unwilling altogether to spend time in the unprofitable discoveries of another mans mistakes whilst the Reader through a Cloud of dust and smoke that Contention has raised remains unsatisfied in the m◠in business and ground of the Controversie I shall now digress from the Refuter to explain the nature of that Ardency in our Saviours Prayer which the Evangelist testifies was now in his Agony heightned And as those that have a great leap to take do proportionably go back that they may return with the stronger violence and force to carry themselves over so shall I. For in demonstrative discourses not only the great Philosopher but Experience also teaches that the most instructive way though perhaps the more tedious is to proceed from Principles more remote and plain to Deductions more obscure as Euclide has done in his Elements of Geometry The steps then that I shall go by are these 1. I shall enquire in what state whether of Comprehensor or Viator Christ was in a capacity to pray as that signifies either Petition or Deprecation or Thanksgiving and this whether only for others or also for himself 2ly Whether though he were in a capacity thus to pray yet being God that was able of himself to accomplish whatsoever he might desire as Man it was expedient for him to do so and whether God had so determined 3ly What things he might and did pray for both for himself and others 4ly Whether he did in truth and reality or only in shew pray for a Removal of that Cup which he came on purpose to drink 5ly Whether these desires were not repugnant to Gods decree and the end of his coming into the world and his own peremptory resolution to drink it 6ly How these desires for a removal of this Cup might be advanced notwithstanding his resolution and readiness to drink it From these Premisses rightly stated I conceive it will not be difficult to shew how our Saviours Ardency in this Prayer might be advanced above what it either was or indeed there was occasion for at other times and this without any derogation either from 1. the Fulness of his habitual Grace ◠the Impeccability of his Soul or 3. his perpetual and uninterrupted happiness of it or the height of that Actual Love of God which as he was Comprehensor was alwaies in termino and most intense § 19. To begin then with the first And for this it will be necessary to consider that the Schools determine That Christ during the state of his Humiliation was both Dicendum quod aliquis dicitur Viator ex eo quod tendit in beatitudinem Comprehensor autem dicitur ex hoc quod jam beatudinem obtinet secundum illud 1 Cor. 9. Sic currite ut comprehendatis Phil. 3. Sequor autem ut quo modo comprehendam Hominis autē beatitudo perfecta consistit in anima in corpore In Anima quidem quantum ad id quod est ei proprium secundum quod mens videt fruitur Deo In Corpore verò secundum quod Corpus resurget spirituale in virtute gloria incorruptione dicitur 1 Co. 15. Christus autē ante passionem secundum mentem plenè videbat Deum sic habebat beatitudinem quantum ad id quod est proprium Animae sed quantū ad alia decrat ei beatitudo quia anima ejus erat passibilis corpus passibile mortale Et ideo simul erat Comprehensor in quantum habebat beatitudinem propriam Animae simul Viator in quantum tendebat in beatitudinē secundum id quod ei de beatitudine deerat Aquin. 3 part q. 15. art 10. in Corp. Vide eund ibid. q. 11. art 2. in Corp. Estium l. 3. Sentent dist 16. §. 2. Suaresium Cajetanum caeteros Commentatores in Thom. loco suprae citato Comprehensor and Viator Now a Comprehensor is he that enjoyes the fulness of Happiness which state the Apostle points at 1 Cor. 9. 24. when he saies Sic currite ut comprehendatis So run that ye may obtain and a Viator is he that is yet in the way that leads and tends to happiness which state the Apostle points at Phil. 3. 12 13. Sequor autem si quo modo comprehendam But I so follow if by any means I may obtein The one is in possession the other in the way to happiness Now as Man consists of a Body and a Soul so the perfection of his Happiness is lodged in both these The Soul is perfectly happy inasmuch as in the supreme and noblest part the Mind and Vnderstanding it sees and enjoyes God The Body is then perfectly happy when it shall be raised a spiritual body and advanced to a state of Power and Glory and Incorruption and Mortality shall be wholly swallowed u◠of Life Now Christ by virtue of the hypostatical union had a full sight and all-absolutely perfect Fruition of God from the first moment of his Conception in the soveraign part of his Soul the Mind and so was Comprehensor But then in respect of the inferior part and Faculties of the Soul wherein he was subject to natural infirmities and Passions as men are and in regard of his Body that as yet was passible and mortal he was not yet possessed of Happiness till after his Death and Passion But now Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more Death has no more dominion over him And consequently till his Resurrection Rom. 6. 