had not stepped in between Gods wrath and us no flesh living should be saved In this sense it is the Apostle tells us that we are by nature Ephess 2. 3. Rom. 5. 12. 1. Cor. 15. 22. Jo. 3. 3. 18. the children of wrath and all dead in Adam and our Saviour assures us that except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God because he that believeth not as he sayes in another place is condemned already § 22. Though then the first Covenant continues still in force as to the condemning power of it to all the sons of Adam yet it continues not in force as to Life and Justification by it Nor was it for that end that the Law and first Covenant was revived and given by Moses but onely to manifest Jos 1. 7. our guilt and the purity we fell from and our necessity of a Saviour The Law sayes the Apostle was added Gal. 3. 19. because of transgression And in another place Moreover the Rom. 5. 20. Rom. 7. 13. Gal. 3. 22. Law entred that the offence might abound and that sin might appear exceeding sinfull But now the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by Faith of Jesus Christ made to Adam and Abraham might be given to them that believe For if there had been a Law given which could have Gal. 3. 21. given life verily righteousness should have been by the Law and if righteousness come or were by the Law then Christ is dead in vain And here the same Apostle assures us that no man is justified by the Law because the Law as he sayes Gal. 3. 11. Rom. 4. 15. Rom. 8. 2. elsewhere worketh wrath and brings along with it in the same Apostles Phrase a law of sin and death § 23. The Law then as taken by our Apostle for a Covenant of works and exact unsinning obedience is no longer in force as to life and Justification by it since now not so much that it is impossible that Righteousness should be obtained by it but because Mankind is already for transgression Actually under the curse of it and he that is already damned cannot possibly be obliged not to be damned upon the self same Penalty and Censure of Damnation And I see not yet why it may not as rationally be said that even the Reprobates in Hell are still obliged by virtue of that Law or Covenant to sinless perfection upon pain of that Damnation which now they groan under and shall continue to do so as well as the lapsed sons of Adam that are already under the same fatall Curse though thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord not under the same irreversible Punishment The difference here between them is onely this that both are under the Curse of the Law but both are not under the same finall irreversible execution They are actually plunged in Hell and these yet in vià should as certainly have fallen into the same bottomless pit if the Mediator had not stepped in and procured a Respite of the Execution and a possibility to these by virtue of his Passion and Intercession through the means of a new Covenant of Faith in his blood to escape the finall vengeance of it § 24. Since then Mankind in Adam is by the tenor of the first covenant damned already there seems no reason it should stand in force to require of the condemned that Perfection of righteousness it at first required of them whilst they were in their Integrity and had Power and Grace sufficient to perform it for can their after-multiplyed sins add any whit to the certainty of their damnation by that Law and Covenant or to the Aggravation of it If it adds any thing to the certainty where then is the force of the Curse threatned If it adds to the aggravation why not also to that of the damned § 25. If it here shall be replyed these are yet but in viâ and a state of tryall and Probation but the other are now extra statum merendi and he that is dead is freed from the Rom. 7. 1 2 3. Law § 26. I shall answer this is true but then I must cry out with our Apostle Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ Rom. 7. 25. our Lord. Otherwise O wretched men that we are who Rom. 7. 24. who should deliver us from the body of this death This arises not at all from the Nature and Tenor and Condition of the first Covenant that allowed no more Respite to Man then was granted to the fallen Angels but onely from the Intercession and Mediation of the Son of God the Lamb slain Revel 13. 8. 1 Pet. 1. 20. from nay before the foundation of the world who took not on him the nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham And Heb. 2. 16. therefore since this Respite of Execution arises not at all from the first Covenant but from the Grace of the Mediatour and this further state of Tryall and Probation that here belongs to the sons of Adam of necessity supposes a new Covenant made and promised and promulgated as the Scripture testifies that it was immediately after Adams fall and Gen. 3. 