Actum secundum ordinem supra dictum Durand ibid. art 2. ad 3m. It were vain to adde more to this purpose seeing that all for ought I find who write on the Sentences follow the Master l. 3. Sentent d. 29. and assert after him A. B. that 1. Datur ordo in charitate and that 2. Ordine dilectionis Deum omnibus aliis praeferendum esse quem tenemur diligere plus quam nos ipsos 3. quod quisque se magis quam proximum diligere debeat 4. quod propinqui prae aliis sint diligendi illi magis inter proximos qui secundum carnis originem sunt nobis propinquiores 5. quod iste ordo Charitatis seu differentia gradualis ex parte Actuum Charitatis cadat sub praecepto For this see Lombard l. 3. Sent. dist 29. per tot Aquinas 3. Sent. dist 29. a. 1 2 3 5 6 7. Scotus l. 3. d. 29. q unical Alexander Halensis Bonaventure Richardus Valentia Soto Petrus Navarrus Capreolus are also quoted by H. Cavellus as agreeing with his Master Scotus See also Durand l. 3. d. 29. q. 1 2 4. Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 29. § 1 2 3 4 5. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 26. art 1. ad 3m. q. 44. art 8. Cajetan and the rest of the Commentators on the place § 49. And thus having cleared the Major I come to the proof of the Minor § 50. And now if the infused Habit of Grace and holy Love in Christ were specifically the same with that of Angels and men of necessity also it must have the same Object and consequently also if there be a gradual difference in respect of the goodness of the Object there it must of necessity also be so in respect of the Objects of Christ's Love And for this the Scriptures are very evident For as they testifie that our Blessed Saviour loved Jo. 14. 31. and honoured Jo. 8. 49. and did the will of his Father so they as expresly declare that for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven and that he so loved â—s that he gave himself for us And though he took not on him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham yet he so loved those blessed Spirits as to become the head of all Principality and Power and to reconcile all things unto God whether they Ephes 1. 10 20. Colos 1. 20. Suarez in 3. p. Thom. q. 19. art 2. dist 42. sect 1. p. 570. col 1. E. p. 572. col 1. F. sect 2. p. 574. col 1. F. be things in earth or things in Heaven And therefore the Schooles determine 1. Christum Dominum meruisse Angelis gratiam gloriam quae illis data fuerit propter merita Christi 2. Christum Dominum meruisse Sanctis Angelis omnia dona gratiae quae nobis meruerit proportione servatâ exceptis iis quae ad remedium peccati pertinent electionem scil praedestinationem vocationem auxilia omnia excitantia adjuvantia sufficientia efficacia ac denique omne meritum augmentum gratiae gloriae And consequently he may be stiled the Sanctifier the Justifier and Glorifier of Angels though not properly their Redeemer And therefore it unavoidably followes that there must be a gradual difference in respect of the Acts of Christs Love respecting God the holy Angels and Men according to the gradual goodness to be found in the several Objects and according to that measure and standard that Gods Law required Quod erat demonstrandum § 51. It is true indeed the Schools do rationally resolve that there was not the same order in the Acts of Christs Charity or holy Love as there is in other men who rightly love according to the state and condition of this life Nam Christus secundum animam fuit ab initio perfectus comprehensor ideoque ille dilectionis ordo qui Beatis non qui Viatoribus competit ei tribuendus Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 32. §. 5. Confer Aquin. 2. 2. q. 26. art 13. in corp est Atqui in Beatis totus ordo dilectionis accipitur ex sola conjunctione ad Deum Quare talem distinctionis ordinem in Christo ab initio fuisse fatendum quo unumquemque hominem Angelum eo magis minúsve diligeret quo magis minúsve per justitiam Deo esset conjunctus § 52. There can be but two things possible as farre as I can foresee and if our Refuter can look further I hope he will let us know it returned in answer to this Discourse § 53. First that it is not one and the same Habit of Charity whereby we love God and our neighbours as our selves and therefore as the precepts are several so the Objects are diverse and the affections of the Soul that carry it on to the love of God and our neighbour are as different as the Objects themselves are And therefore though it be granted that the several Acts that flow from these severally distinct Habits do gradually differ in themselves in respect of intenseness according to the gradual distance of goodness in the Object yet it follows not that therefore the Acts of one and altogether the same Habit of Charity and holy Love do gradually differ also which was the thing to be proved § 54. Secondly though it were granted that the Habit of Charity and holy Love to God and our neighbours be one and the same Habit yet a gradual difference in the goodness of the Objects of this Love will not argue a gradual difference of intenseness in the inward Acts of this Love but only in the outward Acts and Expressions § 55. If our Refuter shall make use of the first Answer I must say to him that he has all the Schoolmen at least all those that I have seen for his enemies For they all unanimously resolve with the Master of the Sentences who herein follows Saint Austin that the Habit of 1. August lib. 8. de Trin. c. 8. â— Petro Lombard citat 2. Augustin lib. 1. de doctrina Christiana ca. 22. ibid. citat Pet. Lombard lib. 3. Sentent dist 27. C. divine Charity whereby we love God and our Neighbours for God's sake is one and the same Habit. Ex una eademque charitate Deum proximumque diligimus sed Deum propter Deum nos verò proximum propter Deum Vna est Charitas duo praecepta unus Spiritus duo mandata quia alia Charitas non diligit proximum nisi illa quae diligit Deum Quâ ergo charitate proximum diligimus saies Lombard eâdem Deum diligimus Sed quia aliud est Deus aliud proximus etsi unâ charitate diliguntur ideo forte duo praecepta dicuntur alterum majus alterum minus vel propter duos motus qui in mente geruntur dùm Deus diligitur proximus Movetur enim mens ad diligendum Deum movetur ad diligendum proximum multo magis erga Deum quam proximum
this is and may be said to love some more and some less I have spoken also of the nature of Acts and Habits in order to that habituall and actuall love of Christ the main business of the Controversie I have proved and confirmed the fullness of Christs habituall grace I have treated of his merits and the nature of his sufferings and the greatness of them in his bloody agony of his twofold will and how as God-man he was in capacity to pray of his ardency in prayer and how he might earnestly desire a removall of that cup which yet he came to drink off I have treated also of the severall kinds of love agreeing to him as viator and comprehensor of his zeal and hope and trust in God and shewed what love of concupiscence and complacency in him was capable of increase and how all these are different from ardency in Prayer I have also taken occasion in order to M. Cawdrey but with some reflexions on M. Jeanes to treat of counsels Evangelicall and Gospel-freewill-offerings of perfection of life and perfection of state of works of supererogation to speak of originall sin and the opinion of S. Austin in it of Man's threefold state of growth in grace of different degrees in glory of the inequality of the Saints and Angels love of God in heaven and of Adam's possibility of proficiency in grace in the state of Innocence of lukewarmness and sincerity of justification and of the difference of the two Covenants and Mans severall obligation under them with other points of this nature together with some Metaphysicall and Philosophicall notions interspersed All which as they are themes of high nature and would not admit of a running discourse so they are not altogether digressions from the main Argument especially in order to the Refuters manner of reasoning that in many parts required it And becausethe Reader will not ordinarily meet with such arguments treated on in our language especially in a Scholastical way I was willing to gratifie him in them to the utmost of my power And if he be offended with this my labour of love and too officious desire to please him I here promise before you that if he pardon me this once he shall not have occasion to blame me for a second-such-offence And now having given you the true Reasons of the length of this Discourse it will be fit I also make you some account of my stile and my manner of handling it As then your Refuter every where pretends to Philosophy and the Schools so fit it was I should treat him in a Scholasticall way and in writings of this kind The best ornament arises from the strength and reason of the discourse and he is most eloquent that can express his matter clearest and make such knotty stuff plain I have seen the statue of a Roman Gladiator pourtrayed naked and as combating his enemy in the midst of the Amphitheater And it was a piece of high worth and curious art and more rich in the lively representation of the wrathfulness of the look the stretched and well set muscles the strong and brawny parts and the vigour and agility of the limbs then if he had been carved in the robes of a Senator And therefore since my work was for argument and defence I chose to build my Fabrick not curious but strong and because much of my materials were of marble I laboured onely to polish not to paint it And this is the genuine true beauty that springs from the naturall compactedness and solidity of the stone and he that strives to trim it with painting though of gold and vermilion doth but hide not adorn it Such embellishments are onely fit for less solid materials And therefore Sir as I cannot tempt my Reader or beguile his patience to the end of the discourse with artificiall expressions and curious conceits and lively flashes of wit so I must tell him that if he look for colours and varnish and eloquence he must not seek after Architects and Schoolmen but Limners and Romances For though Embroderies and lace rich jewels and curled tresses are the usuall ornaments of brides yet they are as unhandsome and commonly suspected as meretricious in matrons I care not then for neatness if you