Confutation That sincere Love was capable of Degrees was first shewed in several men at several times in the several rankes of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another But if the words of themselves were not so clear and plain yet the whole subject matter of the Treatise of Will-worship and the Account to Mr. Cawdrey would abundantly declare it For is not the whole business and design of those Discourses to shew that there be some Acts and Degrees of Piety and Devotion that are not commanded by any particular Law which yet are acceptable to God when performed and that Love which is sincere in the Habit is capable of Degrees in the several Acts and exercise And is it not for this among other Instances that this example of Christs ardency in Prayer is produced by him How then was it possible that you should be so strangely mistaken And what Temptation could you have to charge the Doctor with the denial of the habitual fulness of Christ's Grace from a Passage that speaks expresly of the Act a thing specifically distinct from it However you are a courteous man to take the Doctors word at last for his own meaning that best knew it of any man in the world But proceed in your new-begun ingenuity and take your pen and write a Deleatur also to your Vse of Confutation For to what purpose serves that against Doctor Hammond that never denied or so much as questioned your Doctrine of the Fulness of habitual Grace If you believe as you profess the world will count you unjust unless you write an Index expurgatorius unto your former Treatise For the Schoolmen will tell you non tollitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum and you cannot otherwise restore the Doctor his good Name of which you have by your confession so unjustly so unworthily robbed him § 4. But hold we are too quick and nimble For saies he not he will make the Charge good by Consequence although the Doctor never meant it Sure the man was born under a Mood-and-Figure-Planet and Ferio was the Lord of his Ascendent he is altogether for Consequences But what 's the Consequence It is this to a word and syllable JEANES THat Objection which is urged against the perpetual all-fulness and perfection of Christs actual Love the inward Acts of his Love of God strikes against the perpetual all-fulness and perfection of his habitual Love because the degrees of the inward Acts of his Love of God are commensurate unto the degrees of his habitual Love For they have no degrees at all but secundariò in regard of the Habit of his Love but now this Objection is urged by you against the perpetual all-fulness and perfection of his actual Love the inward Acts of his Love for it is brought to prove that the inward Acts of Christs Love were more intense at one time then another and a greater intension presupposeth a remission and imperfection for intensio est eductio rei intensae de imperfecto ad perfectum as Aquinas very often Therefore this Objection strikes against the perpetual fulness and perfection of Christs actual Love of God and so consequently against the perpetual fulness and perfection of his habitual Love § 5. What a monstrous Syllogism is here Like the Trojan horse it has Troops of Arguments and Proofes in the bowels of it and the Major Minor and Conclusion are not bare Propositions but Syllogismes themselves It is not a single Man of warr but a Spanish half-Moon an invincible Armado linck'd and coupled together O patria O Divûm domus Ilium inclyta bello Moenia Dardanidûm Now or never Troy is Virgil. taken and Doctor Hammond confuted § 6. But Sir there is nothing proved all this while but only by your own venerable authority For what if the whole be no other then a Sophisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Doctors Assertion will by no means inferr your Conclusion For proof of it I first deny your Major there is no consequence at all in it for we have already demonstrated that Acts which issue from Habits that are seated in the Will are free and not necessary effects of the Will from whence they flow and therefore may be gradually different in themselvs where the Habit continues gradually one and the same We have shewed you also from Reason and Scripture and Authority of Protestants and Papists as learned as any from Schoolmen and Fathers also that there was a gradual difference in some Acts of Christs Wisedom and Grace and that they did successively increase in Perfection as he himself did in Stature though the Infused Habit of Wisedom and Grace were in him alwaies at the utmost height both intensively and extensively § 7. But what are all the Fathers and Schoolmen that are to be had in Paul's Church-yard or in the Library at Oxford to the purpose if he can prove his Major which thus he does If the degrees of the inward Acts of Christs Love are commensurate unto the degrees of his habitual Love then whosoever saies the Acts are not alwaies intensively perfect saies also by consequence that the. Habit is not alwaies intensively perfect But the degrees c. Ergo. § 8. Here Sir you are in danger of a double Sophism For first you prove Ignotum per ignotius aut aliquid saltem aeque ignotum because it is as doubtful in the sense you should mean if you speak to the present purpose whether the degrees of the inward Acts of Christs Love are so commensurate unto the degrees of his habitual Love as still to equal them in intensive perfection and to assert it without Proof is Sophisma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly if you conclude that the Acts and Habits are commensurate in every thing because they are commensurate in this that the Act can never exceed in Perfection the Habit from whence it effectively flowes as you do all along in this Discourse but more particularly in your first Argument p. 25 26. you most sophistically argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For though the Acts of Christs Love may be full and perfect in suo genere yet they may not be all equal in themselves and with the Habit and though they may and must be commensurate with the Habit as not to exceed it in perfection because they are the effects of the Habit yet they may not for all that still equal the gradual perfection of the Habit because the Habit is not a necessary but a voluntary cause and the Acts that flow from it are all Acts of the Will And consequently this way of proof will be no other then a plain Sophism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus Because the Act Arist l. 1. Soph Elen. h. c. 4. is in some respect commensurate with the Habit Ergo it must alsolutely and in every respect be commensurate with it just as if I should argue Mr.