9. and exaltation at the right hand of God in respect of these he was only Viator § 20. Christ then in this state taking upon him the form of a servant was obliged to the most high and noblest piece of Service that consists in the religious worship and veneration of God And therefore when the Devil tempted him to fall down and worship him he saies Get thee behinde me Satan for it is Matt. 4. 10. written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve There is the Duty And to the Samaritans he John 4 22. said Ye worship what ye know not but we worship what we know for salvation is of the Jewes There is the Fact and accomplishment § 21. Now there are two more principal Acts of Religion to which the rest may be reduced Sacrifice and Prayer Not to speak of the first because it concerns us not at present Prayer may be taken either more generally as it is according to Damascene | Damascen l. 3. Orthod fidei c. 24. in principio Ascensus intellectus in Deum for any inward Act of the mind whereby the Soul is elevated and mounts up to God by contemplation meditation devotion and the like or else more specially and properly as it is according to * Aquin. 2. 2. q. 83. art 1 2. 3. p q. 21. art 1. in corp Aquinas Explicatio propriae voluntatis apud Deum ut eam impleat †Oratio non
acknowledged it is by the Doctor in this very Paragraph from whence the Refuter draws his Charge that he acknowledges the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured as prejudicial to Christs fulness that I cannot but wonder at the strange boldness of the man that though he saies he would assume that liberty yet for all that he durst lay that to the Doctors charge which he had so clearly so expresly so frequently disclaimed But my wonder must cease when I consider that from a Country-Lecturer he is arrived to be a writer of Scholastical and practical Divinity since he has attained to the Philosophers stone in Theologie and as himself in effect tells us in this Pamphlet he has all the Schoolemen at his fingers end nay just as many no more nor no less then are in Paul's Church-yard the Library at Oxford he may now conclude quidlibet ex quolibet and by his Almighty tincture make an Ingot of a Brass Andiron § 32. And therefore Sir I must again renew my request and desire you in good earnest to tell us where the Doctor does say that Christ's Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before I would you had as carefully observed as you profess you shall readily hearken to the Doctors seasonable Advertisement that he which undertakes to refute any saying of anothers must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable I have carefully read over the whole Section and do not find the very word before in it And yet let me tell you Sir that this word before is the only serviceable word that in probability might seem to infer that Conclusion which you lay to the Doctors charge For he that saies that Christs Love was more intense in his Agony then before does seem to imply that his Love did receive addition and growth in his Agony But this the Doctor saies not nay he frequently and clearly even in this Section disclaimes it This is only your addition and a second misadventure in your proceedings You had formerly added the word further to the Doctors expression and now you will again assume the liberty to adde another word before to it that must conclude the Doctor to mean and speak what he never thought or intended Sir you are a bold man indeed But this is only to cudgel a Jack-of-Lent of your own making And if you make a quarrel and destroy the shadow of the Lion which your self have cast how can you chuse Sir but deserve the Laurel and be cried up for a Conqueror § 33. But perhaps now he is called upon for it so earnestly he will prove his Assumption also by Consequence for he is an excellent Sequele-man thus Whosoever asserts that Christs Love of God was more intense at one time then another viz. in his Agony more intense then in his suffering hunger for us does by consequence assert that Christ's Love of God was more intense in his Agony then it was before But the Doctor asserts the Antecedent Ergo. § 34. Hold you there Sir your Major I deny and there is no connexion and consequence at all in it For though he that saies Christ's Love was more intense in his Agony then it was at another time in another Act suppose of suffering hunger for us acknowledges a gradual difference in respect of the intension of these two several Acts yet he does not acknowledge a gradual heightning or encrease of any one of them For it is not with the intension of these Acts and Qualities that are the issues of the Will as it is with those that are the fruits and effects of Natural Agents The Will here being a free and voluntary Agent may and does (a) Voluntas nostra subitò prorumpere potest in ferventem intensum actum amoris c. Suarez tom 2 Metaph. disp 46. sect 3. §. 