that are best able judge me solid and strong And I doubt not but the knowing Reader will be better contented with the plain demonstration and proof of a conclusion then if I had written in a strain of the declamations of Quintilian and Seneca's controversies But yet Sir because the age is more for phansie then reason and better pleased with fine and aery discourses then with solid and plain and because I have known some exquisite Architects that have been curious Painters too I was willing where the matter would bear and needed rather illustration then proof to let my phansie take wing and to range and sore about like a haggard Hawke that in a Sunshine day more minds her weathering then her prey And willing I was though in the middest of the Schools not to be alwayes severe but amidst business and reason to yield a little to the garbe and mode of the age and to gratifie the Printer so far as to let the world see that where my expressions are plain and after the manner of the Schools it arose not altogether from barrenness of wit and a lowness of expression but election and choice And for this as I have the authority of a great Master of wit and method at Rome so I have seen in noble buildings where the foundation has been of rough and solid stone and the pillars of marble and the walls of plain Ashler yet the Pillasters and Capitalls and the Architraves and Freezes that bear no stress in the building have been artificially carved And now having said this Sir I have but onely told you my design and platform I speak not of my performance That were a piece of vanity unpardonable This was onely in Idea in my prospect and aim and what I desired to accomplish and perfect when I undertook your defence For I thought you deserved the best Apology could be writ which pardon me your modesty if I say none can make but Doctor Hammond If I have done any thing in order to the vindication of the truth and you I have then my ambition and all the reward that I desire is that you will not enquire after me nor ask after my name But if you and the Reader shall find nothing in me to content you then inflict upon me the worst censure that can befall a bad Author and enquire not at all after me but let me be forgotten and thought unworthy of a name Whether then you approve or condemn I have my sole aim if I continue unknown THE ADVERTISEMENT to the READER Courteous Reader THou art to be advertised of three things The first is that though the Author be assured that things once well done are alwayes done soon and
as the Refuter calls it much prejudices an assertion of his own in his mixture but no whit the Doctor 345 SECT XX. The Refuters third argument reduced to form The major denyed His sophistical homonymy discovered His confounding the different acts of Christs love as Viator and Comprehensor The true assertions in his discourse severed from the false inferences Christ impeccable Thence iâ— follows not that the acts of his love are all equall but the contrary The great commandment of love enjoyns the most ardent love that we are able to reach to Thence it follows not that the acts of this love ought alwayes to be equal Christ as Comprehensor had on earth greater abilities to love God then Adam in paradise or the Saints and Angels in heaven Thence it follows not that the acts of his love as Viator were to be equall or if they increased successively that he sinned This discourse cleared and confirmed from Suarez The severall acts of charity by which Christ merited Hence the inequality of intension in these acts demonstrated Further proved from the Refuters mixture The Viator differs in abilities from the Comprehensor Proved from Scripture and reason Cajetan Scotus The Refuters following digression impertinent his design in it to amuse the Reader and to bring the Doctor into an unjust suspicion 365 SECT XXI As the Doctor needs not so is it not his custome to make use of former expositions This practise in the Refuter censured This digression not an answer to the Ectenesteron but a fling at the treatise of Will-worship His brief transcribing the Doctors exposition and large examining of it censured M. Cawdrey grants all in controversie between the Doctor and Refuter but contradicts himself The Refuters prevaricating and false suggestions to his Reader His first reason for this suggestion reduced to form Destructive to all religion Biddle Hobbes Leviathan Whatsoever answer he shal make for himself against a Socinian Anabaptist Quaker c. will secure the Doctor His five very false and proofless criminatious in his next reason mustered up His hasty oversight in citing Chamier 374 SECT XXII The occasion of the Doctors exposition of the first great commandment of love The reasons of his fundamental position in short If any one of them demonstrative as M. Cawdrey grants one is then all not bound to it to every act acceptable to God nor to perform it to a degree even then when they are obliged ad speciem This the utmost the Doctor undertook either against M. Cawdrey or the Refuter Reasonable the Refuter should answer these before he suggested to the Reader a need of further proof 383 SECT XXIII The Refuters two first charges Bellarmines explication at large The Doctors The defenders challenge hereupon The difference between Bellarmine and the Doctor examined What good in Bellarmine approved by the Doctor What erroneous not found in the Doctor or else declared against Bellarmine and the Doctor speak not of the same thing Chamier assents to the Doctors position The sixth Corollary of Bellarmine if found in the Doctor yet otherwise understood not censured by Chamier Ames Vorstius Two men may love God with all their hearts and yet one love him more then the other The Doctors exposition not borrowed from Bellarmine nor yet popishly affected 386 SECT XXIV The Refuters third and fourth charges The Doctors exposition parallel to that of Bishop Andrewss Davenant Downham White Hocker Field Grotius Ainsworth praised Assembly Annotations Vrsin Calvin Victor Antiochenus Imperfect work on Matthew Theophylact Theodoret Zacharias Austin Chamier The objections from Calvin Vrsin answered Chamiers conclusion against Bellarmine examined concerns not the Doctor advantages not the Refuter State of innocency a state of proficiency Proved from M. Cawdrey Saints and Angels love not God all to the same indivisible height Saints differ in glory The Doctor of the first and second covenant Perfection Legall Evangelicall Learned Protestants agree with him against Chamier The falshood of Chamier's inference as understood by the Refuter and M. Cawdrey demonstrated How to be understood Heresie of the Perfectists How not favoured by Chamier Thus more agreeable to himself Recapitulated in five positions Chamier and the Doctor agreed The Doctor justified from M. Cawdrey's concessions M. Cawdrey's contradictions in the point of perfection In what sense free will-offerings and uncommanded degrees and acts of piety and charity The question stated Davenant Montague White Hooker and generally the Fathers and divers Protestants agreeing with the Doctor in this point of perfection and counsel and doing more then is commanded This proves not the Popish doctrine of Supererogation 440 SECT XXV Heads of the reasons for the Doctors exposition and assertion of degrees in love and freewill offerings Refuters fifth charge examined Falshood of it Challenged to make reparations Calumny of Popishly affected how easily and unhappily retorted 433 SECT XXVI Artifice in refuting the Doctor in Ames words answering by halves Doctor asserts not lukewarmness How differs from sincerity What. Christianity a state of proficiency Growing grace true acceptable How differs from lukewarmness Bellarmine and Ames dispute concerns not the Doctor Artifice in citing Bishop White Doctor asserts sincerity as opposed to partiall divided love What. Bishop Whites words not to the purpose Love of God above all things objective appretiative intensive what Doctor maintains all Most intense love required yet not so much as is possible to the humane nature Perfection of charity how required of Christians how not 438 SECT XXVII His first reason proves not Intension and degrees of what love fall not under the commandment Modus of a virtuous act how under precept Aquinas how to be understood Opposes not the Doctor No one precise degree of love commanded First inference denyed Lukewarmness and first degree of love differ Second and third inferences denyed Vanity of his argument demonstrated Naturall spirituall qualities how differ His conclusion granted Love the highest 1 in respect of the thing beloved 2 The person loving according to mans threefold state In innocence obliged to sinless perfection Condition of the first covenant How urged by Protestants and S. Paul Condition of the second covenant How the Doctor denies legall perfection obligatory to Christians How bound to love God now Their love still growing Acknowledged by M. Cawdrey Opposed to lukewarmness Our loves future how the highest how not Degrees of this love proportioned to degrees of glory This the Saints crown not race 3 Love the highest in regard of the form No one precise degree highest in love as in naturall qualities May be increased in infinitum How a set number of degrees in love His argument retorted Doctors assertion proved by it Gods righteousness infinite immutable Inchoate sanctification a fruit of the Spirit Whole recapitulated No prejudice to the Doctor if all granted 450 SECT XXVIII His second reason proves not yet granted God by more obligations then he expresses to be loved Acknowledged by 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