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
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.
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
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
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
though in the words acknowledged and cavilled at by this Refuter he only mentioned the outward sensible expressions yet there the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love Which inward Acts alone and nothing else he makes to be specifically distinct from the Habit of Love § 8. But in a Parenthesis to his second Argument he tells us that by the expressions of Love the Doctor expounds himself to mean § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love which are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination § 9. True Sir But is it with exclusion of the inward Acts How then are they expressions of them But let us view the Doctors own words in the 21. § that our Refuters fair dealing may notoriously appear I must only say saies the Doctor there that is a mis-apprehension 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 expressions of Love the outward expressions of those inward Acts and of these Acts only I speak and of these expressions when I say they are more intense at one time then another § 10. But now though it be so clearly evident that in the places already quoted the Doctor by the expressions of Love still refers to the inward Acts which only he makes specifically distinct from the Habit yet this was hint enough to give our Refuter advantage to make a noise and a Book He has now found new matter of Dispute and with might and main he labours to prove that which no man ever doubted and the Doctor never thought of We shall now have Reasons and Authority no less then a whole Page-full in this puisny Pamphlet to prove that which might have been granted for asking And O what pitty it is that our School-man should not have Truth more often on his side because he makes so much of it when he chanceth to meet it though it be out of his rode § 11. But in good sadness Sir why no less then four Reasons to prove that which was never denied you Has Doctor Hammond asserted any thing to the contrary Did he ever affirm that Love was univocally predicated of the Habit and the outward sensible expressions as its Species If he has pray quote us the place that we may also confess and acknowledge his mistake If he has not as without doubt he no where has then you only fight with a shadow of your own casting and much good do you with the Conquest If you set up a Shroveing-Cock from your own Dunghill I shall not any waies forbid you to throw as many Cudgels at him as you please § 12. But yet Sir I cannot chuse but take notice of your Craft you have cunningly raised a Cloud of Dust to amuse your unwary Readers who will think that all this while you fight with the Doctor because they see you so zealous in your Mood and Figure and have urged no less then four Reasons backed and confirmed with two venerable Authorities most demurely against No body § 13. And now I assure you Sir it is well that your Conclusion is a Truth sufficiently evident of it self For otherwise so profound a Disputant you are your Reasons would very very hardly enforce it § 14. Your Third to begin with that for I shall not tye my self to your Methode is most ridiculously false You say not to trouble our selves about the Mood and Figure 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 praedicated of them equally as a Genus § 15. Your Major Sir your Major by all means have a care of your Major For what think you Sir of all * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 2. Gener. Animal c. 4. in fine univocal productions When Fire produces Fire and Corn brings forth Corn when a Man begets a Man and one Heat makes another does not one and the same word as a Genus comprehend the Efficient and the Effect And is it not in these a certain Maxime that Qualis est causa talis est effectus such as the Cause is in nature such also is the Effect And I hope you will think it lawful for things of the same nature to be comprehended under the same Genus Nay are not these distinguished from (a) Quaedam est quae effici◠Effectum ejusdem rationis haec dicitur Vnivoca ut Ignis quum generat Ignem universaliter Causa quae operando per virtutem suae formae similem reddit Effectum est Causa univoca in suo ordine Principalis ut recte notat D. Thomas 3. p. q. 62. art 1. Alia vero est Causa producens Effectum alterius rationis quam oportet esse nobiliorem Effectu et haec appellatur Causa Aequivoca quia non convenit formaliter cum Effectu in eâdem formâ sed eminenter illam continet Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 17. sect 2. §. 21. Vid. cund disp 26. sect 1. §. 6. sect 5. §. 