His Oracles nothing to the purpose The Propositions to be proved Immanent Acts in what sense Qualities Scheibler not slighted Aristotle his Character of Eudoxus agreeable to the Refuter His words not home to the Refuters purpose proved from Reason and Suarez Habitual and Actual Love both Qualities and Species of the same Genus proved from sundry places in Suarez The Refuters further Impertinencies Immanent Acts of Love in what sense Dispositions in what not from Smiglecius Aquinas Acts of two sorts Doctor HAMMOND 22. THe word Love as I said is a Genus equally comprehending the two Species habitual and actual Love and equally applicable to either of the Species to the Acts as well as the Habit of Love And so when I say Love is capable of Degrees the meaning is clear The Generical word Love restrained to the latter Species i. e. considered in respect of the Acts of Love gradually differenced one from the other is in that respect capable of Degrees both inwardly and in outward expressions that Act of Love that poured out and exprest it self in the more Ardent prayer was a more intense Act of Love
then another Act of the same habitual Love which did not so ardently express it self JEANES THat Love is not a Genus equally comprehending habitual and actual Love as it 's two Species I have already proved by this Argument Because they are in several Predicaments Habitual Love in the Predicament of Qualitie and Actual in the Predicament of Action There are I know divers great Philosophers and Schoolemen that make all immanent Acts and consequently all inward Acts of Love to be Qualities they are say they only Grammatical Actions not Metaphysical Actions in the Predicament of Action But this opinion is untrue in it self and no waies advantagious unto your cause in hand 1. It is untrue in itself and to confirm this I shall offer to your consideration two arguments out of Scheibler which clearly prove immanent acts to be true proper and predicamental actions in the Predicament of Action In universum id sine incommodo potest dici Actio quod sufficit ad constituendam causalitatem Efficientis Atqui dantur causae efficientes quibus non convenit alia causalitas quà m quae sit actio immanens Ergo actio immanens vere est actio Propositio patet Quia praedicamentum Actionis ponitur ad locandam causalitatem efficientis causae in genere entium ut supra disputatum explicando divisionem praedicamentorum Et confirmatur Quod actio sit adaequata causalitas efficientis ut supra visum est lib. 1. c. 12. Assumptio patet Nam Homo absolutè est causa efficiens in quantum denominatur videre aut intelligere et tamen isti sunt actus immanentes That which is the Causalitie of an efficient Cause is a true and predicamental Action in the predicament of Action But immanent Acts are the causalities of efficient causes and therefore proper and predicamental Actions Deinde ad actus immanentes sunt potentiae activae Sed potentiae activae sunt per ordinem ad veras actiones Ergo actus immanentes sunt verae actiones Et si hi solum titulo tenus sunt actiones Ergo etiam potentiae illae activae titulotenus sunt potentiae activae That which terminates and actuates an active power is a proper and predicamental action But every immanent act terminates and actuates an active power and therefore every immanent act is a proper and predicamental action Met. lib. 2. cap. 10. n. 27. You may perhaps slight Scheibler as a trivial author but I urge his reasons not his Authority and if you can answer his reasons you may speak your pleasure of him and of me for alledging of him But I can press you with an Author far greater then Scheibler our great Master Aristotle of whom you make somewhere in your writings honorable mention He lib. 10. Ethic. c. 3. tells us roundly that the operations of vertues and even happiness it self are not qualities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but these are immanent Acts and therefore in his opinion immanent acts are not qualities But secondly suppose this opinion were true in it self yet will it no waies advantage your cause for the patrons of it range immanent acts under the first Species of quality and then are they either Dispositions or Habits If you say they are dispositions as most of the above-mentioned schoolmen hold them to be against this I object That however they may be so in other men yet they cannot be so in Christ for a Disposition carryeth in it's notion inchoation and imperfection and therefore to attribute it unto Christ is to throw an apparent dishonour upon him If you say they are habits why then you cannot deny them to be gracious habits and so you will fall upon that opinion of which in this reply you so studiously endeavor to acquit your self viz. that the same habits of Grace in Christ may be more intense at one time then another and consequently that his habitual Grace was not alwaies full and perfect § 1. Whereas the Doctor had been forced again to mind our Refuter of the useful distinction of Love into it's Species Habitual and Actual he tells us again that Love is not a Genus equally comprehending them as it 's two Species as he has proved by this argument because they are in several Predicaments habitual Love in the Predicament of Quality and actual Love in the Predicament of Action § 2. It is true indeed that you have told us seven or eight times already that this you have proved And what pitty is it that since you are a man of such Gravity and parts that we should not take your word for it But my good Pythagoras since we are out of our five years Probation give us more then your bare word for the proof of this part of your Assumption that actual Love is in the Predicament of Action and not of Quality Review your former Pages that I may retort your own language and tell us whether you have attempted any thing to this purpose Do not then begge the Question like a Puisny Sophister but prove it like a Schoolman Shall I again bestrew your way with your own Rhetorical flowers * Jeanes Answer to the Eclenest pag. 15 17. I am resolved as well as you to swallow none of your proofless Dictates seeing I have entred the Lists with you you must not think me irreverent and sawcy if as the Souldiers speak I dispute every inch of ground with you and be so bold as to call upon you for the Proof of whatsoever you assert touching that which is in controversy between us Said indeed you have often that actual Love is a Predicamental Action and not a Quality but you have no where proved it § 3. And give me leave to tell you that it will be impossible to make it good till first you shall demonstrate against Suarez and the best Metaphysicians and Philosophers that Actio ut sic non dicit essentialem respectum ad terminum and that there can be any Motion whether instantaneous or successive and not from a Terminus à Quo to a Terminus ad Quem and give us a solid answer to their Arguments § 4. And now that you may see that Suarez is not singular in this Doctrine besides the Authors I have already quoted to this purpose for I am willing to move your Palate with a fresh Dish I shall now refer you to Smiglecius Logick a book of solidity and clearness in matters of this nature He tells us Non solum sunt in corpore passibiles Qualitates sed etiam in anima Nam etiam in anima oriuntur affectus ex passione alteratione corporeâ ut ira gaudium timor tristitia Amor c. Quod si objicies affectus istos esse Actiones mentis in Praedicamento Actionis reponendos how say you Mr. Refuter Respondeo in Actione duo considerari primò Actionem secundò Terminum qui est effectus Actionis Ratione primi affectus spectant ad Praedicamentum Actionis
ratione secundi spectant ad Praedicamentum Qualitatis Smiglec Log. disp 11. q. 3. p. 417. edit Oxon. § 5. Nor must you be ready to take advantage and say that though actual Love be not a predicamental Action yet Smiglecius you see makes it a Patible Quality and so Love as a Genus cannot comprehend the Habit in the first Species of Quality and the Act in the third and therefore hence at least it will appear that the Doctor is mistaken § 6. For the same Smiglecius has sufficiently prevented this Objection when in the beginning of his disputation (a) Smiglec Log. disp 11. q. 1 p. 412. Vid. etiam Suarez Metaph. disp 42. sect 5. n. 15. he layes it down for a ground that eadem Specie qualit as potest induere omnes illas rationes esse simul Habitus naturalis Potentia Passibilis Qualitas And therefore actual Love though as considered with respect to the alteration arising by it it be ranked among Passible Qualities yet as it is Qualitas bene vel malè afficiens subjectum abstrahendo ab hoc quod sit facilè vel difficilè mobilis it belongs to the first Species § 7. Nay which perhaps will raise a wonder in our Refuter I do not think but this Doctrine will also be found in his own Master Scheibler (b) Scheibler Metaph. lib. 2. c. 8. n. 105. p. 918. For whereas it had been objected that Actionis non datur Actio his answer is Respondeo Actus immanentes per quos fiunt habitus posse bifariam aestimari nempe simpliciter in ratione Actionis vel quantum ad intrinsecum terminum suum qualitativum Actio igitur convenit hoc solum posteriori respectu ut Suarez determinat disp 18. Metaph. sect 4. disp 44. sect 8 n. 23. Actionis autem non est actio immediatè ex vi suâ seu in quantum talis est dimisso respectu ad qualitativum terminum Vid. supra c. 6. tit 4. art 3. punct 1. num 37. § 8. Well then in Actual Love two things may be considered the very Action of loving or the Quality of Love produced by that Action which is it's terminus and product Now these two by reason of the narrowness of language are comprehended under the same common name as other immanent Acts are but yet though the name and expression be the same the nature of the things are so different that they are put in several predicaments the immanent act of love considered as in fluxu is in the Predicament of Action but considered as in termino continually depending on the action of Love as light does upon illumination that produces it it is a Quality and in the first Species ranked and placed I have already cleared this Doctrine in the answer to our Refuters irrefragable demonstration § 9. But now we shall hear newes indeed and he will let us know his own Remarques in Scheibler he tells it us as gravely as the Romane Priests were wont to relate the Fate of the Empire from the books of the Sibylls which themselves could only read Never any man without doubt made the like observations § 10. There are I know saies he divers great Philosophers and Schoolmen that make all immanent Acts and consequently all inward acts of Love to be Qualities they are say they only Grammatical actions not Metaphysical actions in the predicament of Action But 1. this opinion is untrue in it self and 2ly no way advantageous to the Doctors cause in hand § 11. For once Sir be it granted And what do you thence conclude against Doctor Hammond I see you are a cunning Angler that having fished long and catched nothing now fall to troubling the stream But En Rhodus en Saltus The Doctor made use of a distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act which all the world for ought I could ever find to the contrary approve of and our Refuter to oppose it tells us that some Schoolmen and Philosophers make all immanent Acts Qualities c. § 12. And is not now Doctor Hammond confuted Sing sing your Io Paean while we look out some Diogenes with his Candle and Lanthorn to find out in what corner our baffled Doctor hides his head Well Sir I see you are so excellent a Schoolman that I must give you my Vote to answer Bellarmine There is nothing can withstand your all-powerful Confutation § 13. But good Sir I beseech you tell us what 's all this to the Doctor or the present dispute Did he ever take part with those Philosophers and Schoolmen I pray what temptation had you then to run into this Digression Truly none but that a book was to be made and Doctor Hammond to be confuted whether he spake right or wrong or say any thing or nothing By this I see Sir you can answer Quodlibets and Ergo you are a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity § 14. But if we will but stay and have patience till the Sun is up this Memnon's head will vent an Oracle First then he saies This Opinion is untrue in it self and to confirm this he shall offer to the Doctors consideration two arguments out of Scheibler which clearly prove immanent Acts to be true proper and predicamental Actions in the Predicament of Action § 15. And have you not told us newes indeed you should have brought us word that the Sun shines at Rhodes or when it is in it's Zenith There is nothing more generally received in the Schools then that is And I dare say scarce any Philosopher or Schoolman of any note has for these hundred years almost delivered any thing to the contrary Why then urge you Scheibler and his reasons as if he being a late writer had discovered a Truth which former Authors were mistaken in If in the next edition of your book or Rejoynder to Doct. Hammond it may any way gratifie you I shall refer you to Authors of a greater Bulk and larger name then Scheibler for the proof of this point I shall refer you to Smiglecius to Ruvio to Suarez and all the Authors they have quoted but especially I shall refer you to Suarez his most excellent reasons which he has urged in the Demonstration of it And give me leave to tell you that your Master Scheibler first lighted his Candle at his Taper § 16. That you may see we will not alwaies be at difference and that it is not love of contention and victory but Truth only that I strive for it is granted to you and your Master Scheibler that Actio immanens verè est actio But then withall let me adde that this is not the question between you and the Doctor The Proposition you must prove is only this that Actus immanentes sunt tantum Actiones nullo respectu Qualitates that immanent Acts are only Actions and in no respect Qualities Soncinas it is true said that Actus immanentes sunt tantum