15. as soon as the Curse of the first Covenant was by God the Judge pronounced and in part executed against him it evidently at least to me seems to follow that both are equall in Respect of the Curse of the first Covenant incurred though both are not equall in respect of the full and finall and irreversible execution which makes the one Capable of the blessings of a new Covenant of which the other are not § 27. If it here shall be replyed how comes it then to pass that since as the sins of Infidells are multiplyed so also shall their torments and levius Cato quam Catilina as S. Austin § 28. To this I have nothing else at present to reply but that since our Saviour assures me that he that believes not is condemned already and therefore since all not Infants excepted are dead in Adam because they sinned in him I must conclude with S. Austin that the Infidell by the tenor of the first Covenant would as certainly be damned if even in his infancy he dyed out of the Pale of the Church as in his riper years and though his punishment should be the lighter yet I know no reason in respect of the first Covenant that as he lives longer his hell shall be the hotter Nor can I for the present apprehend how this should come to pass but only upon the Promise and Promulgation of the second Covenant Not that God sent his son into the world to condemn Joh. 3. 17 18 19 20. the world but that the world through him might be saved For he that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the Name of the onely begotten Son of God And this
endeavours even of the most accomplished pen much more any slender performances of mine For it is with his writings as it was with Apelles Pictures Those that were finished by him and received his last hand are inimitable and the other he left unfinished are not possibly to be perfected there being none equal to himself but himself § 35. Howsoever because it is not easie to unfold the nature of that Ardency in our Saviours Prayer and how it might be heightned without it and because that learned man has there treated of this argument to a far different purpose I shall therefore again attempt it And in this very difficult Passage I shall carefully steer by that Chart and Compasse which that judicious hand has drawn taking in the Observations of the School-men to supply those defects which his Argument in that place did not engage him to treat of § 36. For answer then to this Difficulty most certain it is 1. That Christ did pray for a removal of that Cup which he tasted notwithstanding and consequently had not a promise that the Cup should be removed because it was not effected 2. Most certain it is that notwithstanding God had decreed that he should taste of this Cup yet he had also decreed that Vide Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disp 38. sect 4. p. 528. col 2. D. F. c. disp 37. sect 4. p. 518. col 2. Christ should pray against it otherwise it had been absolutely impossible that it should have come to pass 3. Most certain it is that as God had decreed he should suffer for our Redemption and therefore gave him up for us all so Christ also knew the Decree and had also voluntarily contracted with God his Father for the Performance of it And therefore when he cometh into the world for this purpose he saith Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me Heb. 10. 5 6 7 10. In burnt-offerings and sacrifice for sin thou had'st no pleasure Then said I Loe I come to do thy will O my God By the which will as the Apostle addes we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all And this he perfectly knew in all the minute circumstances not only as God that had decreed them and a Person that was a Party in the Covenant but also as Man For being Comprehensor in his Soul * Vide Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 26. sect 1 2 3 c. by virtue of the hypostatical union he saw all things clearly in verbo and the glass of the divine nature as they call it in the Schools and moreover as Viator he had also †Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 25. sect 3. Joh. 18. 4. an Infused Habit of knowledge whereby he perfectly knew all things at least that concerned himself in the whole course of his Ministration during his abode here on earth And therefore the Scriptures expresly tell us that he knew all things that should come upon him and accordingly we find that he foretold his Death the time the persons the Actors and the manner and the place and every minute circumstance of it Nor can it be said that his sufferings had so clouded and darkned his understanding that for the present he forgot it since none of the Evangelists in recounting his unspeakable and unknown Torments as the Greeks call them in their Liturgie mention any such defect and impossible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was he should forget the peremptory determination of his Father and his own unchangeable purpose most willingly to undergo it Besides his pronouncing the Consummatum est upon the Cross when the whole Scene of his sufferings in all the parts and circumstances of it was now finished shews that not any thing was forgotten by him even in the very height of his sufferings And therefore we find in S. John c. 12. v. 23 24 c him answering and saying to his Disciples in a publick audience The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified Verily verily I say unto you except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and dye it abideth alone but if it dye it bringeth forth much fruit He that loveth his life shall loose it and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal If any man serve me let him follow me where I am there also shall my servant be If any man serve me him will my Father honour Now is my Soul troubled and what shall I say Father save me from this hour but for this cause came I unto this hour Father glorifie thy name And he addes vers 31. Now is the Judgement of this world now shall the Prince of this world be cast out And I if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto me This he said as the Apostle adds signifying what death he should dye § 38. For the resolving this doubt and reconciling the seeming Vide Aquin. 