Objecta The one is nothing else but Gods Essence and Being but the other are outward Effects and Communications of his Love and Goodness to the Creature Si vero as (a) Durand l. 3. Sent. d. 32. q. 1. art 3. 1. Durand inaequalitas gradus attendatur ex parte boni voliti sic Deus non aequaliter diligit se omnes Creaturas sed plus se quam Creaturas nec omnes Creaturas aequaliter c. Though then it be most certainly true to make use of the same (b) Durand ibid. in fine Durand quod magis bonum est magis diligendum intensivè à voluntate quae movetur ab objecto yet Voluntas Divina quae ab Objecto non movetur sed bonitatem rerum causat hanc impressionem non recipit ab Objectis sed actu invariabili vult uni bonum quod alteri non vult quibus vult bona sive aequalia sive inaequalia vult aequali voluntate The will of God that is not moved by any outward Object is not subject to these changes and alterations but by one immutable Act does dispence all the several varieties of his outward Love and Favours As the Sun according to the opinion of Copernicus though it continue still fixed in one immoveable center of the world alwaies equally projecting it's Light in an uniform Ray yet by reason of the various posture of the Sphere arising from the triple motion of the Earth it makes Perigaees and Apogaees and at one and the same moment distributes Summer and Winter and Autumne and Spring and Morn Noon and Night to the several parts and Climates of the habitable world So this various participation of Gods outward Love and Favour arises not from any difference and variation in the inward Act of Gods Love but only from the several approximations of the Creature to God in its Essence or additional perfections or as it is fitted and qualified to receive and admit a greater portion of it And therefore most certain it is that when any such change is wrought the Creature varies and not God whose inward Love is eternally one the same infinite and immutable Act that has no other Object but it self alwaies loving and beloved To make this yet more clear I shall prosecute the former illustration We know the Sun according to whatsoever Astronomical Hypothesis continues still invariable in its Light and Heat and Influence and yet the effects of these three are not uniform and equal but vary in regard of the Bodies they work on The Starrs borrow their light from this fountain but then because they are celestial Bodies and as Aristotle determines of a nature Quintessential they are not capable of Heat and such elementary qualities and alterations arising from them The Air because perspicuous transmits its Light and Heat and Influence The Earth because opacous withstands the Light but imbibes it's Heat and Influence and Stones and Minerals in the bowels of it are multiplyed in their kinds by them Plants vegetate and flourish by them and Animals not only encrease and grow but also move and feel and perceive them But Man the Microcosme being himself a little World enjoyes within himself all varieties of effects to be found in any of the Creatures springing from them And yet notwithstanding there be so great a difference and multiplicity of effects this arises not at all from the Sun whose Light Heat and Influence is alwaies the same but only from the several dispositions and tempers and Perfections of the Creature whereby they are qualified and fitted for these Effects and Alterations And now because sic parvis componere magna solemus we may say the like of God The inward Act of his Love as well as his Essence is alwaies one and the same and all the difference in the outward effects of it arises from the various disposition and capacity and approximation of the Creature to him in his Being and Perfection If natural and irrational Creatures partake only of the fruits of his common Sustentation and Providence their natures are not capable of higher advancements If the Carnal man perceives not spiritual Objects it is because he wants a Principle to receive them or he wilfully shuts his eyes and withdraws himself from the Sun-shine If the Angels and Spirits of just men made perfect now share not in those various dispensations and assistances of Grace that the Church militant is partaker of it is because they are above it and are free from all humane Changes and Alterations If the wicked and reprobate arrive not to heaven it is because it was prepared for the Saints and those only that fear Gods name that carefully seek after it § 30. It is true indeed that this variety in the several participation of Gods Love and Favour which is found in the Creature springs originally from the will and pleasure of God which alone gives them Being in that variety and difference that qualifies them for this several reception and approach to him or distance from him But yet his Love is still the same though the Gifts and Graces and Favours be thus different as the Light of the Sun is still the same though the Slime be only warmed and the Plant be quickened from it's seed and the several Births and aequivocal productions of Froggs and Insects and the like brought forth by it are capable of and enjoy higher perfections and advancements from it § 31. And now because we have had occasion often in this Discourse to refer to the Doctrine of the Schoolmen I shall with the Readers Patience endeavour further to clear and confirm this by some passages taken from them And I shall begin with the (a) P. Lombard l. 3. Sent. dist 32. A. B. C. Master of the Sentences Dilectio Dei divina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est eademque dilectione Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus se diligunt nos ut supra disseruimus Cumque ejus dilectio sit immutabilis aeterna alium tamen magis alium minus diligit Vnde Augustinus Incomprehensibilis est dilectio Dei atque immutabilis quâ Deus in unoquoque nostrûm amat quod fecit sicut odit quod fecimus Miro ergo divino modo etiam quando odit diligit nos Et hoc quidem in omnibus intelligi potest Quis ergo digne potest eloqui quantum diligit membra Vnigeniti sui quanto amplius Vnigenitum ipsum De ipso etiam dictum est Nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti Ex his percipitur quod Deus omnes Creaturas suas diligit quia scriptum est Nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti Et item Vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat erant valde bona Si omnia quae fecit bona sunt omne bonum diligit omnia ergo diligit quae fecit inter ea magis diligit rationales creaturas de illis amplius quae sunt membra Vnigeniti sui
heightning of an inward Act or Acts of Piety and Devotion which were not Acts of Nature but of Grace and the Habit from whence they issued was one of those †Vide Suarez in 3. p. Thom. tom 1. disp 20. sect 1. p. 303. septem dona Spiritus Sancti as the Schools call them that the * Esa 11. 2 3. Prophet had foretold should be infused into his Soul by God And then though his Actual Love that most high and transcendent Act of Love you mean that was immediatly terminated on God as it's next Object were alwaies in termino as Christ was by virtue of the hypostatical union Comprehensor as they call him in the Schools yet this nothing hinders but that the fervour and ardency in the inward Acts of Prayer and Devotion might now be heightned For the Schools when they determine that question utrum conveniens fuerit Christum orare do alwaies consider him at his prayers in the state of a Viator in which state he might truly * Vide Estium l 3. Sent. d. 26. §. 1. p. 88. C. D. E. F. Suaresium alios supra citat pray as well as he might be miserable or want the exaltation of his Humane nature which he attained not till after his Ascension For being considered as Comprehensor as it was impossible for him to want any thing so he was not in a state and condition to receive any thing by way of advance from the good hand of God no more then the Saints and Angels now in heaven or he himself can since his Session at the right hand of God We shall instantly clear this for the Readers understanding § 15. And therefore what 's your grant of the heightning the ardency of Christs Fears and Griefs in his Agony and the denial of the heightning of that high most transcendent Act of his Love of God which is Actus comprehensoris and not a free but a necessary Act and therefore alwaies in Summo Is this denial or that concession any thing material to the Ardency of Christ's Prayer which the Evangelist tells us was now heightned Grief and fear may be Causes and advancers of Piety but then they are not it Nay differ as much they do as Grace and Nature as Habits and Passions and therefore the heightning Vide Suarez Metap tom 2. disp 46. sect 3. § 4. Vide Aquin. 1. 2. q. 52. art 1. of the Acts of the one cannot possibly be the formal heightning of the Acts of the other since Intensio est eductio unius ejusdem formae secundum diversos gradus seu partes ejus ex quibus forma per se una componitur quo magis integra â—fficitur eo magis radicari in subjecto dicitur as Suarez who as well as any man knew what belonged to such speculations Where the Evangelist saies that Christ being in Agony did pray more earnestly you say to this that indeed he grieved and feared more greatly then before but his love of God as he was Comprehensor was alwaies in termino and at the utmost height If this be not to answer à baculo ad angulum then I know not the meaning of the Proverb § 16. But Sir speak roundly and to the purpose Was the Ardency of Christ's Prayer now more intended in his Agony or was it not If it were not then tell us plainly what the Evangelist means by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you cannot render it better then our Translators and Beza and Grotius and Piscator and the French Dutch Italian and Spanish Translations have done and it signifie here that he prayed the more earnestly then deal ingenuously and acknowledge your mistake Confess what you cannot possibly deny that Christ was now more intense in this Act of Prayer then before in other Acts. And then ask the Doctor forgiveness for the abuse of his good name and make the world amends by a publick recantation Do not eat your own words but stand to what you have granted Acknowledge what you must that Christ prayed more earnestly in his Agony then at other times in regard of the matter against which he prayed The greatness of his present and approaching sufferings was such that it proportionably heightned his prayer for the removall of them if it had been possible One deep I must tell you did here call upon another and a time of great Affliction is a season for more then ordinary Devotion The Fathers and Schoolmen will tell you that in this heightned Devotion at Vide Hookers Ecclesiast Policy l 5. §. 