most accurate distributions of Arts I judge it more convenient to rest in that which is commonly received and had rather that Generality too much should be taxed as insufficiency then too much particularity should breed obscurity especially considering that this is a place not to examin but to set a work those grounds which Divinity must needs borrow from higher Arts. Third to give some satisfaction I will enquire of these three things First of the kinde of this Doctrine the thing now in question out of the lawfull subordination of Arts. Second of the condition whether it be Scientia or no. Third of the end whether it be Practicall or speculative of all very briefely For the kind I will mention but a double Series of Arts out of which you may fetch the primum genus of Divinity the first is known to the most or many of you where Arts are first divided into Generall and particular then particular into Mathematicall and Philosophicall Philosophicall againe into Naturall and Morall Morall into the root Theology and the branches Ethicks Oeconomicks and Politicks and the rest so that if you would frame the next Genus of divinity you must call it a Particular Art the root of Morall doctrine c. I might produce many other of ancient and moderne authors if it were needfull or profitable but I will onely suggest a second and that in a word as many precepts about a certaine subject collected make one Art so many Arts make one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between every of which there is as lawfull sequence and subordination as there is between the severall parts of the same Art so that all are truly one though we divide them and not amisse neither for our commodity as Suarez relates the opinion of Aegidius and Antonius Mirandula concerning Metaphisicks now the hint of this division must be taken from the Objects as I noted before Therefore if the object of Art in generall be ens in generall as is commonly said and for ought that I know truly the species of Art will accompany the Species of ens and goe hand in hand with them Now ens is first divided into Increatum and Creatum supposing this to be an Analogicall division according to the most received opinion though there can be no genericall community between God and the Creature as the Schoolemen shew and so ars is either de ente increato or de ente creato Art de ente creato is either of it in generall or in particular that in generall shall treat of the nature and affections of it and the species and so cut out that which the particulars shall make up which borrow their subjects from it for all being comprised there where any affection or species swels to too great a bulk it will send forth a colony as it were and erect a particular Art For example Reason is a generall affection of ens creatum which is so large that it deserves particular considerations so speech so quantity whence Logick Grammer Mathematicks are risen so there is scarce any species of created nature whence some particular Art is not budded the last of which man more fruitfull then the rest is branched into many all which guide him in his operations towards his happinesse and perfection as the generall Art wherein he is handled as well as the rest regulate him in his essence and constitution and they consider man either single or in society concerning man single either in ordine ad Deum which is Divinity or in ordine ad hominem which is Ethicks and out of this you may collect more strictly the proper genus of this Doctrine from the speciall habitude to the neerest object which is the operations of man single or every man as dirigible toward happines and this may something give light and limits to the generality of the word Doctrine which I used But I will not insist upon these Metaphysicall and generall notions which are little sought into by reason of the difficult abstraction from particulars but for the same reason are very scientificall and hee that should travaile in them with diligence dexterity should do very good service to all studies so leaving the first inquiry concerning the kind of this Doctrine I come to the second concerning the quality whether it be Scientia Artic. 3 I promise a distinction and answer it briefly Scientia is taken two wayes First for an Intellectuall habit apprehending an infallible truth and this is according to the notion of the word most proper and then the question will be whether our knowledge of Theologicall truths be Scientia Second by a Metonymie of the Adjunct for the Subject for the truths themselves apprehended and this is most pertinent to our purpose for you may remember I sayd that was the best meaning when we speak of an Art or Science and then the question is whether the precepts in Theology be such as are the Subject of such an habit as we call a Science viz. of infallible truth Catholicall and Scientificall According to this latter sense I answer affirmatively to the question that they are and therefore it may justly challenge the name of a Science the precepts in this being as in other desinitions distributions and consectaries that explaine proprieties all which make reciprocall and Catholicall axioms and if it be objected that many things in Divinity dependupon contingent fact as the fall of our first parents and the Incarnation of our Saviour with the rest of his performances for the Redemption of man kinde of which there cannot be a perpetuall and unvariable rule I say First these instances are but few not many more I think then I have named and therefore can bring no prejudice to an whol Art Second Divinity makes not a bare historicall