qualitates and Suarez and your Scheibler and others have demonstrated the falshood of that assertion But then this said not the Doctor and so falls not under the lash of this Vse of Confutation § 17. He said indeed that Actual Love was a Quality specifically distinct from Love that is the Habit. But he never denyed that the Action of loving comprehended under the same common name with actual Love was a predicamental Action § 18. Prove then good Sir if you will acquit your self like a Schooleman either 1. that the immanent act of Love in no respect or consideration is or can be a quality or 2ly that all immanent acts in general or 3ly that this immanent act of Love in particular has no terminus or Quality produced by it which is called by the same name When you shall have done this I shall not then blame you for starting a new Question § 19. If you will be pleased to consult you may find that the same Suarez * Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. n. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. who proves that all immanent acts are not simply Qualities but in some respect also true predicamental actions does also demonstrate †Suarez Met. disp 42. sect 5. n. 13 14 15 that immanent acts are not only actions but also qualities called by the same name with the Actions themselves and that it is de intrinseca ratione Actionis ut sic ut habeat intrinsecum terminum ad quem tendat ut producendum per ipsam and consequently that the immanent Act of Love as well as all other immanent Acts is not only a predicamental action but includes in it's essence a transcendental respect to the quality of actual Love that is it's Terminus and which is that very Quality which the Doctor truly makes the opposite species to habitual Love and equally comprehended under one and the same immediate Genus § 20. Though then true it is that all immanent Acts that are causalities of efficient causes are consequently predicamental Actions which is all Scheibler saies in his first argument yet as true it is as Suarez and others say that all predicamental Actions and consequently all immanent Acts that are truly such must of necessity relate to some term by them produced which in the present case is a Quality called by the same name as the Action is And therefore Doctor Hammond must be concluded to be in the right till you shall answer Suarez his arguments and prove his Doctrine to be in the wrong § 21. Though secondly it be granted to your Master Scheibler that immanent Acts because they terminate active powers must be concluded to be predicamental actions yet it cannot be denied to Suarez and others that immanent Acts because they are predicamental Actions must have some Quality to terminate them As there cannot be an efficient Cause without it's Causality * Suppono quod impossibile est esse motum vel mutationem realem sine termino reali Ex hoc arguo sic c. H. Cavell in Addit ad Scotum l. 1. Senten d. 17. q. 5. n. 3. so impossible it is there should be any Causality where nothing is produced and caused by that Causality As it is impossible there should be an Active power without respect to the Act that terminates the Power * so impossible it is there should be any Action without some product to terminate the Action § 22. And thus I have neither slighted Scheibler nor his reasons but acknowledged that truth which that Author labours to prove by them § 23. But he saies he can yet press us with an Author far greater then Scheibler our great Master Aristotle of whom the Doctor makes somewhere in his writings honourable mention § 24. And do you think Sir the Doctor will cease to give him that venerable respect because you now seem to have borrowed from his writings an argument against him I dare assure you the Doctor is still the same civil man and being himself a Person of great learning and Parts he knows how to give that respect such a gallant man deserves And if you can make good that Aristotle speaks on your side against the Doctor I dare pass my word to bring you his publick Recantation § 25. But what saies our great Master * Arist lib. 10. Eth. cap. 3. He tells us roundly saies our Refuter that the operations of Vertues and even happiness it self are not Qualities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 26. The words indeed I acknowledge but I cannot understand them with our Refuters Comment § 27. The truth is one * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 10. Eth. c. 2. §. 1. Eudoxus as we find in the beginning of the second Chapter of that Book did maintain that Pleasure was the Last End and greatest Good And by the way give me leave to mind our Refuter of his great Master Aristotles †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist ibm §. eod observation concerning this Eudoxus He tells us that though the man's reasons were weak and no waies able to support his Opinion yet because he was looked on as a sober temperate man he gained credit and belief with many For so good and vertuous a man as he could not be deemed by them thus to teach for love of Pleasure but only because it was indeed the very truth And is not this the present Fortune of our Refuter does he not gain many Proselytes and Votaries to the Errors he has vented in this Treatise because he is looked on by some yong men not only as a man of parts and great Judgement but also as a leader and Captain in School-learning But Eudoxus though otherwise never so good was much mistaken in this Point and so is our Refuter though otherwise never so venerable and learned I doubt not but that already this has sufficiently appeared and I shall in the Process also further demonstrate it § 28. For to return to the text in Aristotle whereas Plato had undertook to refute the opinion of Eudoxus his great Scholar though he agreed with him in the Conclusion yet he could not approve of his Masters reasons as sufficient And the first of them gave occasion to this Text that our Refuter has urged It was this as I find it reduced to form by Aquinas (a) Tho. Aquim Comment in loc in his Commentary on the place Bonum videtur ad genus Qualitatis pertinere quaerenti enim quale est hoc respondemus quoniam bonum Delectatio autem non est qualitas Ergo non est bonum To shew the weakness of this Reason the Philosopher replies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It follows not as Plato thought though Pleasure be not ranked among the number of Qualities that therefore it is not good for even the Operations and Acts of Vertues and Felicity it self are not Qualities which no man yet can deny to be good § 29. And now to shew how little
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
say that those outward Acts of Gods Love that appear in his common Providence and whereby he maketh Mat. 5. 45. his Sun to shine and his Rain to fall as well upon the unjust as the just are to be equalled and parallell'd with those more peculiar Acts of his Love whereby he regards his Saints and Chosen For the Apostle hath told us that though God be a Saviour of all 1 Tim. 4. 10. men yet it is with an especially of them that believe His eye and his ear are alwaies open to the Righteous they are not so unto Psal 34. 15 16. the wicked He loves indeed all the Creatures he has made and therefore constantly preserves them But Man he loves more then the rest of the Creatures which he made for Mans use But then his * Deut. 10. 15. Delight is in the Saints those that fear his name For their sakes his Son dyed and rose again for their sakes he made Heaven and there has laid up for them a never-fading Crown of Glory But his Son he loves more then all Saints and all Angels This this is his beloved Son in whom alone he is well pleased § 20. But then though these outward Acts of his favour be thus gradually different yet by reason of the infinite Perfection of his Essence the inward Act of his Love must be still one and the same because it can be no other but himself one and the same Act alwaies infinitely loving and one and the same Object alwaies infinitely amiable and beloved And therefore the Scriptures are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood and in a way that best suites with the Majesty and Excellence of God when speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the manner of men they represent to us this one most simple infinite Act of his Love as if it were many and those in themselves also gradually distinct because among men the inward Acts of Love do usually vary according to the gradual difference of Goodness in the several Objects beloved which the greater it is truly or falsely apprehended to be the more it still allures and draws the affections and inclinations of the Will § 21. And now because the Socinian denies it and it is of great importance in the Christian Faith I shall upon this occasion endeavour to make it good And I hope that our Refuter himself will pardon this Digression that speaks so much for his advantage § 22. Say then Vorstius and Crellius what they will to the contrary those places of Scripture that speak of the different Ea verò attributa sunt Voluntatis Divinae Actus in ipso residentes seu Actiones voluntatis immanentes ut vocant Actus vero illi sunt duplicis generis Alii enim affectuum similitudinem inprimis referunt eorumque nominibus in sacris literis praecipuè designantur alii Decreta sunt Illi sunt Voluntatis Divinae ut ita dicam commotiones praesertim vehementiores seu actus ejusmodi quibus Voluntas vehementius vel in objectum suum fertur vel ab eo refugit atque abhorret Vt ut forte res ad quam affectus incitat non sit firmiter conclusa c. Crellius de Deo attributis apud Volkel lib. 1. de vera Religione cap. 29. p. 295. Vide eund ibid. per tot cap. 30 31. per tot Vorst de Deo Biddle's Catechis c. 4. Degrees of Gods Love cannot properly be understood and as if in God the inward Acts of his Will were gradually different as in men commonly they are For being the First Cause of all things he has no superior to limit him nor will he limit himself because this were to lessen his own perfection neither could he indeed bound and determine his own Being and Excellence if he could possibly will or attempt it because he is the one and alone necessary Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is | Exod. 3. 14. 6. 3. I am that I am Nor can any Second inferior Cause do it be it of what kind soever because they being the free issues of his Power who * Ephes 1. 11. Vid. Esay 14. 24. 40. 13. Rom. 11. 33 34 35. Ephes 3. 20. Psal 115. 3. worketh all things according to the Counsel of his own Will they must of necessity be supposed to flow from him when now he has his Essence already undetermined And therefore he being the First Cause of all things and consequently infinite in his Essence as well as his Power and Perfection which only flows from the Infinitude of his Essence he must be absolutely simple in this his Essence and most perfectly One as much without all shadow of Parts or Accidents as he is of Change or Alteration For if he were made up of Parts he could not be the First Cause of all things because the Parts are first in Nature at least before the Whole compounded of them And if there were in him any Accidents he could not be the †Malach. 3. 6. Lord that changes not no more infinite in Perfection which the * Accedit quod perfectissimum unicum tantum est Quis vero dubitat supremum Numen primum Naturae Principium esse Perfectissimum quis id aliquo defectu laborare dicat Crell apud Volkel l. 1. ca. 17. p. 113. Haec Dei immensitas atque Omnipraesentia Potentiae Sapientiae Potestatis Perfectionis ut omnium confessione certissima sacris literis testatissima ita nobis creditu utilissima c. Ejus autem Essentiam in quovis pulvisculo latere nondum ex sacris literis discere potuimus viri quidam doctissimi ex Christianorum scriptis ea collegerunt dicta quae vulgarem sententiam de diffusione Essentiae Divinae per res universas vel penitus refellunt vel non â—arùm labefactant c. Crell ibid. cap. 27. p. 277 278. vide ibid. per tot Socinian dares not deny against so many clear express Scriptures then they say he is in his Essence because he stands in need of those Accidents and changeable alterations that must compleat his Perfection Nor could he indeed be that One all-perfect Being from whom all things else flow if he were not absolutely as well without Accidents as Parts because by the Addition of any thing whatsoever it be of necessity he becomes finite and simpliciter per se imperfect because capable of this Addition And therefore it is most rationally determined by the Schoolmen though the Socinian will not grant it that In Deo neque est aliud neque Accidens and Quicquid est in Deo Deus est That God is nothing else but one entire and simple infinite and eternal Act and that nothing can possibly be found or at least imagined in him which is not himself § 23. Hence it necessarily follows that when God in Scripture is said to love he must not be understood properly to love as man does by