13 14 15 16 c. Aequivocal productions because in these Effectum est ejusdem rationis cum Efficiente but in the other Efficiens non convenit cum effectu in eâdem formâ sed eminenter illam continet Nay does not your own (b) Scheibler Metaph. l. 1. c. 22. tit 9. n. 116 117 c. Scheibler as well as Suarez both whom you so seriously commend to the Doctors perusal tell you that Causa univoca est quae producit effectum similem in specie But me thinks Sir if since your more noble more serious imployments in the study and writing of Scholastical and Practical Divinity you had thought fit to neglect such vulgar Authors and to forget the common Notions and Maximes delivered by them yet you should at least have observed this in your Reading of Aquinas that in his Summes (a) Vid. Aquin Sum. p. 1. q. 4. art 2. in corp Cajetan Javel alios in loc 3. part q. 62. art 1. in corp alibi saepissime does frequently deliver this Doctrine and makes very good use of it And now Sir I hope you will think it lawful for things of the same nature to be comprehended under the same Genus For where I pray will you rank the several Individuals of the self-same Species for such are all Vnivocal Causes and Effects as is plain from sense and experience if not under the same Genus § 16. I might prove the gross and palpable falshood of your Major Sir by divers instances drawn from Aequivocal Productions where the cause and effect must be placed in the same Praedicament and consequently under the same remote Genus at least which is sufficient to
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
Species unius generis subalterni ut dicantur Dispositiones illae qualitates primae Speciei quibus convenit secundum propriam rationem ut de facili amittantur quia habent causas transmutabiles ut Aegritudo Sanitas Habitus verò dicantur illae qualitates quae secundum rationem habent quod de facili transmutentur quia habent causas immobiles sicut Scientiae Virtutes secundum hoc Dispositio non fit Habitus Et hoc videtur magis consonum intentioni Aristotelis c. Thus he § 48. It will not now for a close of this Section be amiss to tell you the Doctor never takes Acts for Habits but specifically distinguishes them nor yet counts them Dispositions as that word is properly taken but saies only at large that habitual and actual love are both Qualities and Species of the same Genus And now that you may have no opportunity to mistake his meaning I must mind you of the known distinction of Acts some whereof precede the Habit to be produced and effectively concur to the making of it and others follow the Habit now compleat and perfect as effects and issues of it The first are inchoate imperfect things in order to the production of a Habit and so are Dispositions properly so called The other are not so but follow as Effects from their Cause whether the Habit be infused or acquisite and are called Dispositions not specially and properly but generally and improperly taken for reasons formerly alledged And strange it is you should not observe this doctrine in Suarez in Scheibler in Aristotle where it is to be found all which you yet recommend to the Doctors inspection for satisfaction in this kind § 49. And so much at present for our Refuters long-since forgotten Metaphysicks we come now to his Familiars his dear Acquaintance the Schoolmen SECT 11. 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 alwaies 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 God's outward favours and expressions different The inward Act of his Love still one and invariable Proved against the Socinian Gods Love one infinite and substantial 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 gradual 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 engaged 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 Proposition § 1. THe Doctor having now truly stated the Question in Controversie between him and his Adversary and shewed that the Acts of Christs Love of which alone he spake were sometimes gradually differenced one from another and in this respect were capable of Degrees though his habitual grace were not he comes now § 23. to explain explain he saies and not confirm or prove this by the Refuters own Confession Doctor HAMMOND 23. I Shall explain this by the Refuters own confession The Death of Christ saith he was an higher Expression of Christ's Love of ut then his Poverty Hunger or Thirst To this I subjoin that such as the Expression was such was the Act of inward love of which that was an expression it being certain that each of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions And from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superiour to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty and so the same Person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely at one time then at another which was the very thing I had said in another instance But this I have added ex abundanti more then the Refuters Discourse required of me § 2. To this our Refuter returns three things in three Sections JEANES IF you had repeated that which you call my confession full and entire as it lay in my Book the impartial and unprejudiced Reader would