narration of the contingent fact but supposing that explaines a constant affection with which it's proper Subject man in order to his happines is invested upon those occasions Third I distinguish the existence and essence or rather the condition of the things and the connexion in the Rule the former is contingent and mutable yet the latter may be notwithstanding immutable and constant But these things shall appeare more plainly afterward If the question be put in the former sence whether our knowledge of Theologicall truths be properly Science I say First it is not much materiall what it be First because the consideration of an Art is extrinsecall to the nature of it as I concluded before of an Art in generall Second if that were regarded according to the diverse habitudes to diverse apprehensions the form would be diverse habits yea contrary in one Scientia as without question the knowledge that God hath of Divinity is Scientia in another opinion which apprehends them not without doubting cum formidine oppositi as the Schoole speaks in another Faith that assents to them only because commended to him by divine authority and so the same habit of
Theology would be all of these and by consequence none of them which were absurd to say but to come up closer to the point I say Second that it may be more fully answered by this distinction of Scientia Scientia may be taken three wayes First for the knowledge of a Catholicall axiom or an immediate proposition as other Logicians call it whatsover the condition of that knowledge be and according to this acception the resolution of this question follows from the former affirmative because there I determined that the precepts in this Doctrine are such Second for the certaine knowledge of any axiom whatsoever the cōdition of it be which is the most common signification of scire in common phrase of speech and thus also the resolution of the question is affirmative because the certainty of faith by which we assent to divine truths upon a divine testimony is as great as of any demonstrative syllogysme and for this reason saith Gregory de Valentia the nobility of this Doctrine deserves the name of a Science amd cannot well be stiled by any other Third for the evident knowledge of a conclusion by a convincing reason or demonstration and in this sense it seems to be used by Aristotle and after him the Schoolmen and according to this strict acception the question is more doubtfull for this including that which was most restreined in both the former that the object must be a Catholicall axiom as the first required and that the assent must be certain as the second exacted superads three qualifications First that the Object must be a Conclusion Second that the assent must be evident Third that the motive must be a eonvincing Reason or demonstration as it were necessitating the understanding to assent The first and last addition I passe over as impertinent because few precepts of any Art are such Conclusions for neither definitions nor distributions which make the greater part are so demonstrated being most prime and immediate and therefore cannot be proved by any that are priora or magis immediata perse then they are Only it is said that passions may be so demonstrated of their proper subjects which may well be called in question by the same reason that I alleadged for the other Second few Arts have such precepts except onely the Mathematicks as is observed when it is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are grown almost into a Proverbe Third if they were necessary Divinity is in the like condition with the rest for the precepts of the Art though not for other accessary We will therefore enquire of the second condition and propound the question a new whether our knowledge of Theologicall truths be evident or not To answer it then with as much circumspection of judgement and yet with as little circumstance of words as may be First I lay this foundation that Evidence is a metaphoricall speech from the eye to the understanding and a relative thing importing a faire proportion of the object to the faculty in both so that there is a concurrence of three things to it First the aptitude of the object to be discerned Second the ability of the faculty to discerne Third the disposition of the medium fit for conveyance which is distinct in the vision but included in the two former in the action of the understanding Second I distinguish the three principall termes of the question First the knowledge of which must be considered according to his different condition either in natura integra or corrupta for many things he did know then scientifically which now he doth so much as opinio natively and againe as corrupted he is either immersed in it or elevated by the infusion of grace Second the precepts of Divinity are in a double difference some are aeternijuris some are liberae voluntatis that I may speak so for distinction sake for instance in the state of innocency the promise of another life to which Adam should have been exalted upon observance of the covenant was liberae voluntatis as the most agree and the precept of that I call so though it also be indeed aeternae veritatis as all rules of an Art should Third Evidence is either in regard of the simple termes the things themselves which by reason of more or lesse abstraction or such like circumstances may be evident or obscure more or lesse Or second in regard of the connexion and cohaesion of them one with another And now thirdly I resolve the question in these Assertions First all Theologicall precepts areevident in themselves