sect 1. §. 35. which was seated in the Acts of Love and trust tanquam modus in re modificata but only the heightning gradual advancement of the Acts of love trust in God For is not ardency or intension the modus of Love Trust that are the things modificated by this intension or ardency Can modus in re modificata signifie any thing here but the gradual heightning and intenseness of his Love and Trust And what else can you mean by that other Ardency which respected the matter against which he prayed but a gradual heightning of his Fear and his Grief which gradual heightning was the modus of the res modificata the Acts of Fear and of Grief for those evills with which he encountred For gradual intension without doubt is nothing else but the modus of the same numerical Quality that is intended because intensio as your own Master * Scheibler Metaph. l. 2. c. 8. §. 204. Scheibler will truly tell you formaliter consistit in co quod est ejusdem formae eductio ulterior è potentia subjecti consequenter est per majorem radicationem ejusdem formae in codem subjecto quae major radicatio fit per unionem plurium graduum ejusdem formae in subjecto Nor will the word Ardency help you any whit For Ardency precisely and in abstracto considered is nothing else but the vehemence and gradual heightning of any thing whatsoever that is capable of gradual intension and is the very same with Zeal and as that comes from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the other comes from the Latine word Ardeo both which signifie to burn and be inflamed Zeal then and Ardency being properly nothing else but the heightning and gradual intension of any thing and therefore we read of a zeal for God and a zeal for Sathan a zeal for good and a zeal for mischief and hence it is that the Apostle tells us Gal. 4. 17 18. That it is good to be zealous in a good thing intension and Zeal and Ardency being either good or bad or indifferent as the Qualities are that are modificated and intended by them consequently they must be when in abstracto expressed understood alwaies according to the subject matter that is treated of and with respect to the thing that is intended and heightned by them which here can be nothing else but the Acts of Love and the Acts of Trust the Acts of Fear and the Acts of Grief And is not this arrant non-sense now even to the most ordinary understanding For first are the inward Acts of Love and trust both one and the same Is not Trust in God an Act of Confidence and well-grounded Hope and is not that as well a distinct Theological grace from Love and holy How and in what sense Hope and Trust in God might be in Christ Vide Aquin. 3. p. q. 7. art 4. Suarez in Commentar ad loc tom 1. p. 296 297. and the other Commentators on the question in Thomas Estius lib. 3. Sent. d. 26 §. 8. p. 88. col 1. C. D. E. F. Pet. Lombard l. 3. Sent. d. 26. C. Durand ibid. q 3. art 2. Charity by infusion seated in the Will as Love and Hope are two distinct passions naturally seated in the inferior Faculties Nay are not Fear of Evils impending and Grief for Evils now suffered two distinct Passions both naturally seated in the inferior sensual Part and as truly distinct in themselves as the Passions of Grief and Fear Why then did you not rather say there was a four-fold Ardency in Christs Prayer an Ardency of Love and an Ardency of Trust in God an Ardency of Fear of the Evils now impending and an Ardency of Grief for the Evils he now laboured under Nay might you not with as equal reason have said there was a manifold Ardency in Christ's Prayer an Ardency of the inward Acts of Obedience of Religion and Piety of Patience and Fortitude and love to God and our Neighbours of Justice and Mercy and all other Christian Graces For all these were as truly in Christ at the time of his bloody Agony and conflict as an Ardency of Love and Trust and an Ardency of Fear and Grief and were all as much the Ardency of his Prayer as these that you have named For fervency in Prayer the inward Acts I mean is an Act of Religion and though it be rooted and founded in Charity yet it is not formally but effectively only an Act of Love and shall with Faith and Hope and all other Christian Graces cease when Charity shall last unto eternity The Saints in heaven do now no more pray for themselves then they can suffer or want And then for the heightning of his Fears and Griefs these were the natural issues of the inferior sensual Part of his Soul and the Passions there implanted whose natural motions he would not now hinder to testifie as well the infirmities as the truth of his Manhood And though the heightning of this Fear and Grief in the inferior Part of Christ's soul were the Causa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the inward moving Cause as the present and approaching growing Miseries Afflictions were the Causa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outward moving cause of the Ardency of the inward Acts of his Piety Devotion and Prayer yet the Cause and Effect being really distinguished impossible it is that the Ardency of Christ's Fear and Griefs should be the Ardency of his Prayer It is true indeed that there was a most heightened Ardency of the Acts of Piety and Patience Magnanimity and Fortitude and all other Christian Graces as well as an ardency of Love and a heightning of Fears and Grief in Christ when in his bloody Agony he prayed but these were not the ardency of his Prayer The ardency of all these several Acts were all now in the same subject Christ but then though one Accident in concreto may be predicated of another disparate Accident as when we say of milk this white is sweet yet in abstracto they cannot for this whiteness is not sweetness § 13. And therefore when in the application of what you call your second answer you say JEANES I Readily grant the heightning of this latter ardency so that there was in his Agony an addition of degrees unto his fear of and grief for those evils against which he prayed above either what there was or what there was occasion for at other times but as for the former ardency regarding God and placed in the inward Acts of his love of God c. that was uncapable of further heightning for his actual love of God was in termino as they say was alwaies at the highest and most intense § 14. You herein speak nothing to the purpose For Christ's Fear and Grief were natural Passions and the heightning them in his Agony was but the heightning of the Acts of those Passions but the Ardency in Christ's Prayer was the
heightning of an inward Act or Acts of Piety and Devotion which were not Acts of Nature but of Grace and the Habit from whence they issued was one of those †Vide Suarez in 3. p. Thom. tom 1. disp 20. sect 1. p. 303. septem dona Spiritus Sancti as the Schools call them that the * Esa 11. 2 3. Prophet had foretold should be infused into his Soul by God And then though his Actual Love that most high and transcendent Act of Love you mean that was immediatly terminated on God as it's next Object were alwaies in termino as Christ was by virtue of the hypostatical union Comprehensor as they call him in the Schools yet this nothing hinders but that the fervour and ardency in the inward Acts of Prayer and Devotion might now be heightned For the Schools when they determine that question utrum conveniens fuerit Christum orare do alwaies consider him at his prayers in the state of a Viator in which state he might truly * Vide Estium l 3. Sent. d. 26. §. 1. p. 88. C. D. E. F. Suaresium alios supra citat pray as well as he might be miserable or want the exaltation of his Humane nature which he attained not till after his Ascension For being considered as Comprehensor as it was impossible for him to want any thing so he was not in a state and condition to receive any thing by way of advance from the good hand of God no more then the Saints and Angels now in heaven or he himself can since his Session at the right hand of God We shall instantly clear this for the Readers understanding § 15. And therefore what 's your grant of the heightning the ardency of Christs Fears and Griefs in his Agony and the denial of the heightning of that high most transcendent Act of his Love of God which is Actus comprehensoris and not a free but a necessary Act and therefore alwaies in Summo Is this denial or that concession any thing material to the Ardency of Christ's Prayer which the Evangelist tells us was now heightned Grief and fear may be Causes and advancers of Piety but then they are not it Nay differ as much they do as Grace and Nature as Habits and Passions and therefore the heightning Vide Suarez Metap tom 2. disp 46. sect 3. § 4. Vide Aquin. 1. 2. q. 52. art 1. of the Acts of the one cannot possibly be the formal heightning of the Acts of the other since Intensio est eductio unius ejusdem formae secundum diversos gradus seu partes ejus ex quibus forma per se una componitur quo magis integra â—fficitur eo magis radicari in subjecto dicitur as Suarez who as well as any man knew what belonged to such speculations Where the Evangelist saies that Christ being in Agony did pray more earnestly you say to this that indeed he grieved and feared more greatly then before but his love of God as he was Comprehensor was alwaies in termino and at the utmost height If this be not to answer à baculo ad angulum then I know not the meaning of the Proverb § 16. But Sir speak roundly and to the purpose Was the Ardency of Christ's Prayer now more intended in his Agony or was it not If it were not then tell us plainly what the Evangelist means by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you cannot render it better then our Translators and Beza and Grotius and Piscator and the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Translations have done and it signifie here that he prayed the more earnestly then deal ingenuously and acknowledge your mistake Confess what you cannot possibly deny that Christ was now more intense in this Act of Prayer then before in other Acts. And then ask the Doctor forgiveness for the abuse of his good name and make the world amends by a publick recantation Do not eat your own words but stand to what you have granted Acknowledge what you must that Christ prayed more earnestly in his Agony then at other times in regard of the matter against which he prayed The greatness of his present and approaching sufferings was such that it proportionably heightned his prayer for the removall of them if it had been possible One deep I must tell you did here call upon another and a time of great Affliction is a season for more then ordinary Devotion The Fathers and Schoolmen will tell you that in this heightned Devotion at Vide Hookers Ecclesiast Policy l 5. §. 48. per tot this time our Saviour did read us his Disciples a lecture and teach us our Duty in such cases by his own great example As there may be a more weighty occasion for the heightning of our Devotion so it is our duty then to heighten it And as this was all that Doctor Hammond pretended to so the whole world of Readers will judge that the words of your second part of your second answer do acknowledge it § 17. For that that Act of Christ's Love regarding God which was alwaies in termino was not could not be that Act of Prayer and Devotion that the Evangelist and the Doctor spake of will be evident even from your own proof and Argument For you say it was Actus Comprehensoris and in termino as they say and because it was a necessary Act it was alwaies at the height Now the Act of Prayer and Piety and Devotion in Christ was Actus viatoris and meritorious in it self Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 40. sect 3. p 542. col 1. A and consequently free For ut Actus sit meritorius saies Suarez requiritur ut sit bonus liber in persona grata in Via existente And therefore nothing hinders but that it might be heightned in him according to the greatness of the occasion if Gods law did so allow which was the ground of the Controversie and must by other Medium's be disproved then this of our Refuter unless he is resolved to begge the Question Nay the same Suarez will tell us not only that our Saviour did merit by this Act of Devotion but that it is distinct from the Acts of Charity in it's true and proper notion Dico tertio meruisse Christum per Actus omnes virtutum infusarum quos liberè exercuit est certissima sic enim meruit per Actum Obedientiae ut testatur Paulus per Actum Religionis ut Orationis c. ad eundem modum meruit per Passionem suam quatenus illa erat Actus Charitatis Dei proximi Religionis erat enim Sacrificium quoddam misericordiae justitiae obedientiae ac ferè virtutum omnium Et ad eundem modum philosophandum est de omnibus Actibus Christi So Suarez § 18. And now though this be sufficient to satisfie the utmost pretences of the Refuters Discourse yet because I am