soon have discerned that there was in it nothing that made for your advantage My words at large are these There may be a gradual difference in the expressions of the same Love for Degree Christs Death for us was an higher expression of his love of us then his Poverty Hunger Thirst c. and yet they might proceed from a Love equally intense Now Sir have you said any thing to prove that they could not proceed from a Love equally intense You seem indeed most vehemently and affectionately to affirm that they could not but you must pardon me if I entertain not your vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae Pray Sir review this Section and put your Argument into some form If you can make good that it conteineth any disproof of what I have said unless begging the Question be argumentative you shall have my hearty leave to triumph over me as you please however untill then I shall take your words asunder and examine every passage in them Doctor HAMMOND TO this I subjoin that such as the expression was such was the Act of inward Love of which that was an expression it being certain that each of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions JEANES THat each of these expressions had an act of inward Love of which they were so many different expressions is an obvious Truth but impertinent to the matter in hand unless you can prove that they were of necessity equal in point of intension and the proof of this you have not hitherto so much as attempted Doctor HAMMOND ANd from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superior to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty and so the same person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely at one time then at another which was the very thing I had said in another instance But this I have added ex abundanti more
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
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
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
perfect and intense And therefore it clearly follows that where the Degrees of any Quality are for number multiplyed in the same Subject there the Quality is more intense and a Quality of three or four degrees is more gradually perfect then a Quality of one or two only and yet one Degree precisely and abstractly considered is not of more intensive perfection then another as the light of the several candles when compared one with another are equall in perfection because they are supposed to be all of an equal brightness § 4. Nor will this infer as he afterwards charges upon the Doctor Intension to be a meer Coacervation of many homogeneous Degrees of the same likeness an absurdity justly refuted by Suarez and others but only a praecisive mental designation of the Suarez Metaph disp 5. sect 8. § 21 22 23. disp 46. sect 1 3. several degrees that of themselves compound and integrate the same numerical Form So the Astronomer thus divides his Circles into Degrees and Seconds c. and the Land measurer designes so many Acres or Perch or Yards or Feet where yet there is no real separation of parts thus designed but all are still continued and united in the whole And the truth of this Doctrine may be seen in the same Suarez and in the very place Suarez Metaph disp 46. sect 1 §. 38. Vide eundem ibid. per. tot sect 3. ibid. §. 12 13. quoted by the Refuter Secundo dicendum saies he latitudinem entitativam qualitatis intensibilis non esse meram Coarcervationem plurium graduum ejusdem qualitatis omnino similium sed esse quandam Compositionem per se talium partium seu graduum quorum unus naturâ suâ supponit alium ratione cujus subordinationis unus dicitur primus alius secundus tertius c. ita ut primus secundus non solum distinguantur sicut duo primi gradus existentes in diversis partibus subjecti sed quia etiam sunt naturâ suâ primus secundus sic de caeteris § 5. But he goes on to give us a Reason of his Assertion JEANES FOr in Christ let them be never so much multiplyed they may be and stil are of an equal intensive perfection and excellency one is not more intense then another and so if this reading be retained there will be no place for your Conclusion That the inward Acts of Christs Love are more intense at one time then at another unless you will make Intension to be a meer Coarcervation of homogeneous degrees i. e. degrees altogether like the absurdity of which you may see in Suarez Metaph. disp 46. Pet. Hurtado de Mendoza de Gener. Corrupt disp 5. § 6. § 6. For answer I desire to know what is the Antecedent to these Relatives them and they If you mean the Acts of Christs Love and say Let the Acts of his Love be never so much multiplyed these Acts may be and still are of an equal intensive perfection I reply and say If the Degrees of his Love are in number multiplyed as the Acts are there must be a growth in their intensive perfection and the last Act which has the greater number of degrees in it will be gradually more perfect then the former § 7. But perhaps he considers those several Acts and the several degrees of them to be so many discrete Quantities and though they are still multiplied and increased in number yet they be several distinct Acts of the same gradual height as twenty shillings successively added one to the other though they make a greater sum of mony yet they grow not into one piece by this multiplication but are all still distinct shillings of an equal value stamp and bigness and weight But then how this failes in the multiplication of the degrees of Quality in the same Subject may appear not only from Suarez in the very place by him cited but also from the former instance * Vide Suarez Metaph. disp 5. sect 8. §. 