3. part q. 18. art 1. Suarez in Commentar ibid. disp 37. sect 1. Estium l. 3. Sent. dist 17. §. 1. alios ibi Contradictions know we must as Christ was God man so two wills he had answerable to his two natures though his person were but one And both these his divine and humane will were as distinct as his two Natures For the Will whether of God or of Man belongs to the Essence or nature of both and consequently is not a Personal propriety but a Natural attribute and Emanation § 39. Christ then as God must of necessity will the same whatsoever his Father did because though the Persons in the Trinity be distinct yet the Nature is the same and the divine will but one in all the three Persons And then as for his humane will all the works and operations of that were still subject to the will of God and still most exactly conformable to his holy laws and precepts and secret decrees And therefore he saith John 4. 34. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work In the volume of the book it is written of me I delight to do thy will O my God yea thy law is within my heart Psal 40 7 8. § 40. But now as every man else so the Schools also observe Vid. Aquin. 3. part q. 18. art 6. 1. part q. 41. art 2. q. 79. art 9. 1. 2. q. 74. art 7. Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 38. sect 2. Estium l. 3. Sent. d. 17. §. 2. and the Schoolmen generally on this distinction and those other places in the Summes Vide etiam Aristot l. 3. Eth. c. 2 ubi spontaneum seu voluntarium ad plura extendi docet quam Electionem Est enim inquit cum pueru animalibus caeteris nobis commune Adhuc tertio dicitur voluntas naturalis ut
sed quod potest adjutus divino Spiritu Quo autem major nunc datur aut offertur spiritus copia eo praeceptum quoque istud vberius praestandum est H. Grot. in annot ad Matth c. 22. vers 37. p. 375. § 48. †Daille l. 1. de Jejuniis cap. 7. apud D. Hammond in his Account of the Triplex Diatribe p. 144 Scalig. Elench Trehaeres c. 22. in the treatise of Will worship sect 28. Vide Bp. Downeham of the Covenant of Grace c. 10. throughout Monsieur Daillé and Joseph Scaliger both Protestants sufficient and in Treatises particularly opposed against Bellarmine and Serrarius the Jesuite have been quoted by the Doctor to this very purpose and others might be added to the Number But these are sufficient to acquit the Doctor from the suspicion of Popery in this his Doctrine and let our Refuter know that all Protestants are not even of the learned Chamier's opinion in this point And now that the Doctor and those of his Judgement are in the right I undertake to defend and shall make it good in * Vide infra sect 32. §. 20 21 22 23 24 c. 32. sect 26 27 29 31. due place § 49. Indeed the assertion of Chamier is so notoriously false that it carries its own confutation in its forehead even to the most ordinary observer and I wonder by what misfortune and inadvertence it dropped from his Pen. What Omnes gradns comprehendimus amoris qui obtineri possunt vel in hac vita vel in altera si quid sit minus id peccato deputamus Let our Refuter himself in his most Protestant Ruff construe it and tell us how he can make it good Can he ever be able to prove that it is my sin that I see not God face to face while I am in the body and walk by Faith not by sight If it be my sin that I be not a Comprehensor in Heaven while I am in the state of a Viator upon earth that I be not present with the Lord while I am absent from him that I enjoy not Heaven happinesse and the sight of God whilst I am in the flesh in which state no man can see him and live then God with all humble Reverence be it spoken must be the Author of it For God has planted us all in that Condition where we can only see him by Faith and Revelation as through a glass darkly and not face to face Even Adam in innocence had only this advantage to see God by 1 Cor. 13. 12. Faith and clearer Revelation but not at all by Sight And now if our Love of necessity must bear proportion to our Knowledge Impossible it is I should love God at that height whilst I am in the flesh as I can do and shall by Gods Grace I firmly hope when I see him face to face and shall know as I am known Even the souls of Adam and all just men now made perfect do far more intensely more fervently love God whom they now see and enjoy in Heaven then ever Adam did or could if he had continued still in Innocence They love him now Naturally Uninterruptedly Constantly and Immutably but Adam in Paradise Habitually and not alwaies Actually for of necessity the Acts of his Love must be interrupted at least whilst he slept and Freely and therefore Mutably as his fall does too sadly evidence Nay the very Angels that fell not but kept their first station do now more fervently love God since their Confirmation in Grace because they now Immutably love him and have had since the fall of Lucifer an Experiment of his Favour to them which the others had not § 50. With what colour of truth then can it be maintained that it must be deputed and reckoned my sin if I love not God to as high a degree in this life as is possible to be attained in the next For does not that height and perfection of Love depend purely upon the sight and enjoyment of God and the participation of Heaven happiness And is not this height and intensenesse of Love an effect at least of the happiness of the Spirits of just men made perfect And does not this wholly and absolutely depend upon Gods bounty For though the wages of sin be death yet the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6. 