esse Comprehensorem Viatorem non repugnat Merito ut aliquo modo fundetur in ipsa visione Comprehensoris sed solum repugnat illi ut formaliter ac per se pertineat ad statum Comprehensoris ut sic Vnde sicut scientia beata existens in Viatore potest esse ratio prophetandi it a etiam potest esse principium vel fundamentum merendi dici potest ille actus Viatoris ut sic quia ipsa visio non potest ad illum actum ut meritorius est deservire nisi prout est in Viatore Dico primo Christum habuisse actum amoris Dei liberum supernaturalem elicitum à charitate ab amore beatifico distinctum illo actu perfectissime meruisse It a intelligo Sententiam D. Thomae hic solutione ad primum dicentis meruisse Christum per charitatem non in quantum erat charitas Comprehensoris sed in quantum erat Viatoris ubi de charitate loquitur prout terminatur ad Deum Et non potest exponi de uno eodem actu charitatis Dei ut sub una ratione sit meritorius non sub alia quia non potest idem actus numero prout tendit in idem indivisibile objectum atque adeo secundum eandem indivisibilem entitatem esse liber necessarius quia hae duae proprietates includunt contradictionem ergo non potest idem actus indivisibilis esse meritorius ut est Viatoris non ut est Comprehensoris praesertim quia ille actus licet materialiter ut ita dicam potuerit dici Viatoris quia fuit in Christo etiam eo tempore quo fuit viator formaliter autem propriè non dici potest pertinuisse ad Christum ut Viatorem Intelli endus est ergo D. Thomas de charitate operante per diversos actus quorum alter consequitur visionem beatam ut sie dicitur charitas Comprehensoris alter vero versatur circa Deum ut cognitum per scientiam infusam quae ut sic dicitur charitas viatoris c. Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 39. sect 2. per totum To this for the further clearing of the whole I should adde another passage in the same Author and the same Treatise disp 37. sect 4. p. 518. But it is quoted after and thither I refer the Reader § 19. To give the sum of this discourse from Suarez First plain it is that Christ in the daies of his Flesh was truly Viator and in statu merendi Secondly It is essentiall to Merit that the Meritorious Act be freely and voluntarily performed Thirdly Christ did truly merit otherwise we must deny him to be the Meritorious Cause of our Salvation and turn downright Socinians Fourthly He merited not only by the Inward Acts of that Love which was the consequent of his supernaturally infused knowledge of God but also by the Inward Acts of Charity and Love to his own Glory and his Love to us Men his Neighbors and all Inward Acts of all Virtues and Graces whether Infused or Acquisite as also by those other free Acts of his Will of a more inferiour Alloy such as Suarez calls ordinis naturalis his Natural Love of God Since then that all these were not could not be equal in themselves and with that high transcendent Act of his Love that was immediately yet freely seated upon God it necessarily follows that as he merited by them all though all were not of the same height and Gradual Perfection so he was not cannot be concluded guilty of the breach of the first and great Commandement though they differed from one another in gradual perfection because he truly did merit by every one of them Quâ—d erat demonstrandum § 20. But then though this be abundantly sufficient to acquit the Doctors assertion from the least suspition and umbrage of that so dangerous crimination yet I shall further demonstrate it from our Refuters own Concessions and that so clearly that either Sampson-like he must involve himself as well as his adversary in the same common ruine or else retract his so uncharitable aspersion For first in his Mixture he expresly grants that Christ in the Jeanes his mixture of Scholastical c. p 261. daies of his Flesh was not purè Comprehensor but also Viator and if he should not he must contradict the Scriptures that in many places assert it Secondly he expresly grants that Christ in the daies of his flesh did as truly grow in the Inward Acts of Wisdom and Jeanes Mixture of Scholast p. 249 250. Jeanes Mixture of Scholast p. 261. actuai apprehension and Grace as he did in Stature Thirdly he saies It is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation there was some restraint of his happiness or beatifical vision in the whole course of his humiliation and particularly in the time of his doleful passion § 21. From hence I argue that if Christ did truly and not in Appearance grow and receive Increase in the Inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace then the utmost height and degree of Actual Grace and holy Love is not alwaies pro hic nunc required by that first and great Commandement because Christ was impeccable and it was impossible for him to sin § 22. Secondly I argue that if Christ was truly Viator in the daies of his flesh then as Viator and in that state and respect he could not love God so highly so ardently by virtue of the infused Habit of divine Love as he did as considered in the state of a Comprehensor or as now he does at the right hand of God because as our Refuter maintaines from Austin and Bernard Aquinas and Scotus this Precept of Loving God perfectly cannot be fulfilled in this life but only in Patria quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus § 23. Thirdly I argue that if Christ as Viator had not could not have the same Abilities to love God with the same fervour and ardency as he has as Comprehensor therefore there must of necessity be a gradual difference in the Acts of his Love as Comprehensor and Viator because our Refuter has told us in his first Argument from Hurtado that Intensio actus secundi supponit aequalem intensionem in actu primo cum actus secundus supponit primum § 24. And now that the Viator differs in Abilities from the Comprehensor as it is clear to any that understands the very terms so plain also it is because the Viator knows God and his Goodness only by Infused knowledge and Revelation and the other by Actual Apprehension the one only tasts and sees how good he is by Grace and the other actually enjoyes him by fruition in Glory And since our Love must still be proportionable to our Knowledge the more we see and injoy God the more are we enabled and the more perfectly we love God For we know in part and we prophesie in part But when
Aquinas and Scotus that are urged by our Refuter Sir Bellarmine found this distinction made to his hands by Aquinas himself and applyed it is by Aquinas in the very same manner as Bellarmine uses it to declare what he thought was the meaning of Saint Austin in those places as will be plain to any man that shall peruse the places formerly quoted from Aquinas And if those be not clear enough I shall desire him to consult the same Aquinas secunda secundae q. 27. art 6. in Corpore a place too large to be transcribed to so little purpose where this is ex professo handled If then Bellarmine in answer to those two quotations of Aquinas and Scotus sayes they are to be understood of the command quatenus indicat finem non quatenus praecipit medium be the answer to Saint Austin what it will or the distinction true or false he sayes true in this that Aquinas so is to be understood if Aquinas knew his own meaning that sayes expresly that he meant so And whether Aquinas truely said that this was the meaning of S. †Horum testimoniorum aliqua currentes exhortamur ut perfectè currant aliqua ipsum finem commemorant quo currendo pertendant Ingredi autem sine maculâ non absurdè etiam ille dicitur non qui jam perfectus est sed qui ad ipsam Persectionem irreprehensibiliter currit carens criminibus damnabilibus atque ipsa peccata venialia non negligen◠mundare eleemosynis Ingressum quippe hoc est iter nostrum quo tendimus in perfectionem munda mundat oratio Munda est autem oratio ubi veraciter dicitur Dimitte nobis sicut dimittimus ut dum non reprehenditur quod non imputatur sine reprehensione hoc est sine maculâ noster ad persectionem cursus habeatur in quâ perfectione cum ad eam pervenerimus jam non sit omnino quod ignoscendo mundetur August de perfect Justit c. 9. vid. etiam c. 10. Austin and Bernard in those places though it concerns not the Doctor to determine who is not engaged in that controversie at all yet I shall leave it to the Readers Judgement whether Aquinas sayes truly and shall rest in expectation till our Refuter shall tell us what are the most materiall exceptions in Chamier and Ames against it that he insists on For if this be his way of arguing there will be no end of controversies and when we have obeyed him in his desires he will yet be at liberty to say that he meant not these already considered but some others § 58. Howsoever I shall not envy our Refuter any advantage he can make by these Replies If he thinks fit to make use of them I am willing to be so courteous as not to forestall his market And he has reason to thank me that I have afforded him some materialls to furnish his next answer Yet I cannot but observe that he is willing to teach young learners to construe Latine amiss and he would very fain perswade the world that Bellarminus Enervatus signifies in English Doctor Hammond Confuted § 59. If our Refuter shall yet say That if it be granted that the Law requires that we love God with all our strength and as much as we can then consequently there will be no room for uncommanded degrees of love To this I answer him That if what we have already said concerning this objection do not satisfie I shall desire him because he is a Schoolman to look for an answer in Cajetan 2. 2. q. 184. art 3. the Article from whence his second quotation from Aquinas is taken where in his Commentary he has both proposed and answered this Argument § 60. And thus at last to mine and I doubt not to the Readers great contentment we are got out of a tedious digression that concerns not at all the Treatise of will-worship much less the Ectenesteron SECT 30. The Refuters return His Proof impertinent weakens a known Truth Christs Agony a fit season for heightning Ardency in Prayer As Comprehensor he enjoyed an Intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence Hence a Love necessary Love as viator Beatifick Love hindred not the Free Exercise of this Love and Graces nor his Happiness his Grief in the sensitive Appetite Suarez Hence a graduall difference in the Acts of Love as Viator Particularly in Prayer Fallacy à dicto secundum quid His Confounding of Terms Grounds Motives Occasion What. Christ as Comprehensor still had Cause to Love God but no Grounds Motives nor Occasions As viator he had Refuters Contradictions Tautologies Love of Desire Complacency distinguished not divided One oft begins the other Bishop Andrews Naturall Love of Desire in Christ. What Hope in Christ. Love of Concupiscence though first in Men yet otherwise in Christ. Threefold Love of Complacency in Christ Experimentall Love of Desire and Complacence in him capable of Increase Both heightned at his Passion Ardency of these and of Prayer different Of which the Doctor Vanity of the Refuters Title page § 1. ANd now with our Refuters good leave we are come to our first argument The Ardency of Christs Prayer To this at his return he sayes JEANES Thirdly you seem in the latter end of Section the 39. to intimate that in the time of Christs Agony there was more occasion for the heightning of his Love of God then there was at other times What you mean by these occasions of heightning Christs Love of God that you intimate I will not undertake to guess but this I am sure of that at all other times he had sufficient causes grounds and motives to induce him to Love God with as heightned degrees of Actuall Love as the humane nature could reach unto he enjoyed the beatificall vision a clear evident and intuitive knowledge of the divine essence that had in it all the fullness of goodness and so was an object infinitely lovely and amiable Now such an object thus known thus seen challengeth such a measure of actuall Love as that it leaveth no place for a further and higher degree The Thomists generally maintain that this most intense Love of God is a naturall and necessary sequele of the beatificall vision necessary quoad exercitium as well as quoad specificationem actus now that which works naturally and necessarily works as vehemently and forcibly as it can omne agens de necessitate necessario agit usque ad ultimum potentiae suae therefore the inward Acts of Christs Love of God were alwayes as ardent and fervent as he could perform them and therefore some were not more intense then others for if we speak of a liberty of indifferency and indetermination he had no more liberty towards the intension of the inward Acts of his Love then he had towards the Acts themselves § 2. You have said Sir but I must tell you that though this argument is wire-drawn to the utmost length yet there is nothing proved all this while