11. where the whose light of the room is gradually intended by the addition of a new Candle though the light of every Candle continues distinct as appears by the several shadows that every one casts And then I must also tell him that by this Position he must unavoidably fall either upon the same Absurdity which he charges upon the Doctor in making Intension to be a meer coacervation and heaping up in the same Subject of many Degrees altogether alike or upon another as gross in placing many Accidents of the same kind and only numerically distinct in one and the same Subject at one and the same time The falshood of which assertion together with the former as the same Suarez has shewed in one and the same Section so Reason it self at the very Suarez ibid. §. 19 20 21 22 23. first proposal is able to discover that it is equally impossible for many Acts of the same kind and degree of Ardency to be in the same Subject at one and the same time without any formal union in themselves but continuing still distinct as for many other individual qualities of the same kind and degrees suppose of heat or cold or whiteness and the like to be in the same Subject without compounding and making up a more intense and perfect Quality of the same kind wherein the several degrees shall be united § 8. But be this how it will plain it is by what follows in the Refuter that he does not reach the Doctors meaning and the force of his Argument For the Doctor concludes and argues from the Effect to the Cause thus Where the zeal is true and real and not personate and counterfeit as in Christ without doubt it was most true there a multiplication of the outward Acts of Prayer and a longer continuance in them argues a greater Ardency of inward affection and true zeal and for the truth of this Assertion I appeal to the practise of the whole world * Sed respondet Aquinas 2. 2. q. 134. art 4. Secundum ea quae exterius aguntur accipi debere spiritualem statum in homine per comparationem ad Ecclesiam quia nos non scrutamur corda sed videmus ea quae patent Vt concedam oportere nos de statu interno judicare per ea quae extrinsecus aguntur respondebo me igitur secundum judicium Charitatis aestimare illum esse in statu spiritualis profectionis quemcunque videro proferentem fructus justitiae Sanctitatis c. Davenant de Justit Actual c. 41. p 472. Vide Hookers Ecclesiast Pol. l. ◠§. 32. For since the Devotion and Religion of the heart is an immanent Act of the Will and Vnderstanding it is impossible to discover it but by the outward performance And no argument more common to guess at the inward Devotion among men then by this continuance in Prayer and multiplication of outward Acts. For let me appeal to our Refuter
answer § 1. To this our Refuter returns JEANES FIrst this is an utter Impertinency unto that which is in debate between us c. § 2. Grande crimen Caie Caesar si probetur But what if it appear in the issue most evidently to prove the Doctors Position will not then our Refuter betray as great Ignorance as Impertinence in this Rejoynder And now to shew the Appositeness of the Proof I must tell him what either he knows not or will not observe That the Doctor again argues à posteriori from the Effect to the Cause and the necessary relation between the work and the reward His argument is founded upon a maxime of distributive Justice not expressed but supposed and intimated Vide Suarez 3. p. Thom. tom 1. disp 39. sect 1. p. 537. col 1. and it is this Where the reward does proceed of debt as in Christ certainly it did and is properly wages there must be a proportionable encrease of the reward and the work And therefore * 1 Tim. 5. 18. since the labourer is worthy of his hire and †Gen. 18. 25. God the Judge of all the world must needs do right we may most evidently and demonstratively prove the gradual increase in the perfection of any Act of vertue from a proportionable encrease in the reward that he gives because as the Scripture testifies he rewards every man not only according to the sincerity of his Matth. 16. 27. 