though not to us as Thomas Distinguishes of propositions that are per se nota secūdum se though not quoad nos of which this he gives as one Deus est the reason is because the termes are essentiall one to another as they must be in all Catholick axioms Second Man in his integrity had proper Science of all those precepts which I called juris aeterni though of the other as a better state in another life he had not without a double helpe First ex parte objecti which was Divine Revelation to convey it Second ex parte facultatis which was an oration of grace strengthening and comforting it the reason of the first part of this assertion that man had Science of those which were juris aeterni is because they were evident of themselves and there was no impediment of his part his faculty being proportionable to them of the second that the other he could not scire of himself because they depended on the free liberall grace of God which he could not penetrate till it pleased him to signifie his good pleasure by Revelation and withall were supernaturall to him and above his Spheare the reason of the third part that those helps supposed he could is because then nothing was deficient either in object or faculty as I said of the first three Assertions Man faln can know neither the one kinde nor other scientifically and savingly without Revelation of the object and elevation of the faculty and then he may evidently so that his knowledge may in truth and propriety be called Science for the reasons hitherto intimated I confesse I seeme in this to strive against the streame of the Schoolemen who seem to make evidence of the nature of Faith out of the Apostle who saith faith is of things that are not seen and make faith and science opposite habits but they also may admit a good interpretation for I think they meane of the condition of some things not the connexion of the termes in the precepts or of man considered with naturall reason only to which I grant they are not evident But if there be any doubt of this last to which I have without any necessity condiscended I think the former answers may suffice And so I will passe from this adding but this one observation that when an Art or Doctrine is called Scientia there is a Synecdoche in the word for properly the knowledge of one
improved by incomparable paines and industry that is far from my meaning but only as I said to exercise my selfe and you in this inquiry and yet ye know what the Philosopher saith that there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an increase and growth in all Arts And the common saying is discipulus est prioris posterior dies Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night sheweth knowledge saith the Psalmist and though a Gyant be taller then a Pygme yet a Pygme upon his shoulders hath advantage of him though ancient surpasse modern times yet we ploughing with their heifer may understand their secrets and with their helpe may outstrip them in a word it is with the light of knowledge as with the lamps at the games in Athens one generation caries it as far as it can and after it doth tradere lampada to the succeeding generation which runs along further with it Secondly I do not imagine that which I am to propound absolute though comparatively I prefer it or produce it rather either to give some further light to these dark passages or at least some illustration to that which hath been said already by others Thirdly though for the generall I hope I shall insist in the right way yet for the particulars I do not intend them as full or accurate neither much lesse will I contend they are so for I could not hope to satisfie my self in them on the sodaine and therefore content my selfe to propound them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Philosopher speaks Now that I may proceed according to the nature of method which deduceth one axiom one precept out of another for it is there as you see it in spinning the lock of wool is first fastned upon the spindle and out of that the threed is drawn in a long series and then an hint of that is left to which the next is fastned till all be done in like manner so in an Art first the Definition is laid down out of which must be spun and drawn all the succeeding precepts and thus I will do with this the Definition then you may remember to have been this Divinity is a Doctrine of mans happinesse there be two words which note the subjectum formale Happinesse and the subjectum materiale Man and according to these two I frame the Distribution thus First of Happines simply considered Secondly of Happines in the Subject First of Happines in generall Secondly of Happines in particular according to the divers states of it in relation to the Subject to illustrate this I will put you in minde of three other distributions which harpe upon this though they doe not fully agree The first is of some that considering Divinity to be medicina animarum borrow termes from the Physick of the body which they accommodate to this and part it proportion ably into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of mans misery by nature and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his recovery by Christ from which the common method in Vrfin differs but little this supposeth mans fall or begins with it and therefore I think either omitteth something necessary or else incurreth a necessary confusion of those things which would better be more distinctly handled The second I find in a learned Author Estius in his preface upon the sentences who divides it into Theologia prima that treats of man in his first estate of