15. Si agens sit liberum potest pro sua libertate applicare vim suam ad magis vel minus agendum Suarez ibid. sect 4. §. 14. act how and when it pleases It may instantly produce the most fervent as well as it does a less intense Act or it may heighten the gradual Perfection of the Act by degrees and successively But then (b) Vid. Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 46. sect 3. Natural Agents by reason of the distance of the Agent from the Passum or the resistance of some contrary Quality to be expelled or the weakness of their own virtue must of necessity intend the Quality successively and the higher degree cannot be produced before the lower have been first attained And therefore though one of these Acts in comparison of another is more intense yet neither of them is therefore said to be formally heightned and intended because being the free issues of the Will they might be produced severally in the same indivisible degree of height wherein they after continued and consequently here is no asserting that Christs Love in his Agony was more intended as that signifies a gradual heightning of the same numerical form or Quality then it was before Adde to this that he who saies that Christs Love was more intense in his Agony then in his suffering hunger for us does not by Consequence assert that his Love was now more intense then it was before but only compare two Acts together and notwithstanding this comparison he may yet further assert that Christs Love of God was more intense before his Agony then in it though in his Agony it was more intense then in his suffering hunger for us to wit in that Act of his Love which was immediately terminated in God himself and in which Act of Divine Love all the rest were radicated and planted And indeed of necessity it must be so supposed For though he loved us men and for our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate and made Man and lived and dyed for us yet every step and degree of this Love every one single Act wholly issued from this high transcendent Act of Divine Love the most superlative of all and still he loved us for Gods sake (a) Heb 10. 5 6 7 12. Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure Then said I Loe I come in the volume of the Book it is written of me to do thy will O God By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all And therefore he saies to his Disciples that were troubled when he foretold of his death Joh. 14. 31. But that the world may know that I love the Father as the Father gave me commandement even so I do Though then his Love of God in his Agony and Death was the highest Act of Charity to us men yet this as all the rest was rooted in that higher Act of Love to
Jeanes and others guilty of this Propositio malè sonans as well as the Doctor The piouslycredible Proposition of the Schoolmen as the Refuter calls it much prejudices an assertion of his own in his Mixture but no whit the Doctor JEANES A Second argument is drawn from the perpetual and vn-interrupted happiness of Christ It is resolved both by Aquinas 3. q. 34. art 4. Scotus lib. 3. disp 18. and their followers that Christ in regard of his soul was even here in this life from the first moment of his conception all his life long unto his death perfectus Comprehensor and therefore he injoyed in his Soul all that was necessary unto heaven happiness And I find learned Protestants herein consenting with them Now 't is the unanimous opinion of the Schoolmen that a most intense actual Love of God an actual Love of God for Degrees as high as ardent as fervent as is according to God's ordinary Power possible unto the humane nature doth necessarily belong to the heaven-happiness of men The Scotists place the very formality of Happiness solely herein and Suarez with others think it essential unto happiness though he supposeth the essence of happiness not to consist wholy or chiefly in it And for the rest of the Thomists who hold that the essence of Happiness stands only in the Beatifical vision of God why even they make this actual most intense Love of God a natural and necessary consequent of the Beatifick vision § 1. To this I answer That it is most true as these Schoolmen determine that Christ by virtue of the hypostatical union was in the superiour part of his soul the mind Perfectus Comprehensor from the first Moment of his Conception and so he did love and enjoy God more perfectly then all the Saints and Angels did in heaven This was a necessary Consequent of the hypostatical union and the fulness of divine Grace Manifestum est saies Aquinas truly Quod Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis accepit non solum tantam gratiam quantam Aquin. 