23. And shall it be my sin that Gods gifts are not at my Command or within my power to purchase them Or must we say with Bellarmine that it is our sin and will be our punishment if we do not even ex condigno merit Heaven For so of necessity it must be said before it can be maintained that it must be our sin and transgression of this first and great Commandement if we love not God to that height and degree that the blessed Saints and Angels do love him in Heaven with that precise utmost height which is possible to be attained not only in this life but also in the next Add to this that the Saints and Angels now confirmed in grace do love God Naturally and Necessarily to that height that they love him and they can as well cease to see God and know God as not so to love him This is not now their election and choice but their happinesse and Crown their reward nay their Nature not their Labour and Endeavour How then can the want of that Fervour be my sin which is not within the compass of my Will and power to arrive at * Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. c. â—1 p. 470. arg 1. He should as well have said it is our fault that now we be not immortal and glorified whilest we are in the flesh And let me tell our Refuter that he also should have said we are obliged to see God face to face whilest we are in this body as well as to have told us that the first and greatest Commandement enjoyneth us a love of God with as high a degree as is possible Jeanes hic p. 31. unto the humane Nature For I hope he will not say but that is possible to the humane Nature which Enoch and Elias not to speak of our Blessed Saviour at the right hand of God and the Spirits of just men made perfect have now attained to § 51. Indeed this assertion of Chamier is so extremly crude and absurd in that sense which the words at first view do seem to import that I had rather strain them to the meaning and purpose of Grotius and Doctor Hammond then any such monstrous Paradox should be affixed to so Judicious and learned a man Howsoever if Mr. Cawdrey and our Refuter will needs otherwise understand him as they seem in this assertion of theirs to have done which I conceive was to them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Stone of stumbling and Rock of offence I shall leave them to defend and make it good For
but also transcend the most sincere expressions of Love It may be so in all men and I shall alleage two reasons why in Christ c. § 14. To your first question I return that it is readily granted For every prudent Father does often deal so with the child he most loves and God himself sometimes in mercy hides his face and withdraws the light of his countenance from his dear children and servants when yet with an everlasting Love he affects and with everlasting kindness will have Jer. 31 3. Isa 54. 8. mercy upon them But will you thence conclude against the express letter of the Gospell that Christs earnestness in prayer was not greater in his Agony then at other times Sir you must consider that you are not now to remonstrate what may possibly come to pass or what in other men at other times and in other cases happens but what de facto then was at the time of our Saviours bloody Agony And who sees not at first glance that your Proofs fall a hundred short of your Conclusion For we are not now upon the disquisition and enquiry of what was Physicê and naturally possible but what was Morally such and what de facto according to S. Lukes plain Narration and the ordinary course and Practise of men did then come to pass And therefore since the Rule of the Law is that illud possumus quod Jure possumus if it has already appeared and clearly been demonstrated that the Christian Grace of Sincerity does ordinarily and in most cases require it and usually where the Charity is true and perfect and not counterfeit or innocently concealed for the advantage of the beloved there is and ought to be a proportionable correspondence between the Outward and the Inward Acts of Love and as the one falls or rises so also in Proportion do the other then it will not be enough to inferr which yet is all you conclude that the degrees of the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall but also transcend the most sincere expressions you must prove that they still must and ought to do so which I think will be impossible But yet let me tell you that if you should perform this more then Herculean Task you will still be very far short of concluding any thing against the Doctor For again I must remember you that we are not now speaking of the Elicite Acts of the Formall virtue of Charity and the Love of God properly taken but onely of the Imperate Acts of that