integrity and Theologia secunda that considers him after his fall as to be guided to his happines and this comes a degree neerer to that I propounded than the former because it mentions both estates and handles them and yet it seemes short by one degree The third comes up yet closer and you shall find it in Trelcatius who divides Divinity thus there be two parts First de causis Salutis nostrae eoque de Dei operibus Secondly de Subjecto illius id est Homine varioque Hominis statu and explaning the ground of this distribution in the next words he speakes for my purpose more directly Salus enim saith he quae Theologiae finis proximus est duobus modis consideratur tum in se causis suis simpliciter tum Relate ad Subjectum ad quod ordinata est qua ratione variè modificatur pro conditione Subjecti multiplici in quo est where ye see ye have the same distribution of that I gave and in the same formality of termes almost and this superads a degree to the former which I think is necessary The first takes man as he is now faln and so applies meanes for recovery of his happinesse The second considers both of his standing first and then his fall This third abstracts what is common to both estates what is the common nature of his happinesse and so descends to the particular accommodation thereof according to the difference of his condition and this I think is full enough and large in extent to comprehend all things that this Doctrine is to meddle with and I will use no other reason to prove it because I think it carries some evidence of truth or at least probability with it especially supposing the grounds formerly laid but only that it is drawn out of the definition with such facility that it appeares to be a naturall distribution the doctrine of mans happines hath two parts First of Happinesse in it selfe in generall Secondly of mans happinesse in reference to the proper subject and now I proceed to some few principall subdivisions to give you a view and Synopsis of the whole Art Happinesse in generall hath two things in it to be considered First the parts or degrees or affections for I desire you to remember that I am not curious for termes Secondly the kinds of happinesse the parts or degrees are two First the Constitution of it or Habituall happinesse Secondly the Continuation of it or Actuall happinesse the former I briefly touched the last time the latter I conceive to consist in two things especially First the gracious Administration of all things without a man by God in ordine ad felicitatem for it is impossible that man should natare sine cortice and attaine to his own suo marti by his own endeavors without Gods providence supporting him and suggesting all necessaries to him there being the same proportion between him and God in this case that there is between inferior creatures and man and therefore as it is in architecture and such like Arts which in regard of the naturall aptitude of the subject may be speculative but in regard of the Artificer whose actions must passe upon it to bring their potentia to actus their possibilities to perfection are Practicall so or not much unlike in divinity it is Practicall most in regard of God as I noted in part before The second thing for the continuation of Happines the virtuous and religious operation of man which by the helpe of the former the grace of God he is able to produce in which respect
scientifical axiom is a science and in that sense neither Divinity as Durand and Ariminensis well dispute are one Science but so many conclusions so they call them as there are so many sciences yet by this Synechdoche as I sayd the collection of many are called one and are so unitate ordinis which sufficeth sayth Gregory of Valentia to the unity of a Science Artic. 4 And now I come to the third inquisition of the end whether this doctrine be Speculative or Practicall where I premise a few necessary observations for the better understanding of it and then resolve it in a word First observe Speculative and Practicall are not specificall differences of Arts and essentiall but accidentall only as Valentia rightly judges more probable though I like not his reason because sayth he they are taken from the objects as things for Arts as I said are specifically distinguished by their objects in that large sense of specificall before mentioned but because they are taken from the habitudes which Art have to us who use to aime at Speculation or operation in the purchase of them and end in those Second every Praxis doth not constitute and denominate a Practicall Art but you must note a threefold latitude in the use of this word First in the largest extent of the signification it comprehends these three things under it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for all these are operation the first of the understanding the second of the will the third of all the faculties Second in the narrowest it is opposed on one side to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the other to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then imports nothing but the second the elicitus actus voluntatis as Scotus speakes or an immanent act perfected within it self Third in the middle way it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but includes the two latter now in both these latter acceptions it is taken when we speak of a practicall discipline but more principally and more particularly in this question in the first of them the middle of the three Third the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and character of a practicall Science is not the end that any particular man