3. p. q. 34. art 4. in Corp. Comprehensores habent sed etiam omnibus comprehensoribus majorem Et quia gratia illa non suit sine actu consequens est quod actu fuerit Comprehensor videndo Deum per essentiam clarius caeteris creaturis § 2. But then it is as true that Christ at the same first Moment wherein he was Comprehensor in respect of his Soul was also in respect of the inferiour Faculties of that and the frail mortal passible condition of his Flesh a Viator too And this the same Aquinas has as expresly determined in the same 3 part of his Summes q. 15. art 10. And this is a most clear Scripture-truth in it self For ought not Christ to suffer saies he Luke 24. 26. himself and then to enter into his glory And therefore for the joy that was set before him saies the Apostle to the Hebrews he endured the Cross and despised the shame and is now set down on the Heb. 12. 2. Philip. 2. 6 7 8 9. right hand of God For though he were in the form of God and thought it no robbery to be equal with God yet he made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and humbled himself to death even the death of the cross wherefore God also hath highly exalted him In this state though he were a son yet learned he obedience by the things that he suffered In this state Heb. 5. 8. he prayed for his own after-exaltation as well as ours saying Father the hour is come glorifie thy Son that thy Son may also John 17. 1. glorifie thee In this state he merited as Suarez and some other of the Schoolmen determine his own exaltation in the flesh how truly or in what sense I now determine not but most certain it is and no man but the Socinian denies it that he merited ours And this is so clear a truth that I think not any of the Schoolmen that write upon the third of the Sentences or the third part of the Summes but acknowledge it And our Refuter himself if he had but consulted the places in Thomas and Scotus that here he referrs to might have found it For Aquinas in the very next words in his answer to the first objection saies Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est q. 19. art 3. Christus non meruit gloriam animae secundum quam dicitur Comprehensor sed gloriam corporis ad quam per suam passionem pervenit The answer in the Body of that article tert part q. 19. art 3. is long the summ is this Dicendum est quod Christus gloriam corporis ea quae pertinent ad exteriorem ejus excellentiam sicut est Ascensio Veneratio alia hujusmodi habuit per meritum And then immediately in his answer ad primum he saies Dicendum quod fruitio quae est actus Charitatis pertinet ad gloriam animae quam Christus non meruit ideo si per Charitatem aliquid meruit non sequitur quod idem sit meritum praemium Nec tamen per Charitatem meruit in quantum erat Charitas Comprehensoris sed in quantum erat Viatoris Nam ipse fuit simul Viator Comprehensor ut supra habitum est q. 15. art 10. Et ideo quia nunc non est Viator non est in statu merendi And then as for Scotus who in the 18th distinction most admirably disputes this question Vtrum Christus meruerit in primo instanti suae conceptionis he founds his whole discourse upon it § 3. This subtile School-man having first proposed divers arguments against the possibility of Christ's Merit which are all founded upon the fulnesse of Christ's happinesse as Comprehensor and to the very same purpose with this of our Refuter in the next place he proceeds to determine the question And having acknowledged the difficulty of it he goes on to define what Merit is and having Difficile videtur salvare quod meruerit Christus cum fuit beatus perfecte conjunctus fini secundum voluntatem in primo instanti Scotus l. 3. Sent. dist 18. q. unica § 4. p. 131. cleared that he proceeds to resolve that though the Saints and Angels in Heaven because they are Comprehensores were incapable of Merit yet Christ in the dayes of his flesh being not only Comprehensor but Viator too in this respect he was capable of meriting at Gods hands by Particular Covenant and Contract and that he did indirectly at least de facto merit his own exaltation in the flesh I shall for the Reader 's satisfaction transcribe one short passage and refer him to the Author for the rest Alii beati à Christo quia secundum totam voluntatem conjuncti sunt ultimo fini sc Deo affectione justitiae perfectissimae etiam habent summum commodum conjunctum
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