Charity the Ardency of Prayer which is onely Tropically such and this will yet make your task more impossible § 15. And therefore whereas you add for a Confirmation that he is no hypocrite in expressing his Love that loves Inwardly more then he expresseth Outwardly I answer that this is manifestly impertinent to the matter in debate Christs Ardency in Prayer And though in some cases I shall make no scruple to grant it yet mind you I must that the Christian Grace of sincerity requires that in the Ordinary Course of humane affairs as our Love should not be Personate so it should be fruitfull and operative otherwise it would in this be lame and imperfect as well as in the other it would be counterfeit And this further manifests that from such not onely vain and impertinent but also false allegations as understood according to the ordinary course of morality and practise among men you will never be able to demonstrate that our Saviour in his Agony did not more earnestly according to the inward Act and Fervour deprecate his last bitter cup then any other worldly cross and affliction to which he was exposed in the dayes of his flesh § 16. But yet he will essay to make good his undertaking JEANES It may be so in all men and I shall alleage two reasons why in Christ the inward Acts of his Love were alwayes equally intense though the outward expressions thereof were gradually different § 17. And if you can make this good in the sense that the Doctor understands all along the Phrase The Love of God nay if you can clearly prove it in your own I am so great a friend to any Reason you shall bring that though you have failed in all your other undertakings yet I shall give you the whole cause for that single Reasons sake § 18. Let us weigh then your reasons to this Purpose and try them at the touchstone JEANES The first reason agreeth unto Christ in common with other men Christ as man was alwayes obliged unto the most intense ardent and fervent inward acts of Love of God But he was not c. § 19. Say you so Sir Nay then I do not doubt but notwithstanding my fair proffer you yet will fall short and so lose the golden Ball at last § 20. For Christ as Mediator and one that had undertook to pay our debt was not onely Priviledged in the humane nature by virtue of the hypostaticall union to be holy harmless undefiled but by virtue of the Covenant and contract betwixt him and the Father as well as by that First made with all mankind in Adam was obliged to be spotless and innocent otherwise he could never have been that Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world But then Man though in his integrity by virtue of the first Covenant he were bound to sinless perfection yet now since the Fall and the Fatall curse incurred and in Part inflicted on him he may as justly by that or any other New Covenant be obliged to be Immortall as the Condition of his Salvation as to be absolutely sinless and pure from all even Originall Pollution since his Corruption as well as his Mortality is an equall fruit of the first Sin and it is a part of the Curse and Punishment of Adam even inflicted on him by God that all his posterity should be left to be born after the similitude of his fallen nature For by one man sin entred into the world and death Rom. 5. 12. by sin and so death by that one passed upon all men to condemnation for that all have sinned or as S. Austin constantly reads it in quo omnes peccaverunt in whom all have sinned § 21. As then God may justly though not by Positive infliction yet by spirituall desertion and Penall decree punish one sin with an other so the Scripture assures us that this originall guilt and pollution and the vitious effects of it seize on us as a part of our punishment and Praeludium of eternall damnation and all the sons of Adam for their transgression in him are by virtue of the first covenant as certainly dead in Law and in some measure also executed as the damned are now in Hell though not so absolutely so irreversibly as they I would not be mistaken I say by virtue of that Covenant so certainly dead in Law though not so irreversibly And if the Mediatour of the new Covenant
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
Super-excellency of this Act above the rest tells us (c) Phil. 2. 8. That he humbled himself to death even the death of the Cross § 38. And now I shall desire our Refuter to sit down and sadly consider what will become of his Consequence If neither the Proposition nor Assumption can be true how then will he be able to infer his Conclusion against the Doctor § 39. Indeed he had said somewhat to the purpose if this Habit of holy Love in our Saviour had been determined in its Operations to one equal uniform degree and height as natural forms are (d) Vid. Burgersdic Log. l. 1. ca. 17. theor 10 11 12 13. For these working by a necessity of nature to the utmost of their strength therefore alwaies work the same unless they be by some Accident hindered And consequently any variation in the Effect must argue a proportionable encrease or abatement of the natural virtue and efficacy of the Form that is the Agent But here the case is far otherwise For this Grace of holy Charity in Christ being a Moral Habit as our Refuter does and must acknowledge and so supernaturally seated in the humane Will of our Saviour must of necessity partake of the nature of the Will wherein it is subjected and still (e) Vid. Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 44. sect 6. §. 6 7 c. concurring effectively with the Will to the production of the Act it must continue still free as the Will it self is which it qualifies and modificates (a) Relinquitur ergo non posse Habitum juvare aut facilitare potentiam ad Actum nisi augendo virtutem per se effectivam talis actus c. Suarez Metaph. ibid. §. 10. Actiones quae parto jam fiunt Habita non ab ipso Habitu tanquam ab efficiente oriuntur sed ab eâdem voluntate Habitus autem ille quasi forma quaedam est illarum Actionum c. Jul. Sca. lig de Subtil exercit 307. §. 4. pag. 884. Potentia Habitus conveniunt ad effective causandum Actum sicut unum perfectum principium ita quod ambosimul non differunt ab uno sicut imperfectum differt à seipso perfecto Cajetan in 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. Advance and heighten indeed it does the power and efficacy of the Will to the performance of those Acts which of it self it is unable to perform but then the Will thus assisted by the Habit continues still a free Agent not destroyed in its nature and working but perfected § 40. If it shall be here replyed that the Saints and Angels in heaven love God freely and yet love him necessarily too and quoad ultimum virium § 41. I readily grant it in the sense that (b) Causa libera est quae consultò causat necessaria quae non consultò sed necessitate naturae causat Cum voluntas libera dicitur cumque causa libera causae necessariae opponitur Libertatis nomine nihil aliud intelligitur quam immunitas à coactione à necessitate ac determinatione naturali Burgersdic Log. l. 1. c. 17. Theor. 10 11. Dico secundò hanc libertatem voluntatis humanae Christi non solum intelligendam esse oppositam coactioni sed etiam necessitati atque adeo includere indifferentiam aliquam seu potestatem operandi non operandi Non est sensus Christum in omnibus actibus suae voluntaris habuisse hanc indifferentiam non enim est hoc necessarium nam Deum clarè visum necessariò amabat necessariò illo fruebatur sicut alii Beati sed sensus est habuisse Christum libertatem in aliquibus actibus c. Suarez in 3. part Thom. q. 18. art 4. disp 37. sect 1. pag. 512. Vid. eund ibid. disp 39. sect 2. per tot Freedome is improperly taken for a liberty from Coaction And withall I acknowledge it most true of the prime Act of Divine Love in Christ immediately terminated on God cleerly seen and enjoyed as Comprehensor in the superior faculties of his Soul he alwaies loved God freely and yet necessarily and because he could not chuse but love God the greatest good whom alwaies he most perfectly knew he could not chuse but love him in the height and utmost Perfection But then withall I must adde that this is nothing to the purpose For it was an (c) Heb. 10. 5 6 7 8 9. Esay 53. 10. Act of pure Love and Choice in Christ to be born and dye for us And therefore he loved us not of necessity but freely and he loved us as he himself best thought fit And therefore every Act of Joh. 10. 18. Non necessitate sed voluntate crucem subiit Hieron in Isai 53. Omni necessitate calcatâ cum voluit mortem sponte suscepit Gregor lib. 24. Moral c. 2. Vid. Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disput 37. sect 2. pag. 511 512. this Love respecting us must be commensurate to his own good will and pleasure And being all-wise as well as all-good he loved us in every several Act proportionably to that which his own Wisdom thought fit Every Act of this Love being purely voluntary though it was not equally intense yet so high and fervent it was that it was not any way disproportioned to the present end and occasion § 42. By this it evidently appears that I may make some reflexions on the second Paragraph how much of Charity there was in our Refuters adding not supplying the word farther to the Doctors Discourse If these be his mistakes of Charity to pervert an Adversaries saying to a contrary sense and that very erroneous I wonder what is his Malice The addition indeed might be very pertinent to the matter that himself had then in hand which was to calumniate the Doctor but it concerned not at all the business and scope of the Treatise of Will-worship For what though the Doctor in that Treatise had undertaken to prove that those large inclusive words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy Soul c. do not alwaies pro hîc nunc as they speak oblige us in every single Act of Divine Charity to the most intense and high degree but only to that sincerity and fervour as the present occasion does require will you thence conclude it to be the Doctors meaning that a man may fulfil that command though he loves not God with all his heart If you do Sir you are very uncharitable and irrational as might easily be demonstrated But I am loath to run into an unnecessary Digression and therefore I shall reserve the full clearing of the sense of this Commandement to its proper place For this Refuter will anon give occasion to prosecute it at large according to those true and solid grounds that the Doctor has already laid § 43. I shall only adde to preclude all subterfuges and captious advantages that may arise from general and undistinguished and ambiguous terms that the Acts