that is in debate betwixt you and your adversary You need not have spent so much time in proving that Christ as Comprehensor did love God to the utmost height possible It should have been granted you for asking It is a known undoubted truth in the Schools a Perfection that de congruo follows from the Hypostaticall union and therefore questioned by none but the Socinians and those that deny the divinity of Christ § 3. But I see by experience that Gold the most solid most ponderous of Metalls may be beaten so thin that it may be moved with a breath and broken with a touch And our Refuter is so unhappy as to weaken an undoubted truth by his overmuch proving it For if the inward Acts of Christs love were alwayes at the utmost height because this most intense love is a naturall and necessary sequele of the Beatificall vision then it necessarily follows if his love were alwayes thus intense that then he alwayes enjoyned the Beatificall vision the sole and necessary cause of such a love For it is an undoubted Maxime That Positis aut sublatis effectu causâ necessariis ponuntur tolluntur causa effectus And if so what then shall we say to the Author of a mixture of Scholasticall divinity with Practicall Henry Jeanes of Chedzoy For sayes he not expresly That it is not to be denyed Mixture of Scholast with Pract. p. 261. but that by speciall dispensation there was some restraint of the influence of this happiness or beatificall vision in the whole course of his humiliation and Particularly in the time of his dolefull Passien And now if his fervour of love were a naturall issue of the beatificall vision it will necessarily follow that as that his happiness and clear intuitive sight of the divine Essence was restrained so the fervour of his love was proportionably abated also § 4. But not to trouble our selves much with any contradictions of our Refuter I suppose he meant well whatsoeever he sayes It was truly said by Saint Leo and all Antiquity has approved it that at the time of our Saviours Passion Non dissolvit unionem sed subtraxit visionem And hence it comes to pass that we read of our Saviours saying My soul is exceeding sorrowfull unto death and his crying upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And I believe our Refuter is not ignorant what M. Calvin has said of that expostulation § 5. And why then might not this be a fit season for the heightning of the Ardency of our Saviours zeal and devotion when he prayed for the restoring of those comforts and Joys that flowed from the Influence of the Beatificall vision which now was restrained The more comfort and happiness he formerly enjoyed from this clear intuitive knowledge the more earnestly now without doubt he would long for it And had not now our blessed Saviour in this extremity and bitterness of his Passion and sufferings when the manhood was left naked without any beams of comfort streaming from the Godhead which now by speciall dispensation our Refuter grants as indeed it is most evident from Scripture also were restrained had not now I say our blessed Saviour occasion enough for the heightning of his fervour in prayer had he not now grounds and motives sufficient to induce him to advance his ardency and zeale when he prayes for the restauration of those joyes For who so ardently longs for a Repossession of happiness as he that has once been satisfied with the ravishing contentments of it The loss of those comforts which David formerly enjoyed was it that made him so earnestly cry out Psal 51. 12. Restore unto me the joy of thy Salvation and uphold me with thy free Spirit Make me to hear joy and gladness that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoyce The Iron that has once been touched with the Loadstone and enjoyed the benefit and sweetness of that magnetick Love and Influence does more earnestly desire and move stronger to a Re-union with that Loadstone then it did before the touching And this is abundantly sufficient to demonstrate the utmost of the Doctors pretences in his Ectenesteron who there undertakes onely to shew that the fervency of Christs zeale and devotion in Prayer was in his Agony encreased But then because it is an Act of Piety and devotion and consequently of Charity and love to God as that is commonly taken in the Scripture of which Love alone does the Doctor speak and so is not that Love that high transcendent Love which flowed from the Beatificall vision which our Saviour as Comprehensor enjoyed and that which our Refuter here speaks of plain it is that by this Argument if all were granted he opposes not the Doctor § 6. But then this is not onely sufficient to acquit the Doctor but also to destroy all the truth in his Argument For if now especially in the time of our Saviours dolefull passion the Influence of the Godhead and beatificall vision were restrained then it evidently follows that now at least there was more occasion then formerly even for the heightning of his love of God as that is properly taken For our Love of necessity must bear a proportion and correspondence to our knowledge and therefore we shall love more infinitely more when we see God face to face then now possibly we can when we see him onely in aenigmate in speculo by Faith as in a glass darkly And consequently so must it be with our Saviours love also at least during this restraint And therefore to grant to our Refuter what he adds in that Treatise immediately after though surely it seems very improbable and no wayes sortable unto the state of Christs blessedness for his grace and holiness the image of God in him his love of God in the habit to be lyable unto perpetuall motion and augmentation yet even there he himself expresly grants that his Actuall grace and wisdome and consequently his acts of divine love did encrease and gradually differ and if he should here deny it this argument we have urged from his own concessions will necessarily enforce it § 7. The truth is he met with a common received truth but for want of skill and a right understanding of the Schoolmen in whose shop this divine truth was first strook out and discovered he has almost destroyed it by his manner of proof and labouring to defend it § 8. First then I grant That Christ in the dayes of his Flesh was not purè viator but also Comprehensor 2. That as Comprehensor he enjoyed a clear intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence 3. That from this clear intuitive knowledge issued a Love answerable to it an Actuall love most perfect and in the utmost height alwayes uninterrupted alwayes the same because as Suarez truly erat simpliciter necessarius tam respectu Dei Vid. Suarez tom 1. in 3 par Thom. disp 37. Sect. 4.
already that the same ardour and fervency is not required in every Act it evidently follows that notwithstanding this superlative height and fervour in this his Actuall Love as Comprehensor yet in respect of the other Acts of Love and holy Charity and Piety and Obedience and virtue which he exercised freely as viator there might be a graduall difference of fervour and intensness according as the present exigence required And therefore if it appear as it has already that Christ in his bloody Agony had now greater occasion for the heightning of his Fervour in Prayer then formerly it also as cleerly follows that not onely de facto he did pray more earnestly then at other times but it was his duty to do so And here for avoiding of Cavells I must mind our Refuter of Calvins observation formerly noted that a time of affliction is a season for more then ordinary servency in Prayer and that God then calls for it and Christ has instructed us in this lesson by his own Practise and example § 10. And therefore be it now granted to our Refuter that Christ during his abode upon earth and the dayes of his flesh enjoyed the beatificall vision and by reason of that clear intuitive knowledge loved God to the utmost height possible yet what will he thence conclude will it follow does he think that therefore in every respect and as viator also he so loved him Or at least that he loved us his neighbours so too and that as necessary he did exercise all the other Acts of virtues and Graces and Piety and Charity and Obedience If so I must ask him how then could Christ ever be in statu merendi and even whilest he was viator be the meritorious cause and Authour of salvation to all them that obey him § 11. I must therefore mind him that this his long Argument is no other then the old fallacy and Sophism à Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Thus Because Christ as Comprehensor loved God alwayes at one utmost height therefore as viator in every Act of divine Love and Piety and zeal and devotion and love to us his neighbours and in every Act of virtue and Grace he did so too which how absurd and false it is will appear at first sight I doubt not even to our Refuter himself And therefore I deny the sequele of his discourse For though the Antecedent be true that Christ as Comprehensor so loved yet the Consequence is false and fallacious that therefore as viator he did so too And therefore the Doctors Position of the Contrary to the Consequent must needs be true That the Acts of Christs Love or holy Charity exercised by him as viator might be gradually different in fervour notwithstanding our Refuters Antecedent be granted which is all the medium he here brings to confute the Doctors assertion And now let me ask our Refuter suppose I should say If the Aethiop have white teeth therefore the Aethiop is white would he not say it was a ridiculous Sophisme à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter I suppose he would thus answer and he would answer truly And yet such is his Argumentation here against the Doctor and therefore so must be answered § 12. But this is not all the misadventure of our Refuters discourse In this 1. He betrayes very much ignorance and want of knowledge of those Logicall termes of Art which he uses and 2. His own discourse contradicts its self and 3. He speaks most apparent tautologies all unpardonable faults in one that professes himself to write in a scholasticall way § 13. For first he very inartificially confounds these terms Occasion grounds and Motives and Causes For thus he sayes What you mean by these Occasions of heightning Christs Love of God that you intimate I shall not undertake to guesse but this I am sure of that at all other times he had sufficient Causes Grounds and Motives to induce him to love God with as heightned degrees of Actuall Love as the humane nature could reach unto he enjoyed the beatificall vision c. § 14. For the beatificall vision was a necessary Cause of this most heightned Actuall Love and such an Object as God is thus known challengeth as himself speaks such a measure of Actuall Love as that it leaveth no place for a further degree And he adds The Thomists generally maintain that this most intense love of God is a Naturall and Necessary sequele of the beatificall vision Necessary quoad exercitium as well as quoad specificationem actus And it seems he is of their opinion For from hence he argues Now that which works Naturally and Necessarily works as vehemently and forceably as it can § 15. But then Grounds and Motives to induce one to Love are not Necessary causes of Love They are onely suasoria moral perswasions and rationall inducements to perswade a man that has a proper freedome and liberty of indifferency and indetermination of the will which yet expresly in this discourse the Refuter denyes of Christ either to the Acts or degrees of divine Love of which he speaks either to forsake that which he already embraces or to follow that which now he neglects or else to heighten and quicken him either in his flight or embrace of any object he declines or persues § 16. And then as for the term Occasion that is nothing else but an Opportunity and advantage of time and place that has some kind of virtue to excite the Agent to work at this instant when now all impediments seem to be taken off This is no other then a kind of Causa sine quâ non an accidentall thing that not alwayes happens and because it stayes not for post est occasio calva and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore it stirrs up the Agent more powerfully to work at this instant then otherwise it would But then this and the former are onely Causae minus principales And such a Cause Fr. Burgensdic Institut Log l. 1. c. 17. Theor 21. in Commentar sect 1. Ibid. Theor. 24. in Commentar sect 1. as this as a good Author will tell him non tam efficit quam subservit principali causae ad effectum producendum They are both of them Causae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and inchoantes and are thus defined by the same acute Logician Occasio est temporis locique commoditas ad agendum quod velis quae ipsae vim aliquam movendi habet ad agendum quatenus agendi impedimenta tollit Author dicitur hoc loco qui causam principalem propositis rationibus ad agendum hortatur aut ab agendo dehortatur vocatur etiam causa moralis And consequently according to this Author Grounds and Motives sunt rationes seu argumenta quibus propositis Author causam principalem ad agendum hortatur seu moraliter excitat aut ab agendo dehortatur § 16. And therefore though Christ as Comprehensor had