48. per tot this time our Saviour did read us his Disciples a lecture and teach us our Duty in such cases by his own great example As there may be a more weighty occasion for the heightning of our Devotion so it is our duty then to heighten it And as this was all that Doctor Hammond pretended to so the whole world of Readers will judge that the words of your second part of your second answer do acknowledge it § 17. For that that Act of Christ's Love regarding God which was alwaies in termino was not could not be that Act of Prayer and Devotion that the Evangelist and the Doctor spake of will be evident even from your own proof and Argument For you say it was Actus Comprehensoris and in termino as they say and because it was a necessary Act it was alwaies at the height Now the Act of Prayer and Piety and Devotion in Christ was Actus viatoris and meritorious in it self Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 40. sect 3. p 542. col 1. A and consequently free For ut Actus sit meritorius saies Suarez requiritur ut sit bonus liber in persona grata in Via existente And therefore nothing hinders but that it might be heightned in him according to the greatness of the occasion if Gods law did so allow which was the ground of the Controversie and must by other Medium's be disproved then this of our Refuter unless he is resolved to begge the Question Nay the same Suarez will tell us not only that our Saviour did merit by this Act of Devotion but that it is distinct from the Acts of Charity in it's true and proper notion Dico tertio meruisse Christum per Actus omnes virtutum infusarum quos liberè exercuit est certissima sic enim meruit per Actum Obedientiae ut testatur Paulus per Actum Religionis ut Orationis c. ad eundem modum meruit per Passionem suam quatenus illa erat Actus Charitatis Dei proximi Religionis erat enim Sacrificium quoddam misericordiae justitiae obedientiae ac ferè virtutum omnium Et ad eundem modum philosophandum est de omnibus Actibus Christi So Suarez § 18. And now though this be sufficient to satisfie the utmost pretences of the Refuters Discourse yet because I am
Aquinas and Scotus maintain that Proposition which he would confute in the Doctor by their Testimonies JEANES The first Argument which hath been already so fully insisted on but yet with our Refuters leave never yet proved as we have cleerly demonstrated is the all-fulness and perfection of Christs habitual Gâ—â—â—e The habits of all Graces and vertues in Christ were alwaies full and perfect most intense and not capable of further or higher degrees and therefore so were the inward Acts of those Graces and vertues too and particularly the inward Acts of the habitual grace of divine Charity The Consequence of this c. § 1. Well Sir hold you there Are the Inward Acts of those Vertues and Graces and particularly the Inward Acts of the habitual Grace of divine Charity that very actual love of God that was in Termino as they say alwaies at the highest were they the Acts of Christ as he was perfectus Comprehensor as you intimate in your second Argument I desire your Reason for it and do not dictate but prove it I had thought that these had if not all yet the greatest part of them agreed to Christ only as Viator according to the frail mortal condition of his state of humiliation What need I pray had he of Trust and dependency on God for a supply of any want that now as Comprehensor was fully possessed of heaven happiness what need had he to pray or hope the heaven happiness of whose soul did now even during the whole time of his abode here on earth far surmount that of all the Saints and Angels in heaven as you assert in your second argument Have the Saints and Angels in heaven any need of Patience and Meekness and Fortitude and Temperance and Obedience and an humble submission to the Cross does not the Apostle tell us that high and most transcendent Act of Divine Charity shall remain where God is all in all do not the Schoolmen that write de merito Christi say that Christ did not merit but only as he was Viator Why then do you so ignorantly or negligently confound those Acts and Graces that are incompossible as they speak As Comprehensor he could not merit and as Viator he was not in possession of heaven happiness As Comprehensor his holy Love was alwaies in Termino and a necessary effect of the Beatifical vision As Viator it was not a necessary but a free Act of his will and the effect of the habit of divine Grace As Comprehensor he has no need of the Habits and Acts of Vertues but only as Viator in which state he was only in a Capacity to exercise them Either therefore Sir write more distinctly and to the purpose or else forbear troubling the world for the future with your Scholastical notions which are so crude and half codled § 2. Howsoever I observe that in your first Argument you rightly understand the Doctors Notion of The Love of God and take it here as he still does in the large sense as it is all one with holy Charity as containing in its general notion the Acts of all Graces and Vertues whatsoever And therefore because now habemus confitentem râ—um I am resolved to hold you to your Concession and so I come to examine it In short it is this § 3. If the habitual Grace and Habits of all Graces and Vertues were in Christ alwaies full and perfect then so were the inward Acts of those Vertues and Graces and particularly the inward Acts of Charity But the Antecedent is true Ergo also the Consequent § 4. To this Sir I answer by denying the sequele of your Major My Reason is Because all Habits whatsoever whether infused or acquisite that are seated in the Will are free and not necessary causes of the Acts that issue from them And therefore though all natural and necessary causes do work uniformly and equally and produce the same effects where the distance is the same and the Patient equally disposed yet in voluntary free causes it is far otherwise as we have shewed And therefore since the inward or immanent Acts of all Habits are elicite Acts of the Will and not necessary effects their gradual intension and remission in this sense depends not upon the Physical efficaciousness but the free and voluntary exercise of that intrinsick virtue as we have already demonstrated § 5. But he goes on and tells us that JEANES THe consequence of this Enthymeme hath been already sufficiently proved and therefore I shall add nothing for further confirmation of it but the testimonies of some few School-men Aquinas as Capreolus c. § 6. How is this Sir I beseech you make good your promise Did you not just now tell us that you would not barely dictate but prove what you undertook And have you not told the world so long since in your very Title-page And must we now be put off to look for a Proof I know not where I think I have given the world abundant satisfaction already that you have very little reason to refer us to your former Performances They say of the Chickens that are hatched in the furnaces of Aegypt that they all come from the egg lame and imperfect for want of a natural kindly warmth And such abortive cripled lame creatures are all your proofes for want of a truly genuine and Scholastical heat in the brain that brings them forth Though in outward modesty like Caesar you seem to decline the title and office of Perpetual Dictator yet it concernes you in poynt of Interest as it did that great Conquerour not to forego it that you may secure your great victories over Truth and Doctor Hammond But by your so worthy performances in this Part of your argument you give me very little hope that you have better quitted your self by the testimonies of the School men § 7. And thus they follow JEANES AQuinas as Capreolus quotes him lib. 1. dist 17. q. 2. fol. 306. hath this Passage Nihil inquit aliud est qualitatem augeri quam subjectum magis participare qualitatem Non enim aliud est esse qualitatis nisi quod habet in subjecto ex hoc autem ipso quod subjectum magis participat charitatem vehementius operatur quia unumquodque operatur in quantum est actu Aquinas thought you see that a greater vehemency in the Operations of Love argued a greater participation in the Subject of the Habits of Love And again secund â secundae q. 24. art 4. ad tertium Similiter charitas essentialiter est virtus ordinata ad actum unde idem est ipsam augeri secundum essentiam ipsam habere efficaciam ad producendum ferventioris dilectionis actum Vnto this I shall add a third place out of Aquinas quoted by Capreolus lib. 3. dis 27. 28 29 30. pag. 209. Cum Actus Habitus speciem habent ex Objecto oportet quod ex eodem ratio perfectionis ipsius sumatur Objectum autem
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
tell us that for the joy that was set before him he endured the Heb. 12. 2. Crosse and despised the shame and is now set down on the right hand of God Does he not also say that when Christ had by Heb. 1. 3 4. himself purged our sins he sate down on the right hand of the Majesty on high being made so much better then the Angels as that he hath obtained a more excellent name then they what are these also Propositions harshly sounding in the ears of Christians that are jealous of their Masters honour Review your assertion Sir and confesse and acknowledge your own thoughts or will you write uses of Confutation against the pen-men of sacred writ as well as against Doctor Hammond For can a state of Sorrow and Grief and Misery and Want consist with an absolute and compleat uninterupted heaven happiness where the Scripture testifies there shall be no more death nor sorrow nor crying neither Revel 21. 4. shall there be any more pain for the former things are passed away If in the dayes of his flesh he were so absolutely and compleatly happy that this blessedness could in no respect be interrupted how then as the Apostle testifies did he offer up prayers supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to help him For how can he pray for assistance that is in an absolute incapacity of want that is alwayes as happy as God and heaven-happiness can make him If he were so absolutely and compleatly happy so that in no respect it could be interrupted why then for the joy set before him which sure was not therefore yet Heb. 12. 2. obtained did he endure the cross and despise the shame why prayed he so earnestly for his own after-glorification Why John 17. 1. 2. said he to his Disciples after his Resurrection Ought not Christ Luke 24. 