makes to himselfe for that is fallible for in both kinds of practicall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they may propound to themselves Speculation as a Gentleman may study Architecture for delight in the contemplation and do study both Divinity and Morality whose purpose if it be not bare Speculation I know not but the issue we see is not practise therefore the judgement of this must be from the nature of the object and the end of the art it self These observations being thus dispatched I answer in a word affirmatively that Divinity is a Practicall Doctrine and conclude this truth in this one Reason That Art is practicall whose Subject is res operabilis à nobis in the language of the Schoole and whose proper end is operation for these make it practicall and it is sayth Durand very well practicall radicaliter à subjecto formaliter à fine but Divinity is such as shall appeare in the explication of the latter part of the Definition immediately succeeding therefore Divinity is Practicall Second things may be objected against the Assumption of this Syllogisme First that God is the object of Divinity who is not res operabilis à nobis and therefore the first condition of a Practical Art is not found in this I defer the full answer of this till I come to a particular decision of that question which shall be the next time for the present I say God is not the subject of Divinity nor principally considered in it according to his nature for he that doth so sayth Durand sumit formam Philosophi but in Relation to our works as they are terminated in him objectivè and in some sense that is true which the same Author affirmes not qua Deus as the Thomists would have it but qua salvator not qua cognoscendus say I but qua colendus Second it is objected that the last end of Divinity is the vision of God which is speculative and therefore the second condition of a Practicall Art agrees not to Divinity to which I answer First the last end of Divinity is eternall happinesse but not the whol end and in eternall happines that vision is something but not all for without doubt there shall be many other operations as praysing of God c. To which that is rather subordinate then otherwise Second the next end makes an Art Practicall not the remote but that vision is as Durand disputes yet that is produced by an habit of glory which is of another kinde then our habit of Divinity but these things shall appeare better in that which follows Therefore I still hold that conclusion that it is Practicall and that Scripture gives good testimony to this truth Evidenter apparet consideranti omni Scripturam a principio usque ad finem quia semper pro una scripturae columna in qua agitur de his quae sunt pure speculabilia à nobis sunt plusquam quingenta folia in quibus agitur de pure practicis as Durand writes I will alleage some few places to make this good in part 1. Tim. 15. The end of the Commandement is charity Out of which and such like places Alexander Hales made it a third neither Speculative nor Practicall but Affective which opinion is true though not in opposition to practick for that affection is in order to action that that is the last more plainly 2. Tim. 3.16.17 All the scripture is profitable for doctrine for instruction in righteousnesse that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every good work John 13.17 If you know these things blessed are yee if ye doe them sayth our Saviour James 1.22 But be ye doers of the word and not hearers onely deceiving your selves I shall not need to heap up more for Scotus and many of the best Schoolemen concurre in this opinion and all our modern and orthodoxe Divines with one consent agree in it and therefore I will conclude this in the words of Bernard Is recte legit Scripturas divinas and so Theologiam qui verba vertit in opera Blessed are they that heare the word of God and keep it Artic. 5 The last time I propounded the first definition of Theology conteyning so much as I conceived necessary for the accuratenesse thereof which was this that Theology is a Doctrine of mans happinesse and then I dispatched the former and generall part of it that it was a Doctrine explayning foure things for the clearing of it First how it was a doctrine and wherefore I called it so rather then by any other name Second what kind of doctrine in particular that seeming large and generall Third what manner of doctrine for the condition and quality whether scientia
these is obscure by reason of a Scholasticall terme but included in the former for any thing materiall and the two former agree with that I brought out of Valentia so that not to hold you longer in this I conclude that in a word to be the subject of a Science that is the subject of the Scientificall precepts therein conteined now I assume But mans happines so taken as I have explained it including all the meanes unto it and the parts of it is the subject of the precepts of divinity which are principally intended in it as might appeare by a particular enumeration now and shall better afterward for except the definition it selfe of Theology wherein it is a part of the praedicate it or some part or affection of it is the subject in all the rest there being many precepts of this Art because there be many particulars of this subject as I shewed the last time that Arts are multiplied because their subjects are multiplied and the unity of a Science likewise depends upon the unity of of the subject I conclude therefore that mans happinesse is the Subject of Divinity man is as it were the materiale and happines the formalis ratio subjecti And thus