ad ostensionem etiam Divinae Naturae dici etiam posset profecisse quia verbi sapientia paulatim se prodebat per humanitatem illam tum etiam quia impropria est significatio verborum proficere id est videbatur proficere seu paulatim se ostendebat ad impropriam autem significationem verborum non est revertendum nisi impellente necessitate aut urgente ratione cum autem possimus interpretari verba accommodatissime servata proprietate non est cur improprietate utamur Idcirco aliter mihi accommodatius dicendum videtur sapientiam enim non ipsum habitum sapientiae appellat sed opera ista verba quae à sapientia procedunt In his autem verè Christus secundum aetatis incrementum proficiebat quia opera sapientiora edebat verba sapientiora loquebatur non enim omnia externa opera aequalem sapientiam habent contingit sapienter sapientius loqui Christus autem licet plenitudinem intus sapientiae haberet exterius tamen verba opera sapientiora proferebat c Dicta ergo facta sapientia procedentia nomine appellantur sapientiae in hac Christus ratione humanae naturae progressum verè fecit Atque haec explicatio mihi sanè accommodatior proprior videtur c. Et Gratia hic est tertius profectus nimirum Gratia qua Deo gratus erat illique acceptus sanctus non quod sanctior aut gratior habitu sc progressu temporis factus fuerit qui ab oxordio incarnationis plenus gratia erat sed quod per aetatis incrementa perfectioribus gratiae sanctitatis operibus incubuerit quamvis enim quodvis opus verbum Christi ratione personae operantis esset aequalis sanctitatis non tamen ratione ipsius operis verbi gratius enim opus fuit ratione operis Iejunium quadraginta dierum quam unius tantum c. And then in his Annotation on that Commentary he adds licet Catholici Doctores qui perfectum in ostensione sapientiae explicant idem dicunt de gratia Nos verò Gratiam opera ipsa gratiae explicamus c. In his ergo profectus fuit non autem in gratia secundum Habitum c. Apud Deum homines Haec verba ad praecedentia tria referuntur nimirum proficiebat sapientiâ aetate gratiâ apud Deum homines apud Deum quidem quia erat augmentum profectus non solum in apparentia respectu hominum sed re ipsa apud Deum erant enim sapientiora gratiora in se indies sicut aetas provectior And then in his Annotation on that Commentary it follows Titus Bostrensis hunc Profectum interpretatur secundum ostensionem demonstrationem c. Nos verò qui non solius Ostensionis sed re ipsa profectum hunc esse diximus scil operibus ipsis verbis quae nomine sapientiae Gratiae appellantur explicuimus istud Apud Deum pro eo quod dicitur verè saepe enim hominibus aliud videtur quam est at Deo ipsi nuda veritas adstat idcirco dicitur profecisse apud Deum quia vera opera sapientiae gratiae faciebat Additum est Apud homines quia saepe contingit quod verum est apud Deum non ut tale ab hominibus recipiatur Christus prosiciebat apud Deum apud homines magnificabatur enim ab iis à Deo Thus Tolet. § 63. The onely doubt that can be raised of the sense of the Cardinall must arise from the words Externa opera sapientiae gratiae The outward works of wisdome and Grace wherein he sayes Christ onely encreased § 64. But for the clearing of this Observe we must that here all along Tolet does carefully distinguish these three First habitum sapientiae gratiae wherein he allows no increase Secondly opera Sapientiae gratiae wherein he allows a true increase and Thirdly ostensionem sapientiae gratiae the outward sensible demonstration which he allows to be but an improper increase and no whit agreeable to the words of the Evangelist who speaks of a true and reall increase aswell in wisdome and Grace as in Stature and that in respect of God aswell as Man And consequently by the works of Wisdome and Grace he must of necessity mean the inward and the outward Acts both which the one as the Form and the other as the matter do concur as the Moralists and Schoolmen grant and acknowledge as we have formerly noted to the compleating of the morall Acts of wisdome and Grace as considered in genere moris And these he calls opera externa sapientiae gratiae in a double respect First because the inward Acts themselves that make up the Formall part of the Action or work in a morall sense are though immanent in respect of the will yet Extrinsecall to the Habit from whence they flow because the Habit is the cause and these the effects and secondly because the outward Acts and sensible demonstrations that are the Materiall part of the Morall work are truely extrinsecall and exposed to the view and apprehension and cognizance of the Exteriour senses And thus also the learned and very accurate Suarez understands his master Thomas who as Tolet here acknowledges though Christ increased not according to the Habit of wisdome and Grace yet secundum opera sapientiae gratiae according to the Morall Acts and works of wisdome and grace he did truly increase and not onely in shew and outward demonstration That the outward sensible expressions onely and with exclusion to the inward Acts themselves cannot here be understood is plain from the Authors own words and we need not further insist upon it Go we on then § 65. To Tolet I shall add the learned Professor of Doway Guil. Estii Annotat in praecip difficilior Scripturae loc ad Luc. 2. v. 42 52. Duaci fol. 1629. Estius Puer autem crescebat confortabatur plenus sapientiâ Et infra v. 52. Jesus proficiebat sapientià Resp Plenus sapientiâ quia perfecte sapiens nec quicquam sapientiae illi deerat Proficiebat autem sapientia quatenus majora indies opera sapientiae apud homines exercebat Proficiebat ergo quoad actum non quoad habitum actus enim erant paulatim majores habitu eodem immutabili manente And upon the 52. verse to which he here refers he adds Et Iesus proficiebat sapientiâ aetate gratiâ apud Deum apud homines Illud apud Deum homines ad solam gratiam videtur referendum Nam dicere non solemus quempiam proficere aetate apud Deum homines nec sapientiâ apud Deum sed Gratiâ apud Deum homines vide Iansenium nostra in 3. sent distinct 13. These words we have already cited at large and they are clear and express to our present purpose 66. And because he referrs to Iansenius that learned man
autem omnium actionum humanarum affectionum est dilectio Dei per quam maximè attingimus ultimum finem ut supra q. 23. art 6. dictum est Et idèo in dilectione Dei non potest accipi modus sicut in re mensuratâ ut sit in câ accipere plus minus sed sicut invenitur modus in mensura in quâ non potest esse excessus sed quanto plus attingitur regula tanto melius est ita quanto Deus plus diligitur tanto est dilectio melior Et sic as he goes on in his answer ad primum etiam charitas quae habet modum sicut mensura praeeminet aliis virtutibus quae habent modum sicut mensurata And so ad tertium Dicendum quod affectio illa cujus objectum subjacet judicio rationis est ratione mensuranda sed objectum divine dilectionis quod est Deus excedit judicium rationis ideo non mensuratur ratione sed rationem excedit Nec est simile de interiori actu charitatis which is the passage our Refuter insists on exterioribus actibus c. Nor is there the same Reason for the love of God and the acts of all other virtues and graces which have their set bounds and limits proportionable to charity and right reason Though a man can never love God too much in respect of the formall act yet his neighbour he may as has already been shewed from Durand on this very Question § 50. And thus also Cajetan in his Commentary on the Cajetan in loc place understands his Master Author sayes he comparat interiorem actum charitatis ad actus exteriores imperatos qui sunt ad finem § 51. But let Aquinas explain himself in the places he himself referrs to 2. 2. q. 23. art 6. in corp art 7. in corp vid. etiamque 44. art 1. in corp art 2. art 3. in corp where also in his answer ad secundum he sayes Alii actus charitatis consequuntur ex actu dilectionis sicut effectus ex causâ ut ex supra dictis patet unde in praeceptis dilectionis virtute includuntur praecepta de aliis actibus c. And this will also further appear from the places already quoted from Aquinas § 52. And now that this doctrine may not onely appear full and home to the meaning of Aquinas but commonly also received among the Schoolmen I shall for confirmation add a passage or two from the very accurate Suarez as our Refuter himself calls him and one as well acquainted I suppose with the meaning of this Author as any Commentator new or old Duplices esse solent sayes he virtutum Suarez de Relig tom 1 l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. moralium actus interni sc externi Quoniam verò hae voces varias habent significationes ut supra attigi in praesenti per internos actus solum intelligimus eos qui proxime ac per se fiunt vel fieri possunt ab ipso habitu proceduntque ex immediatâ inclinatione ipsius quando ex habitu fiunt aut si illum praecedant ipsum secum afferunt vel efficiendo ut in acquisitis vel proxime ad illum disponendo ut in infusis Externos autem actus voco omnes illos qui non fiunt ab habitu nisi mediantibus his prioribus actibus c. And then in his second Chapter of that book he adds further to this purpose Et juxta hunc loquendi modum hi exteriores actus distingui Suarez ibid. c. 2. §. 2. utrum praeter actus internos habeat Religio actus externos qui illi sunt possunt nam quidem sunt corporales quidam vero spirituales Rursus spirituales distingui possunt in actus intellectus voluntatis nam utrisque coli potest Deus ut infra dicetur latius dixi in 1. tom ad 3. Partem Aquin. Hic autem cultus qui per actus mentis fit communi usu interior potius appellatur ut distinguatur ab illo qui exhibetur per actus corporis nos autem explicuimus proprium respectum quem tales actus habent ad ipsam virtutem Quanquam adverti potest aliud esse loqui de cultu sub nomine cultus aliud verò sub nomine actus Cultus enim solum dicitur cultus internus vel externus quia intus in animâ vel extra per corpus fit uterque autem cultus dici potest actus externus ipsius Religionis quia sic denominatur per habitudinem ad virtutem tanquam ad principium suum quodam modo extrinsecum seu remotum Actus autem ipse immediate procedens à religione quem vocamus internum non est propriè cultus neque intrinsecus neque extrinsecus sed est affectus celendi Deum qui à cultu distinguitur sicut actus à materiali objecto Nihilominus saepe confundi solent hae voces ita ut omnis cultus interior dicatur etiam actus interior religionis quomodo nos saepe cum multis loquemur advertendo illa duo non converti quia non omnis actus internus potest dici cultus sed ille tantum qui remotus imperatus est nam alius qui est propinquior elicitus non est cultus sed affectus cultus Est enim as he had before delivered maxime advertendum Suarez ib. l. 1. c. 7. S. 2. quod supra indicavi in his virtutibus moralibus eosdem actus externos qui à virtute fiunt sunt effectus internorum actuum elicitorum à virtute secundum se sumptos ut priores inordine intentionis ut sic dicam esse objectum seu materiam talium virtutum Thus he § 53. The case is very clear let the terms onely be changed and it will aswell fit the place of Aquinas as the subject matter he is upon And I doubt not but he that shall consult the same Authors Commentary on that very place of Aquinas here cited by our Refuter shall find it thus expounded But for want of books I must content my self with what is here produced § 54. And now let the world judge Is not our Refuter a very profound Schoolman And does he not read Aquinas to purpose That after his acquaintance with that Author and his very accurate Suarez cannot learn to distinguish between actus dilectionis Dei extrinsecos and actus voluntati extrinsecos That is so easily captivated in his intellect and confounded with the ambiguity of a word and cannot perceive a difference between the outward sensible expressions of the acts of divine love and the imperate acts of it the interiour and elicite acts of all virtues and graces performed at the empire and command of this love and therefore called the exteriour acts of this love because that is the outward and remote cause and principle of them § 55. How then can I hope that his second reason should prevail