16. to suffer these things and to enter into his glory § 10. If here now you say that Christ in the state of his humiliation may be considered 1. Either in respect of the present state of his soul in the soveraign part of it his Mind and understanding or else 2ly in respect of the present state of the Inferiour sensitive part of his soul and the frail mortal passible condition of his flesh In the first respect he was Perfectus Comprehensor and enjoyed the fulness of heaven-happiness and therefore alwaies did love God to the full height that he enjoyed him And of this only you now spake But then in the second respect he was in a state of frailty and misery and sorrow and want and because truly a Viator he was not yet possessed of heaven-happiness and of this speak the Scriptures I shall accept of your answer and acknowledge the truth of it But withall I shall desire you to apply this distinction to your own argument and the assertion of Dr. Hammond § 11. And now I pray deal ingeniously with the world and tell us whether ever Dr. Hammond did deny the fulness of Christs happiness in the soveraign Part of his Soul Does not he allow him to be truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God man from the first indued with the fulness of habitual grace And does not of congruity a fulness of happiness in Christs soul flow from this Vnion and fulness of grace And does not an absolute uninterrupted Act of divine Love in its utmost height and intenseness flow necessarily from this happiness shew us then whether ever this was brought into debate betwixt you and the Doctor Nay do not you your self acquit him of this charge in your first argument when you conclude that the Inward Acts of the habits of all virtues and graces were alwaies full in him because the habits themselves were so will you say that the habits of virtues and other graces were proper to him as Comprehensor and that he could watch pray Tast suffer be meek patient humble c. as now in the state of heaven-happiness And have we not most evidently proved that Doctor Hammond understands by The Love of God only that Love and that Charity which was proper to Christ as Viator in the daies of his flesh and not that other necessary Act of Divine love proper to him as Comprehensor § 11. And therefore I pray now what is become of your argument and your grave Propositio malè sonans do you not all this while build upon an empty Sophism argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and conclude because Christ was perfectly happy in his Soul as Comprehensor and did therefore necessarily love God at the height therefore he must be absolutely so too in every respect and happy equally happy he must be also as Viator and according to that respect and so must also all his other Acts of divine Charity towards God himself and his Neighbours be equal all in themselves and with that high transcendent Act of Love immediately seated on God And is not this now a weighty argument well deserving to be put in the Title page of the Book to tell all the world how Doctor Hammond is subdued by it But because I see you sufficiently ignorant in this point I shall adde something for your instruction § 12. Plain it is that there was a twofold state of Christ during his abode upon earth The one was status Comprehensoris in respect of the soveraign Part of his Soul the Mind The other Status Viatoris in respect of the Inferiour Faculties of his soul and his frail mortal passible condition in the Flesh In this he was in statu merendi in the other not And consequently the Schoolmen do distinguish and observe a twofold Act of Divine Charity or holy Love in him The one †Necessary Vide Suarez in 3 part Thom. tom 1. disp 39 Sect. 2. p. 540. col 1. pag. 541. Col. 1. qui non potuit esse meritorius quia non erat liber sed necessariò consequebatur visionem beatam This they call Actus amoris Dei beatificus and Actus Comprehensoris and is the same with that of Christ and the Saints and Angels now in heaven who because they see and enjoy God face to face cannot chuse but perfectly love him The other * a Free Act and though it is Vid Suarez ibid. supernatural as flowing from the all perfect Habit of Divine Charity in Christ yet distinguished it is from the Beatifick Love that necessarily flowes from the Fulness of heaven-happiness this was proper to him as Viator § 13. Now though the habit of this Love was alwaies in Christ full and without any interruption even as he was Viator yet the Acts that flowed from this Habit were de facto some or other still interrupted because his present finite state and condition could not actually apply himself to the performance of all at once and the acts themselves were not all compossible in the same subject in one
and the same moment and the Necessity of Nature at least when he slept required the intermission of some of them and as they were of necessity to be interrupted so of necessity also they could not be equal in themselves but some must be more high more intense then others because of the unequal participation of the divine goodness unequally shining in the several Objects of this Love as we have already beyond exception demonstrated This interruption this inequality in the fervour of these several Acts of divine Charity no more derogates from the fulness of that high Act of Divine Love he was possessed with as Comprehensor then the sorrows and anguish of his Soul and Spirit in the inferiour Part and the passible mortal condition of his flesh did derogate from the truth of his Godhead and the fulness of his happinesse which he enjoyed as Comprehensor Nay so far it was from derogating from the fulnesse of his habitual grace that if the Acts of this Love had been all equally intense his Love in the Habit had not been yet perfect because as we have shewn Gods Law requires an Order in our Charity and that we must love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our Soul c. and our neighbours as ourselves § 14. When therefore you say that it is evident that whereas the Doctor avers that the inward Acts of divine love or holy Charity in Christ were lesse intense at one time then at another for so he affirmes in saying they were more intense at one time then at another he denies Christ to be happy and blessed at those times wherein his inward Acts of Love were thus intense and that this is Propositio malè sonans I must return that then also Mr. Jeanes himself is guilty of this harsh sounding proposition Nay not only Mr. Jeanes himself but his own Ames and our Hooker Jeanes mixture c. p. 250. and Field and Vorstius and Grotius and Aquinas and Suarez Estius many more of the Schoolmen are all equally guilty of this ill sounding proposition who all unanimously affirm that Christ did really grow in Actual Wisdom and Grace as well as Stature And so Doctor Hammond ha's very learned Company in this if it be an Errour and our Refuter himself among the number § 15. Whereas then you say in the close of this Argument JEANES Add hereunto that the School-men generally consent as unto a Proposition that is piously credible that the happiness of Christ's soul did even during the whole time of his abode here far surmount that of all Saints and Angels in heaven but if the inward Acts of this Love of God were lesse intense at one time then at another the blisse of his soul would have come far short of that of the Lowest Saint in Heaven for the Actual love of the Lowest Saint was not is not more intense at one time then at another but alwaies full and perfect and therefore uncapable of further and higher degrees This will no whit prejudice Doctor Hammond who never spake any thing of Christs happinesse and Love as Comprehensor in his Soul but only of the Acts of divine Charity or holy Love that belonged to him as Viator as he was in statu merēdi But then let me add that if this assertion of the Schoolmen be so piously credible as indeed it is in their sense it will much prejudice an assertion of Mr. Jeanes his in his very use of Confutation who tells us It is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation Jeanes mixture pag. 261. there was some restraint of the Influence of his happinesse or beatifical vision in the whole course of his humiliation and Particularly in the time of his doleful Passion § 16. Nay I dare undertake in the Consideration of his following argument to demonstrate that this one concession destroyes the very foundation of his Vse of Confutation and all that he ha's replyed against the Doctors Ectenesteron And therefore I hasten to it SECT 20. The Refuters third Argument Reduced to Form The Major denyed His Sophistical Homonymy discovered His confounding the different Acts of Christ's Love as Viator and Comprehensor The true Assertions in his discourse severed from the false inferences Christ impeceable Thence it followes not that the Acts of his Love are all equal but the contrary The great Commandement of Love enjoyns the most ardent Love that we are able to reach to Thence it followes not that the Acts of this Love ought alwaies to be equal Christ as Comprehensor had on earth greater Abilities to Love God then Adam in Paradise or the Saints and Angels in Hèaven Thence it followes not that the Acts of his Lovè as Viator were to be equal or if they increased successively that he sinned This discourse cleared and confirmed from Suarez The several Acts of Charity by which Christ merited Hence the inequality of intention in these Acts demonstrated Further proved from the Refuters Mixture The Viator differs in Abilities from the Comprehensor Proved from Scripture and Reason Cajetan Scotus The Refuters following Digression impertinent His design in it to amuse the Reader and to bring the Doctor into an unjust suspicion § 1. And here our Refuter is gotten into a very fruitful and advantageous digression Now with all the skil and Artifice he ha's he labours to raise Umbrages and Clouds to obscure the Doctors Reputation and to fill the heads of weak Readers with suspitions and Jealousies as if his tenent did inferr that our Saviour was not impeccable because he loved not God as intensely as he might But notwithstanding he is here so profusely copious yet I undertake that all that is material to the present controversie in his full four leaves may be contained in the compasse of two Syllogismes but I shall give it in his own words JEANES The third and last argument is fetched from Christs impeccability it was impossible for Christ to sin but if the inward acts of his Love of God had been less intense at one time then at another he had sinned for he had broken that first and great Commandement thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy Soul with all thy mind with all thy might and strength Deut. 6. 5. Matth. 22. 37. Mark 12. 30. Luke 10. 27. For this Commandement enjoyneth the most intense actual Love of God that is possible an actual love of him tanto nixu conatu quanto fieri potest i. e. as much as may be what better and more probable gloss can we put on that clause Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength or might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then thou shalt love him with thy uttermost force and endeauour sutable hereunto is that interpretation which Aquinas giveth of those words Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart i. e. saith he ex toto posse tuo with