much of this first definition of Theology that it is a Doctrine of mans happines There may be diverse things objected both against this latter part which I have passed over more lightly and lesse distinctly then I purposed for some reasons and against the whole but I shall meet with them more conveniently in another place and that by and by and therefore will not meddle with them here the rather also because I have deteined you too long already in the entrance Only give me leave to illustrate this definition out of the Scripture for though the word of God aime not at the laying down of artificiall and notionall truths but beats almost altogether upon fundamentall in a method of divine wisedome and prudence yet even those must have the ground and substantialls from thence though Art may put a form and modification upon them therefore it will not be amisse to give some light to this definition out of it The places are infinite which I might alleage but I will confine my selfe to afew and that of two sorts The first point at it in generall as for instance John 6.68 Peter cals the doctrine of our Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for when our Saviour upon occasion of the going back of many of his disciples from him asked his Apostles will ye also go away this is Peters answer whether shall we go thou hast the words of eternall life Luc. 1.77 It is stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for in Zacharies song this is said to be the scope and imploiment of John the forerunner of Christ to prepare the wayes of the Lord to give knowledge of Salvation to his people in the forgivenes of their sins Acts 13.26 Paul termes the preaching of the Gospell by himself and the rest of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that evill spirit in the maid Act. 16.17 to the same effect in a Scripture metaphor cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the way of Salvation I will content my selfe with these that I have already mentioned though many more offer themselves and perhaps more pregnant The second sort of places seeme more fully to comprehend the definition of which it shall suffice to have produced but three 1. Tim. 6.3 the Apostle Paul expresseth it in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctrine of Religion or godlines or according to godlines which by some of our Divines is used in so many words to this purpose and therefore I need not stand to explain it only I observe that this defines it by the means to happines rather then the end happinesse it self as you may remember I said some Divines did the second place is more plaine and full Tit. 1.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where you may have both expresly mentioned the third and last place is rather more accurate for 2. Tim. 3.15 the Scriptures and so the rule of Divinity conteined in them are thus circumscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I should inlarge these with explication and accomodation of them to my present scope but they are perspicuous of themselves and I have been too tedious in this matter I will therefore observe this onely in all together that the Scripture instead of happines useth rather to name eternall life and Salvation the latter because it is directed all to man faln who must be raised from misery so that his happinesse is properly Salvation the former because the most noble member of our happines is eternall life and therefore by a familiar Synechdoche names that for all and insists in that and both in a dispensation of heavenly wisdome because they carry most majesty and divine authority with them and are most powerfull efficacious to work upon the heart of man And so I leave this first definition and passe to the second Sect. 2 Now the second as you may remember I said in the beginning is to bow the same truth a little to the common apprehension taking liberty to dispense with the strictnes and severity of Art by Prudence and that I think may be fitly conceived in these or the like words Divinity is a Doctrine revealed by God in his word which teaches man how to know and worship God so that he may live well here and happily hereafter I intend not to spend any time about those parcels in this definition wherein it agrees with the former and for circumstantiall differences I will passe them over likewise because I suppose there will not arise any difficulty which may not tolerably be satisfied out of that which hath been said already There be two additions onely of moment which must be expended First concerning the Scripture Second concerning the knowledge of God The first I shall cleare in the opening of these three propositions First that divine Revelation is not the formalis Ratio of the subject of Theology Second that mention of the Scripture is not to be inserted into the definition of divinity when we go about to lay downe the nature of it accurately Third that for some circumstances of prudence it may be convenient to do it the truth of which three I shall shew in a word For the first Valentia distinguishing of formalis ratio quae sub qua makes divine Revelation the formall respect of the subject of Theology acccording to the latter and the Thomists generally make ens divinum Revelabile and make good the unity of this Doctrine by that though it treat of many different things as God and the creatures c. Yet it is one because all are considered in one formall respect as they are revealed which is enough and he goes so far that in answer to an argument of Aureolus to the contrary that if that were true if God should reveale Mathematicks and