2 Cor. 5 10. heart but also secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or works the more abundant labour as the Doctor saies truly proceeding from this sincerity For it is this inward heart-devotion that God alone regards this this is the thing that gives life and vigour to the outward work and makes it acceptable in Gods sight and if this go not alwaies with the outward Act or work God looks upon it as the sacrificing and cutting off the neck of a dogge and pouring the blood of a man upon his Altar But then because the outward works are the fruits and effects of the inward Devotion and ordinarily as these are more noble so also is the Love and sincerity more strongly encreased God for the inward Fervours sake does reward men secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or outward works § 3. Well then if the very multiplication of more outward Acts and works for such only the Doctor means of any vertue be more valuable in the sight of God as without doubt they are who rewards every man according to his works and this because the more abundant labour in the outward Act proceeds from the greater fervour and intenseness of the inward Act which alone gives life to it it will evidently follow that the length of Prayer the outward Oraizon he meanes in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God as the work is in it self considered and without relation to the Person that does it for of the work in it's own nature considered the Doctor speaks as appears by the whole current of his discourse and that must needs argue it more excellent in regard of the intensive Perfection of the inward Act which is that alone which God values then the smaller number of those Acts would be And this as it clearly proves the Doctors Assertion so it was the whole he aimed at in this argument § 4. But our Refuter will give us his reason why he does charge it with impertinency JEANES FOr suppose that the very multiplication of more inward Acts of any vertue in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God and so more excellent then the smaller number of those Acts would be yet this supposition will never bring you to this conclusion That one inward Act of Christs love of God may be more intense then another and my reason is because in all these inward Acts of Christs love of God and we may say the same of the inward Acts of other vertues and graces there may be no gradual dissimilitude § 5. But why I pray Sir may or must there be no gradual difference of the inward Acts of Christs love of God or holy Charity and other inward Acts of other vertues and graces Good Sir give us a proof of this Is it therefore an irrefragable demonstration because you usher it in so gravely with a Because and this is my reason But good Sir know you not that this is still Petitio principii and the Controversie between you and the Doctor And do you not prove still idem per idem thus The inward Acts of Christs Love are not gradually different or which is all one they are gradually the same my reason is because in them there may be no gradual dissimilitude If this be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not what your great Master Aristotle means § 6. How the Doctors supposition has inferred his Conclusion has already appeared and the folly also of what you have urged against it But it is no wonder that you argue so absurdly when you understand not the Discourse you undertake to refute For Sir the Doctor does not argue from the multiplication of the inward Acts as you suppose him but from the multiplication of the outward Acts or works and from the greater reward that attends them he concludes the more noble and intensive Perfection of the inward Act from whence they flow as the more abundance of fruit argues the rich vigorousness and plenty of the vital sap of the Tree and the less argues either the unseasonableness of the year or the decay of the Stock For you your self have told us that works signifie those that are outward how properly has already been shewed in the sense you spake of it The truth is that works in a Physical consideration never signifie the Elicite Acts of the Will but the issues and Effects of them whether inward or outward whether immanent as in a Syllogism purely mental or trunsient as in the imperate Acts of the Will though certain it is as we have shewed that the inward and outward Act both concur to the essence and constitution of a Moral work or Action § 7. But he goes on as gravely as if his words were all Oracles JEANES A Great part of the Schoolmen will tell you that the moral vertue of one single Act of any vertue in Christ was infinite and in the multiplication of more Acts there is but an infinite value now one infinite cannot be greater then another infinite in the same kind wherein it is infinite and hereupon they conclude that the multiplication of Acts makes nothing in Christ unto an intensive addition of value The value of one Act is intensively as great as that of more Acts. The first Act of Christ saies Albertinus habet totam latitudinem intensivam valoris moralis etsi non adaequet totam latitudinem extensivam Corol. tom 1. 150. n. 61. And of this you have a reason p. 145. this Act is
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