as high a degree of actual love as thou art able to reach unto Deus est totaliter diligendus potest intelligi ita quod totalitas referatur ad diligentem sicetiam Deus totaliter diligi debet quia ex toto posse suo homo debet diligere Deum quicquid habet ad Dei amorem ordinare secundum illud Deuter 6. Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo 2. 2. q. 27. art 5. But now Christ-man had in him as great abilities for the actual Love of God as Adam in Paradise as the Saints and Angels in heaven for an all fulnesse of the grace and virtue of Love dwelled in him and therefore if the inward acts of his Love were less intense at one time then another then sometimes when he actually Loved God he did not Love him as intensely as ardently as fervently as he could he did not Love him with all his might and strength ex toto posse suo and so consequently he fulfilled not all righteousnesse for his obedience unto this commandement would have been by this your opinion imperfect and sinful which to imagine were blasphemy But you will be ready to tell me c. § 2. This is your Argument and the most specious of all but yet as little to the purpose as any of the rest And that it may so appear I thus reduce it into Form He whose love of God in the inward Act is more intense at one time then an other breaks that first Commandement that enjoynes the most intense Love of God Possible But Christ that was impeccable could not did not break that Commandement Ergo Christ's Love of God in the inward act was not more intense at one time then another Or thus He that had greater abilities for the Actual Love of God then Adam in Paradise or the Saints and Angels in Heaven and yet does Love God in the inward Act more intensely at one time then an other he does not alwayes love God ex toto posse suo and as much as the Law requires But Christ had alwayes greater abilities for the actuall Love of God then Adam in Paradise or the Saints and Angels in Heaven and yet as you say his Love of God in the inward Act was more intense at one time then another Ergo By consequence according to your saying he loved not God ex toto posse suo and as much as the Law requires which consequence because it makes him sinful but to imagine were blasphemy § 3. Chuse you which Form you will the force and evidence of the Argument is the same and one answer will fit both And I shall give it you in brief and it is no more then by a denyal of your Proposition or Major in both § 4. The truth is all the seeming strength of this Discourse lies in the ambiguity of the phrase The Love of God which is differently understood by our Refuter in the premisses and Doctor Hammond whom he opposes in the Conclusion And consequently the Syllogismes consist of four termes and so are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phantastical paralogismes like the Colours in the Rainbow they make a fair show Arist Elench l. 1. c. 3. indeed to the eye but when we come to search what they are they are nothing but shew and without any solidity § 5. They are both guilty of that Sophism which the Philosopher calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first of the six in Voce For whereas Doctor Hammond as we have most demonstratively proved and as is also acknowledged in our Refuters first argument takes the Phrase The Love of God for the Acts of Divine Charity or holy Love in the General Notion our Refuter here takes it in a more restrained sense for that eminent Act of holy Charity that is immediatly terminated on God and is contradistinct from these other Acts of Charity whereby we love our selves and our neighbors as our selves And this will appear from the Tenor of the first Commandement and the places that himself has quoted Matth. 22. 37. Mark 12. 30 Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy Soul and with all thy mind This is the first and great Commandement and the second is like unto it Thou shalt Love thy neighbour as thy self Though then it were granted that all the Acts of our Love immediately fixed on God must be equal because alwaies by virtue of that Commandement we must Love God as highly as intensely as we can yet it will not follow that all the Acts of Divine Charity or holy Love must be therefore equally intense Nay because it was impossible for the Saviour of the world to sin I must conclude that the Acts of this his Love were not could not be equally intense For then he should have loved himself and his Neighbour the Finite goodness of the Creature with the same equal fervency and ardor as the infinite goodness of the Creator contrary to the Tenor of these Commandements and the fulness of our Saviours wisdom and grace § 6. But then this is not all the misadventure of our Refuter For in the latter part of his Discourse he confounds that Act of our Saviours Love of God belonging to him as Comprehensor with that other Act of Love that belonged to him as Viator and which alone is enjoyned in that first and great Commandement Now these two though the Objects be the same yet differ as really as heaven in possession from heaven in hope and expectation The one is a Free Act of the Will issuing from the Infused habit of Charity the other a necessary Act of the Will that flowes per modum emanationis from the beatifical vision as Light does from the Sun To the one he had a proper freedome and the Act by way of Duty fell under the authority and guidance of the first and great Commandement To the other he had no more freedom then now the Saints and Angels in heaven have who because they are already possessed of heaven and all that heaven can afford are not under any Law but as Naturally as Necessarily they love God as since their being made perfect they see him there § 7. And now though this be sufficient to demonstrate the weakness of our Refuters Discourse yet for the full satisfaction of the English Reader who is most likely to be deceived with these False Lights and empty shewes I shall take his whole discourse asunder that so I may sever Truth from Falshood and vain aerial shapes and Appearances from solid Bodies § 8. First then I grant that it was impossible for Christ to sin For such a high Priest became us who is holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners and made higher then the heaven Heb. 7. 26. When not only Pilates Wife calls him that just man but even his very adversaries and accusers were not able to convince him and his Judge does publickly acquit him
when Mahomet who has commanded his followers to oppose and persecute his worshippers has yet in his very Alcoran declared him to be a most holy man and the next great Prophet sent from God and therefore condemnes his own followers that blaspheme him for us Christians that acknowledge him our Saviour either directly or indirectly to pull the glorious Crown of Righteousness from his head is most hideous and protentous blasphemy And therefore I shall as readily as cheerfully as our Refuter pronounce Anathema to all such Conclusions that cast the least Umbrage and suspition of guilt upon our ever blessed Saviour And so I undertake shall Doctor Hammond and I am bold to promise our Refuter his thanks and most grateful acknowledgement if at any time he shall reclaim him from any such dangerous though by himself undiscovered Inferences § 9. But then secondly I must adde that because Christ was absolutely impeccable and could not sin therefore of necessity the Inward Acts of his Love and holy Charity could not be of the same equal Intenseness but must differ in gradual Perfection according to the Order of Charity that Gods Law requires and the different Participation of the Divine goodness in the several Objects of this Love § 10. Thirdly I grant that the first and great Commandement enjoynes us the most intense Actual Love of God that is possible command us it does to love God tanto nixu conatu quanto fieri potest with our utmost force and endeavour and with as high a degree of Actual Love as is possible for us to reach unto § 11. But then fourthly I must deny that it will follow that even the Acts of this Love this high transcendent Love that is immediately fixed on God are all equally intense though the Ardor of them must be still as intense as we are able For since as St. Austin and Bernard Aquinas and Scotus say truly that this commandement in that sense cannot perfectly be fulfilled in this life but it shall be then only in Heaven when man shall be totally united and joyned to God by virtue of the beatifical vision when God shall be all in all since also it is evident that this first and great Commandement obliges us to love God only with all our strength and not with more then ever we had at first in Adam before his fall and since it is also evident that Adam in innocency had not the same Abilities to love God in Paradise as the soul of the same Adam and the Spirits of all just men now made perfect have in Heaven and since it is also as evident as I shall also by and by and beyond all exception further demonstrate that Christ as considered in the state of a Viator had not the same Abilities to know and love God as he had at the same time as considered in the state of a Comprehensor and fully possessed of heaven happinesse and the full sight and Vision and enjoyment and fruition of God it will undenyably follow that even in the Acts of this high transcendent Love of God there was and must be acknowledged a Gradual difference in respect