because the will cannot possibly be enforced it is improperly called necessity and though in respect of the outward danger impending the will moves against its own genuine inclination yet in the act and exercise it voluntarily chuses that which if the force were not impending it would not have embraced And therefore the great Philosopher in his Moralls Arist Ethic. l. 3. c. 1. S. 3. does truly call such actions as these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are made up and compounded of violence and choice To this they oppose that kind of freedome which they call signally spontaneity that arises from the inward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impetus and inclination of the agent without any outward force and compulsion to rouze and quicken it and is common at least in some proportion and inferiour degree to Beasts as well as Men. § 64. When therefore our Refuter sayes that the inward acts of Christs love of God were all equally intense because they were the naturall and necessary consequents of the beatificall vision clear it is that he takes the word necessary for that which is naturally such and so by consequence he destroyes the merit of our Saviours death and Passion which was the first stone of offence and rock of stumbling to that Arch-heretick Socinus For plain it is that the Saints in Heaven and Comprehensores in Patriâ among which number Christ on earth must be reckoned in regard of the Beatificall vision love not God by way of duty and election and choyce but by a necessity of their glorified natures and they cannot chuse but do it and consequently as themselves are now extra statum merendi so these acts of their love are no more rewardable and meritorious then the naturall motion of heavie bodies downward or light bodies upward For as Lawes are prescribed to free agents onely and rewards and punishments are onely proposed to those that are lords of their own actions and are left at their own liberty and election and choice so one of the conditions necessary to make an act or acts * Meritorium opus dicunt Scholastici quod potius dicendum remunerabile apud Deum Forbesii Iren l. 1. c. 3. S. 2. pag. 77. Secunda conditio in opere meritorio necessaria estut sit liberum quoniam per ea quae naturalia sunt quorum Domini non sumus nec meremur nec demeremur Quam conditionem locum etiam habuisse in actibus voluntatis Christi satis fusè in praecedenti q. 18. which is the very disputation our Refuter here referrs to disputatum est c. Quinta conditio ex parte etiam personae merentis est ut sit viator quam necessariam esse saltem ex lege Dei ordinariâ quicquid fit de absolutâ potentiâ omnes Theologi docent ut latius videbimus statim sect 3. ubi simul oftendemus conditionem hanc etiam in Christo Domino fuisse necessariam Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 39. sect 1. p. 536. col 2. E. p. 537. col 2. F. meritorious or remunerable is that it be free and not naturall and necessary and performed by a person that is in viâ because such persons onely and such actions are remunerable by God And consequently our Refuter that makes all the inward acts of Christs love to be the naturall and necessary consequents of the Beatificall vision destroyes the merit of his whole life and death and sufferings and eo ipso denyes him to be the meritorious cause of our justification § 65. But then secondly whereas he sayes that Christ had a proper freedome taking this word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward expressions of these acts though he had not such freedome to the inward acts themselves and therefore these might be more intense at one time then another though the inward acts might not Plain it is that here he confounds the naturall liberty and freedome of the will of Christ with the moral liberty and freedom of the actions themselves For that freedom which is taken for an active indifferency in sensu diviso and is here by our Refuter opposed to those naturall and necessary acts which were the consequents of the Beatifick vision is no other but that naturall liberty and freedom of the will essentially determined either in respect of contrariety or contradiction And so the Vid. Suarez in tertiam part Thom. tom 1. disp 37. sect 2. p. 512. col 1. E. F. sect 3. p. 513. col 1. C. c. p. 516. col 1. B. C. words in Suarez are to be understood who frequently makes use of this expression whence our Refuter borrowed it though plain it is he mistakes it But then the freedom that he speaks of in the conclusion is a moral freedom and indifferency of the action For thus his Argument must stand Christ in respect of the intention and fervour of the outward expressions was under no obligation nor necessity and duty and therefore they might be more intense at one time then another § 66. But then this is not all the misadventure of his discourse in the next place he splits himself upon the rock of downright falshood and contradiction to Scripture § 67. For whereas he sayes Christ had a proper freedom or active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward expressions though he had none to the inward Acts of them plain it is that his words must be understood either of the naturall liberty of the will of our blessed Saviour the active indifferency and indetermination of that to the outward expressions or else of their morall liberty and indifference in respect of any Law or divine precept determining these outward acts and expressions If he understand his assertion in the first sense plain it is that Christs will was thus equally free to all the inward acts of divine love and piety and religion and other virtues and graces as to the outward expressions of them and no more liberty he could have to the one then he had to the other For since * Suppono ex 1. 2. q 20. 21. proprium et formale meriâ—um esse in actu elicito à voluntate actus vero externos per se non addere meritum actui voluntatis neque esse formaliter intrinsece meritorios sed solum per extrinsecam denominationem ab actu meritorio voluntatis à quo imperantur extrinsecè seu moraliter informantur ficut etiam ab illo denominantur liberi studiosi Suarez in 3. Part. Thom. tom 1. disp 39. Sect. 2. pag. 540. col 1. C. freedome of the will and liberty of election and choice are essentiall to merit and since all the morall goodness and virtue and honesty and rewardableness in the work arises onely from the inward act which is the form and gives being to the whole it evidently follows that Christs will must be as free and actively
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
would infallibly perform whatsoever God had commanded him yet this outward morall determination of the action by the precept would not at all hinder the naturall liberty of the will but remain it would free as before supposing no such command And when he had explained and confirmed this assertion he at last concludes Sic igitur expositus sensus divisus compositus sufficienter solvit difficultatem hanc In the fourth Section he further proceeds to enquire Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera And this is the question our Refuter referrs us to for our further satisfaction And here in the first place he proposes a difficulty indeed drawn from the beatifick love of Christs soul qui erat simpliciter necessarius tam respectu Dei quam respectu propriae beatitudinis To this he proposes diverse answers which he rejects as unsatisfactory And then in the fifth place gives his own 77. I shall set it down at large that the Reader may perceive for a close how hand over head our Refuter does referr us for instruction to the Schoolmen Propter haec sayes he potest excogitari quintus respondendi Suarez in 3. par Thom. tom 1. disp 37 sect 4. p. 518. col 1. D. E. F. 2. A. B. modus ad quem suppono Christum non habuisse praeceptum proprium charitatis amandi Deum that is a precept alone peculiar to himself as comprehensor and distinct from that obliging other men tum quia cum voluntas ejus esset necessariò determinata ad hunc amorem non indigebat tali praecepto tum etiam quia hac ratione alii beati non habent hujusmodi praeceptum quia de necessariis non dantur praecepta Secundo suppono praeter amorem Dei beatificum esse potuisse in anima Christi alium amorem Dei nam sicut anima Christi duplici supernaturali scientiâ cognoscebat Deum beatâ infusâ ita potuit duplici actu amoris illum amare ut infra q. 19. disp 39. de merito Christi latius dicam Tertio suppono Christum fuisse simul Comprehensorem viatorem ex quâ mirabili conjunctione consequenter effectum est miraculose ut proprii actus beatifici ita continerentur in supremâ parte animae ut non redundarent in inferiorem neque perfectionem suam cum illâ communicarent Ad hunc ergo modum intelligi potest ita animam illam amasse Deum necessariò ut amor ille sisteret in sola formali conjunctione et unione ad Deum suo modo ad formalem beatitudinem pertinente non se extenderet nec communicaret ut ita dicam aliis operibus actibus qui in Christum ut viatorem conveniebant Cum enim haec extensio vel communicatio sit per modum cujusdam efficientiae poterat facile impediri sicut fruitio beata impedita est ne omnem tristitiam expelleret nec inferiori portioni se communicaret Hoc ergo supposito facile intelligitur illum Dei amorem quem anima Christi habuit veluti consequentem scientiam infusam non beatam fuisse liberum quia neque ab intrinseco habuit necessitatem cum non versaretur circa Deum clare visum ut sic nec ex praecepto quia ostensum est Christum non habuisse speciale praeceptum amandi Deum Et ulterius probari potest quia nec tale praeceptum est veluti connaturale intrinsecum ipsi charitati quia illi satis est unico actu diligere Deum unde si habeat unum actum necessarium dilectionis Dei ex natura sua non obligat ad alium actum nec verò est cur fingamus datum esse Christo speciale praeceptum de hujusmodi actu quia ad hoc asserendum nullum est fundamentum positiva praecepta sine fundamento multiplicanda non sunt erat ergo ille amor liber Ex quo ulterius facile intelligitur ab illo amore libero liberè etiam processisse actus obedientiae charitatis proximi aliarum virtutum quas Christus Dominus ut viator exercuit tum quia ille amor est sufficiens principium causa illorum tum etiam quia amor beatificus ut dictum est veluti continebatur ne influerit in hujusmodi actus sed relinqueret voluntatem operari modo accommodato Viatori Et ita videtur fieri satis omnibus difficultatibus positis This he further confirms and explains § 78. And now I appeal to the whole world whether any thing could be said more high and full to the Doctors position and what we have delivered in the clearing and confirmation of it and more contrary and destructive to the pretences of our Refuter in his second argument in every part and parcell of it For first plain it is that Suarez here distinguishes Christs state of Comprehensor from his state of Viator Secondly he distinguishes the necessary acts of his Beatifick love from the free acts of his love springing from the infused habit of charity Thirdly he asserts that the Beatifick necessary love had no influence upon the infused love and consequently this might be most free and meritorious in the act and exercise though the other were not Fourthly that this free infused love was a sufficient cause and principle of all the inferiour acts of obedience and piety and virtue which as Christ in the state of viator did freely exercise so they did as freely issue from that free meritorious love properly so called as their first spring and issue And then lastly it appears from the words that these elicite acts of virtue piety obedience and the like are the exteriour acts of charity that Suarez here means and not the outward sensible expressions as our Refuter suggests § 79. And therefore since he has been so extreamly unhappy in the quoting of Suarez Aquinas and other Schoolmen my advise for the future shall be to him that he let the Schoolmen and Scholastick Divines alone and content himself onely with the Practicall wherein I hope he will be more happy § 80. Much more to our present purpose might be observed out of the following question Sect. 5. where he determines Quomodo Christus videns semper in verbo omnes actus suos eos liberè exercere potuerit as also from his 39. disputation de merito Christi where he proves that Christ did merit though not by his Beatifick and necessary love of God yet by the elicite acts of the infused as also by the elicite act of charity to his neighbour and all other infused virtues and graces and the like But because we cited part of this disputation already and our Refuters gross mistakes need not further conviction I refer the studious Reader to it where he shall find some things worthy his perusall For now extremo in fine laborum Vela traho terris festino advertere proram to mine and the Readers