of Ardor and Intensenesse according to the difference of his Abilities as considered in the state of a Viator and as considered in the state of a Comprehensor § 12. Fifthly I grant that Christ as Man had in his humane soul as considered in the state of a Comprehensor in the superiour part of it the Mind farr greater abilities for the Actual Love of God then Adam had in Paradise because from the first Moment of his Conception and Birth by virtue of the hypostatical Vnion he had greater Abilities for this Love then all the Saints and Angels in heaven And therefore I do also grant that the inward Acts of this his Love as Comprehensor were alwaies One without any Interruption or Gradual Variation these were alwaies at the height and the same equal intensenesse because they were alwaies in Termino and not free Acts of the Will but Necessary effects of the Beatifical Vision § 13. But then sixthly I must add what our Refuter ha's in his Mixture of Scholastical Divinity with Practical told us Jeanes mixture pag. 261. concerning our blessed Saviour as considered in the state of a Viator That it is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation there was some restraint of the influence of his happinesse or beatifical vision in the whole course of his humiliation and particularly in the time of his doleful passion But though truly as he addes immediately it seemes very improbable and no waies sortable unto the state of Christs blessednesse for his grace and holinesse the Image of God in him his love of God c. to wit in the habit as these Phrases signifie to be lyable to perpetual motion and augmentation yet because let me add his Abilities during this restraint of the Influence of his happinesse and as considered in the state of a Viator were not the same as now they are in the state of a Comprehensor the Intensenesse and Ardor in the Acts of his Love now must be higher then they were during that Restraint But much more must this be allowed that there was a Gradual difference in the Acts of his Love if as our Refuter in his Mixture undertakes to demonstrate that Jeanes his mixture p. 250 our Saviour did as truly increase in the inward Acts of Wisdom and Grace as he did in Stature § 14. But then seventhly let me add that if the Inward Acts of this Love of God were not alwaies equal but did Gradually differ because they did Gradually increase it will not therefore follow that our Saviour must be concluded guilty with all humble reverence be it spoken of the breach of the first and great Commandement For he that alwaies loves God with all his Soul and might and strength that loves him to the utmost of his ability that he ha's by Gods gift and not weakened by sin nor impaired by his own fault loves him pro praesenti statu as much as that Law does require and if as his Abilities do increase his Love does constantly still increase he still loves God according to that duty and measure which that Law does require though the Acts of this Love are now more intense than they were formerly And thus it was in Christ at least as compared in the state of a Viator with himself as considered in the state of a Comprehensor The Acts then of this his Love were alwaies holy and most conformable to Gods Law and still in suo genere perfect though they were not all equal in Gradual Intensenesse and all simply and absolutely perfect as now they are where he sits at the Right hand of God And therefore even in respect of these Acts it will not follow that though they were not alwaies equal in gradual perfection his Obedience to this Commandement was therefore imperfect
a debtor to the Law be done above it And if any man shall assert the contrary I desire either his Reason or Scripture to make it good § 39. And then secondly as to the Perfection of the Love of the blessed Saints and Angels in Heaven it is easily demonstrable and the Doctor has in part done it in his Treatise of Will-worship that though they all love God Naturally and Necessarily and ad ultimum virium yet they do not all love God in the same indivisible degree of Perfection and Point of fervour and intensenesse which to use the Doctors Dr. Ham. Treat of Will-worship sect 49. p. 101. edit Londin Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. cap. 45. p. 514 527. Jeanes p 27. words to this purpose may be observed among the Angels themselves the Seraph in being so called because they are more Ardent in Zeal then other Angels For if it be true that God rewards every man according to his works and that there be different degrees of happinesse in Heaven proportionable to the Saints proficiency in Grace here on earth it must necessarily follow that if our Refuters observation from the Schoolmen be any whit considerable and that the Scotists do rightly place the very formality of happinesse solely in the love of God or if at least Suarez and others think truly that it is essential to happinesse though the very Essence of happinesse consists not wholly or chiefly in it or if at least the rest of the Thomists who hold that the Essence of happinesse stands only in the beatifical vision yet truly make this Actual most intense Love of God a natural and necessary consequence of the beatifical vision it must I say necessarily follow that the Love of the Saints must be proportionable to their happinesse and that they cannot love God more then they see and enjoy him § 40. But to wave these speculations of the School-men Plain it is from the Scriptures and our Saviour tells us that in his Fathers house are many Mansions Plain it is from the John 14. 2. 1 Cor. 15. 41 42. Scriptures and the Apostle has told us that as one star differeth from another star in glory so also it shall be in the Resurrection of the dead Plain it is from the Scriptures and our Saviour has made it good from the Parable of the Talents that the enlargement Matth. 25. 15 c. Vide Tertul. Scorpiac c. 6. p. 622. Augustin Tract 67. in Joan. p. 171. col 1. D. col 2. A. Tract 68. p. 172. col 2. A. Gregor M. Homil. 16. in Ezech. fol. 282. B. Dialog l. 4. c. 35. fol. 238. C. F. Cyrill in loc A Resurrectione diversos fore honoris gloriae gradus Verissimum est aliisque Scripturae testimoniis probatur c. Calvin in 1 Cor. 15. 41. p. 2â—0 Nos ut profitemur quod antea diximus varios fore gradus gloriae Chamier tom 3. Panstrat l. 25. c. 4. §. 7. Vide cap. 3. §. 8 9 10. ibid. l. 21. cap. 21. §. 58. Sed nec in ipsis Comprehensoribus est haec plenitudo summa omnium gratiarum quae est in Christo Nam si stella à stella differat luce magnitudine tum multo magis differt à Sole Habent omnes beati illam gratiae gloriae mensuram quam capere potest maximam mens vniuscujusque sed non habet illam capacitatem vel gratiae vel gloriae mens cujusvis purae Creaturae quam habet anima Christi Davenant Expos in Colos 1. 19. p. 100. n. 3. Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. cap. 44. p 516 517. Quod autem visio Dei plena dicitur non efficitur inde aequalem fore omnium Sactorum visionem fruitionem Nam in domo Dei multae sunt mansiones uti inter Stellas alia alii praefulget ita inter Sanctos diversa erit gloria Dan 12. Quisque tamen quantum maxime pro doni sui capacitate Lambert Danaeus in c. 5. Enchirid. Augustin as I find him cited and approved by Chamier tom 3. Panstrat l. 25. c 3 §. 9 10. Vide Sculteti Idea Concion p. 1097. alios of our Crowns of glory shall bear some proportion with our improvement of those Graces that God has here bestowed upon us And therefore it seemes to me most undenyably to follow that a gradual difference in the Participation of the Beatifical Vision must of necessity inferr a gradual difference in the height and Fervour and intensenesse of our Love For though all the Saints and Angels in Heaven shall love God to the utmost of their might and ability there being nothing there to interrupt it nothing there to mingle with it and this because they naturally and necessarily love him and their happinesse consists in this Love and this sight and this enjoyment of God yet because all do not equally enjoy God because their capacities are not the same they cannot therefore all love him in the same height and degree All the Stars of the firmament are full of the Suns light yet all are not of the same brightnesse and lustre because they are not of the same Magnitude We see there is one glory of the Sun another of the Moon and another glory of the Stars For one Star differeth from another Star in glory And yet the Sun the Fountain of light does equally shine on all This gradual difference in their lustre and brightnesse arises from their different Capacities If all were of an equal Bignesse and Magnitude and Distance from the Sun their sight would be the same The Essence the Form of Fire is as truly in the weak lambent flames of spirit of Wine or Straw as in red hot Iron or moulten Brass or Nebuchadnezars fiery fornace and yet they do not heat and flame and scorch alike This difference does arise from the variety of the Combustible matter now enkindled For though Natural agents do alwayes work uniformly because they work necessarily and to the utmost of their power yet the intenseness of their operations is alwaies proportioned to the vigour and efficacy and virtue of the Causes from whence they do flow Otherwise the light of a Candle would be equal to the brightness of the Sun which yet we see is lost and swallowed up by the Sun-beams And therefore Mr. Cawdrey as we have already observed without scruple grants to the Doctor that sincere Love is capable of Degrees whether in the same man at several times or two men at the same time and so both may obey the precept though yet with Chamier he maintains that the utmost height and Point of Perfection possible is required and that whatsoever is short of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and indivisible point of Perfection is so far faulty How rationally and consequently we have already declared § 41. And therefore fifthly though it be granted that Mr. Cawdrey and our Refuter and * Vide
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