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
verò fuit hic metus quod veriti sunt Christum tanto dolori subjicere ne ejus gloriam minâ—erent c. Calvin in Commentar ad Psal 22. vers 2 3. p 9â— Quod si primo conflictu elicitae fuerunt sanguinis guttae ut opus fuerit Consolatore Angelo non mirum est si in ultimo Agone confessus est tantum dolorem c. Calvin ibid. were not only for a shew and to be taken notice of by men but they came from the heart the heightned outcries the streams and flouds of tears and strong clamors were true and real symptomes of a more then ordinary fervour a more intense ardency then formerly he had accasion for And therefore we may well conclude that as his now approaching torments made a stronger impression on his humane Nature then at other times so now on this occasion he prayed the more earnestly then at other times As the occasion was weighty for the inflaming of his zeal so it cannot be denyed but his fervency was advanced to a proportionable degree And so as the Doctor saies his bloody Agony may well testifie but it cannot prejudge the ardency that by this occasion was heightned § 73. And therefore †Non ergo sine causa ipse quoque Dominus quum precibus incumbere vehementius vellet in secessum procul hominum tumultu se conferebat c. Calvin Institut lib. 3. c. 20. §. 29. Mr. Calvin not only acknowledges that our Blessed Saviour did sometimes pray more ardently then at other times but also demonstrates that times of trouble distress are fit opportunities for the heightning of our fervour and ardency in Prayer and that then Vide Calvin in Matt. 26. 39. Institut lib. 2. c. 16. §. 11 12. more especially God calls upon us for it His words are these Si quis objiciat non semper aequali necessitate urgeri nos ad precandum fateor id quidem atque haec distinctio nobis à Jacobo utiliter traditur * Jac. 5. 13. Tristatur quis inter vos oret qui laetus est canat Ergo dictat ipse communis sensus quia nimium pigri sumus prout res exigit nos acrius à Deo pungi ad strenue orandum Psal 32. 6. Et hoc tempus opportunum nominat David quia sicuti pluribus aliis locis docet quo nos durius premunt molestiae incommoda timores aliaeque species tentationum ac si nos Deus ad se accerseret liberior patet accessus Calvin Institut l. 3. c. 20. § 7. So again to this purpose § 29. Sed enim istud nihil obstat quo minus unaquaeque Ecclesia cum subinde ad frequentiorem precationum usum se extimulare tum majore aliqua necessitate admonita acriore studio flagrare debeat § 74. And therefore since as Mr. Calvin most truly a time of great affliction is a fit season for the heightning our zeal and devotion and God then more signally calls upon us for it Our Saviour all whose actions especially of this nature were for 2 Pet. 2. 21. our example and instruction did now in this his Agony pray more earnestly to teach us what we should do in such cases and that we might learn from his practise that a Time of affliction is a season for the growth of our inward ardency and devotion and intenseness in Prayer as well as for the outward clamors and outcries Quoderat demonstrandum § 75. And therefore though it is evident that now it will be lost labour to make any reflections upon the former part of our Refuters second Answer yet to gratifie him in these his injunctions I shall cast some light strictures on it though the Doctor did not because it was needless § 76. Whereas then our Refuter saies in the application of the first branch of his second answer That if we consider Christs prayer in reference unto the Object unto whom it was made 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 § 77. To this I answer First 1. That if these be considered in the Habit without doubt they were alwaies alike equal they were not at one time more intense then at another because habitually they were alwaies in him in the full height and Perfection But then this is not the question between him and the Doctor 2. But then secondly if these be considered in their several Acts and if we shall compare them one with another there must of necessity be a gradual difference in them according to the present exigence and occasion The reason is one and the same in these and all other Acts of vertue quod scilicet as Cajetan truly si homo exercet Cajetan in 2. 2. q. 38. art 12. in respons ad terlium eos tenetur eos exercere cum debitis circumstantiis A man is bound to perform them with all due and lawful circumstances And therefore though the Habit of divine Charity of Religion and Devotion c. be alwaies full yet the will of Christ did perform the several Acts of those graces according to those due measures and circumstances that Gods Law required His love to God in the Act I mean in that high that transcendent Act of divine Love immediately terminated on God was at the height his own glory and exaltation in the Humane Nature he loved in a proportionable degree next to that and then the Church and then his own life which yet he laid down for the redemption of the Faithful So also in the Acts of Prayer and Devotion they were alwaies performed with that fervency as the present occasion and the things that he prayed for did require This already has abundantly been demonstrated and therefore needs no further proof § 78. Secondly I answer That if we shall consider Christs actuall Love as immediatly terminated on God and the Acts of his trust and dependance upon him his Acts of Love and Zeal and Devotion towards him that immediatly flowed from his all-full and perfect knowledge of Gods absolute soveraignty and goodness which as Comprehensor and also by the Habit of infused knowledge of God he enjoyed those were alwaies one and the same he could not love him more then he did or reverence him more then he did or trust in him more then he did because it was impossible he should know or enjoy him more then he did But these being the spring and fountain from which all Christs Prayers flowed as our Refuter expresly acknowledges were not the Acts of that holy Love and Zeal and Devotion that are now in controversie between himself and the Doctor and therefore their constant fulness of intensive perfection makes nothing to this purpose § 79. But then there are other Acts of Love and Charity
sect 2. p. 540. col 1 C. infracitat Bellarmine speaks to like purpose faciens videlicet opera Deo hominibus magis grata they themselves must mean as much § 89. For it is a generally received truth amongst the Moralists and Schoolmen that as the inward and the outward Act do both concurr to make up and compleat a Morall work or Act so all the goodness and dignity and meritorious acceptableness of it arises onely from the interiour and Elicit Act and not at all from the Imperate and exterior For as in Naturalls so in Moralls it is the Form that gives being and worth to the thing Formed And for this we have already quoted Aquinas and Durand and Suarez and others and I think no rationall man doubts it § 90. And therefore if as Stapleton and Bellarmine both grant that Christ did daily more and more gratious works in the sight and Judgement of God and man and if it be true as Tolet and Lucas Brugensis positively say that Christs Fast of forty dayes was more meritorious and acceptable to God then one of three would have been and the blood shed at his Passion was in the reall Physicall value more acceptable and meritorious then that shed at his circumcision as the same Brugensis which neither Bellarmine nor Stapleton I suppose will deny and Suarez has largely demonstrated then it evidently follows that there was and by themselves if they will speak consequently it must be granted a true and reall increase in the inward Acts themselves and where the whole morall work is more physically valuable and meritorious and acceptable in the sight of God and Man there the inward and elicite Act proceeding from the habit must also be more noble And then if this be their meaning they had little reason to quarrell with Calvin that in the Judgement of our Field means the same and so in this they may be friends at least with the greatest part of Calvin's followers who declare this to be their meaning § 91. But if they understand no other proficiency and increase then onely in regard of Outward seeming appearance and manifestation as yet I know of no Protestant of their Judgement but our Refuter and uncertain I am whether unless he will absolutely run from himself in his Mixture where he quarrels at Bellarmine for this doctrine he will long continue their Proselyte § 92. And now being come to the Foot of our Account it is fit we cast up our summe total that we may truly ballance and state the difference between the Refuter and the Doctor § 93. First then the Refuter sayes he is confident that no learned man either Protestant or Papist besides this Replyer hath asserted any such growth unto the Ardency of Christs Actuall Love of God And now upon the Account we have found that this is the Generall Doctrine of Reformed Divines and many learned Papists and opposed by none but such as Bellarmine and Stapleton and Maldonate that vent any thing in their anger against those they call hereticks and by these not indeed but onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in shew if they will speak consequently to themselves and the received Maximes of their own Schools Secondly we have found that Erasmus clearly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and D. Eckardus and upon the matter Beza and Piscator and others do expound S. Luke of a reall increase of the very habits of wisdome and Grace in the humane nature of our Saviour and that the same Doctrine is charged by Bellarmine and Stapleton and Maldonate upon Luther Calvin Zuinglius Bucer Beza and generally on the the Calvinists and Lutherans and that M. Calvin in his Institutions does seem to say as much Thirdly we have found that the learned Cardinall Tolet though he does not approve yet he does not condemn that exposition and Jansenius allows it as Catholick and leaves Jansen supra citat it as indifferent to his Reader whether he follow this or the other Fourthly it is acknowledged by Jansenius that Ambrose Maldonat supra citat and Theophile as also by Tolet that Athanasius and Cyrillus and by Maldonate that besides these Epiphanius also and Fulgentius and Beda and Euthymius and Tolet adds Tolet. in Luc. c. 2. v. ult Annot 86. p. 112. col 1. 2. S. Austin also sometimes were of this opinion and the same Tolet let me add observes that Origen goes higher in his first Homilie on Jeremy that the Word it self did increase in Wisdome and Grace non quidem in se sed in humanâ naturâ inasmuch as the humane nature increasing in knowledge the Word it self did increase in wisdome inasmuch as it knew things after a new manner which by his divine wisdome he did formerly know § 94. And now let our Refuter himself and the whole world Judge does he not appear most unfortunate in his confidence And has not his Ambition to be read and accounted a Confuter of D. Hammond betrayed him to the ruine of his Credit And has not his use of Confutation and the defence of that use brought an umbrage and a Cloud on his whole Mixture howsoever otherwise learned and the Practicall Divinity confuted the Scholasticall And therefore I must tell him that I truly Pity his misfortune that has as much sullyed his Fame and learning by his confidence as wavering and that Herostratus like he should set fire to Doctor Hammond's glorious structure to gain himself an inglorious name § 95. But then withall I must add that if he had not been mistaken in his Confidence yet he had been very much mistaken in his Judgement For the Doctor no where ascribes any such growth as he here means to the Ardency of Christs Actuall Love of God And I publickly challenge him to shew it in the sense that he speaks of And so the Doctor is secure and still safe notwithstanding his Reason his Authority and Confidence Go we on then to the next SECT 32. Zeal and loud noise different M Cawdrey grants all in Controversie Heightning outward expressions à posteriori conclude the increase of the inward Acts. Outward and Inward Acts both compleat the Morall Action How proportioned Difference of Christs obligation to Purity and ours All born in sin First Covenant how in force how not Cannot oblige to sinless Perfection Man Reprieved from the finall execution of its curse by Christ Objections Answered New Covenant how aggravates Damnation What required by it Law holy How a Rule The subject matter as well of the second as the first Covenant Difference of obligation to its purity under the first and second Covenant Law abrogated not as a Rule but as a Covenant Second Covenant allows growth toward perfection which the first did not What the Doctor speaks of Refuters first Reason Terms of the first part of his Assumption distinguished Applyed Second part of his Assumption Answered Aquinas serves not the Refuters interest Exteriour Acts of