sufficient cause alwayes to Love God at the utmost height possible to the humane nature to wit a clear intuitive knowledge of the divine Essence yet he had no more Grounds and Motives to this love then he had occasions because he alwayes loved naturally and necessarily to the utmost height and it was impossible for him to do otherwise Will any man read a Morall Lecture of Persuasion to excite a Stone to move downwards or labour by Grounds and Motives to induce the Fire to burn A pair of bellowes are worth all the Suasories in Seneca or the Declamations of Quintilian The glorified Saints and Angels have Cause sufficient to love God the beatificall vision and therefore as they need no Grounds and Motives to induce them to love God so they have none used to them in heaven because there they naturally and necessarily love God and it is a part of their happiness and a necessary fruit of their glorified natures to do so Grounds and Motives as well as Occasions are proper onely to those that are in viâ that are in the way to heaven to stirr up their spirits and flagging dull Motions and quicken them in the Race as also to dehort them from those things that may be an occasion either of their fall or slow motion § 17. But then this nothing hinders but as considered in the state of a viator he might have both Occasions to heighten his Love and ardency in Prayer as the Doctor affirms he had and we have already demonstrated the Truth of his assertion and shall by and by further clear it and also Grounds and Motives to strengthen and confirm him in his love and magnanimity and Patience in the midst of his bitter agony For we have already observed from the Schoolmen and best Interpreters that the Angell that was sent to Comfort our blessed Saviour and strengthen him in his bitter Agony did it by Morall Arguments and Suasories and Rationall Grounds and Motives Remonstrating him the transcendency of his Love to Mankind and the Glory of the Acquest his obedience to God his Father and the Crown and Reward laid up for him The Advancement of the honour of Gods Mercy and the magnifying his Name in the salvation of mankind and the like § 18. But then secondly by this Confusion he falls upon the Rock of palpable contradiction and one part of his discourse confutes the other For if Christ had alwayes sufficient Causes Grounds and Motives to induce him to love God c. then he did not love him naturally and necessarily as he sayes he did Or else if he alwayes loved God to the utmost height naturally and necessarily then he had not alwayes sufficient Causes Grounds and Motives to induce him to love God to the utmost height For Causes Grounds and Motives to love suppose an absolute freedome and liberty of indetermination and indifferency to love which is perfectly contrary to an absolute necessity of loving and therefore incompossible with it Let him chuse which part he will and avoid the Rock if he can § 19. If he sayes that Christ as viator had sufficient causes grounds and motives to induce him to love God to the utmost height because as Comprehensor he enjoyed the beatificall vision and naturally loved him I deny his sequele because then it would also follow that he had sufficient causes grounds and motives to love God in that height which was incompossible with his state of viator to wit with as heightned degrees of Actuall love as the humane nature could reach to which is the state of a Comprehensor and consequently implyes a kind of contradiction in adjecto § 20. And then thirdly he not onely speaks contradictions but palpable Tautologies For he sayes Christ naturally and necessarily loved God to the utmost height of Actuall Love and then adds in the close by way of proof For if we speak of a liberty of indifferency and indetermination he had no more liberty towards the intension of the inward Acts of his Love than he had towards the Acts themselves It is just as if I should affirm the Aethiops skin to be black and then adde for a further confirmation For if we talk of any colour in his skin that was disgregative of the sight he had none which were a most ridiculous tautologicall argumentation and prooving idem per idem § 21. And therefore having now shewed the weakness and very inartificiall proceeding of our Refuters discourse I am at leasure to tell him what were the occasions of heightning our Saviours Love of God at the time of his Passion more then he had at other times which the Doctor intimates and our Refuter out of his great Scholasticall modesty and profound Christian humility and tenderness to our blessed Saviours honour I suppose he means will not undertake to guess at But first I will tell him what Love it was the Doctor means that so all occasions of Cavill may be avoided § 22. The Schools ordinarily distinguish of a twofold Love of God one they call Amor Concupiscentiae or Amor desiderii The other they call Amor Amicitiae or Amor Complacentiae The first is a Love of God for the benefits we hope and are to receive from him and arises out of an apprehension and sensibleness of those wants and needs that he alone is able to supply The other is a Love of God purely for his own goodness This is the most genuine and transcendent Love but the other more naturall For Nature it self teaches us in all our wants to have recourse to God or something we mistake for God And hence it is that the most acute Father Tertullian Vid. Suarez tom 1. in tert part Tho disp 39. sect 2. p. 542. col 1. C. Et ibid. disp 34 sect 3. pag. 457. col 1. F. 2. A. makes use of this Argument and in contemplation of it cryes out O Anima naturaliter Christiana This is proper onely to the viator The other in the most transcendent manner agrees to the Comprehensor and in a lower degree also to the viator according to the Perfection and excellency of his habituall grace Yet these two sayes the most incomparable Bishop Andrews though they may be distinguished yet Pattern of Catechist Doctrine at large com 1. c. 12. pag. 155. are not alwayes divided For the one oftentimes is the beginning of the other both in our loves to God and man For those that have been beneficiall to us though we love them at first for the benefits we receive by them yet afterwards we come to love them for themselves The first ariseth from hope because a man being cast down by fear conceives hope upon Gods promises then sending forth prayer receiveth fruit and saith Praised be the Lord for he hath heard the voyce of my humble petition And Psal 28. 7. 21. thou hast given me my hearts desire which fruit stirreth up the first love and this Amor Concupiscentiae the
proportionably intended aff p. 253 254 255 256. Whether the multiplication of the outward acts of prayer and a longer continuance in them and a repetition of the same words argue a greater ardency of inward affection and true devotion aff 257 c. Whether though the merit of every act of Christ were infinite in regard of his person yet it were finite in regard of the real physical value of the works themselves And consequently Whether one work of his might in this respect be more valuable and meritorious then another aff p. 270 c. 574 580. Whether the English Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed more earnestly be just and best aff 279 c. Whether the ardency of Christs inward devotion were heightned in his agony aff 283 c. 322 c. 328 c. 543 c. VVhether Christ in the state of his humiliation was both comprehensor and viator aff 292 346 347 c. 525. VVhether Christ being alwayes comprehensor upon earth were in a capacity to pray aff 293 c. VVhether Christ being still God as well as man it were convenient for him to pray And God had so decreed And Christ de facto did pray And for himself as well as others And with a difference aff p. 296 297 298 299 300. VVhether Christ in truth and reality and not in shew did pray for a Removal of that cup of his passion which he knew his Father had determined he should drink and when himself came into the world for that very purpose aff p 301 c. VVhether Christs agony and prayer for a removal of this bitter cup implyed any unwillingness in him to suffer or contrariety of desires in himself or repugnance to the will of God neg p. 306 c. VVhether Christ and consequently we from the authority of this great example might lawfully and rationally pray for a removal of that cup which God had absolutely decreed he should drink aff p. 315 316 317 318 319. Whether as the greatness of our Saviours agony in the garden exceeded all his former sufferings so his ardency in prayer for a removal of it were proportionably intended aff 322 c. 537 538. Whether affliction be a fit season for the heightning our devotion and more then ordinary fervour in prayer And God now calls for it And Christ by his own example has instructed us what to do in such cases aff 327 328 522 523 528 542 543 544 545. Whether the inward acts of Christs habituall grace were alwayes in termino and at the highest and belonged to him as comprehensor neg 3â—7 338. Whether Aquinas Capreolus Scotus assert that the inward acts of Christs habituall grace were all equally intense in gradual perfection neg 334 c. Whether Aquinas and Scotus assert the contrary and that which the Doctor maintains aff 342 343. Whether it were possible for Christ to merit and only as viator aff 348 349 525 526 527 626 627 628 And by what acts 365 366 367. Whether he that affirms that the inward acts of Christs love of God or holy charity were lesse intense at one time then another does deny Christ to be happy in his soul at those times neg 351 c. Whether he that affirms that the acts of Christs love or holy charity were more intense at one time then another does by consequence make him guilty of the breach of the first great law of love neg 361 c. Whether Christ as viator had the same abilities to love God as he had as comprehensor and the charity of the Saints on earth can possibly equal in perfection the charity of the Saints in heaven neg 369 c. Whether he that makes use of any Scripture exposition to be found in Bellarmine or other Popish writer is eo ipso guilty of a complyance with Papists neg 378 379 380. Whether D. Hammonds exposition of the first great commandment of love be the same with Bellarmines neg 386. Whether the Doctors exposition be agreeable to that of the Fathers and most learned of Protestants aff 400 401 402 c. How reasonable it is 433 434. Whether the state of Adam in innocence were a state of proficiency aff against M. Cawdrey 421 456 612. Whether the Saints and Angels in heaven all love God to the same indivisible degree neg 423 466. Whether the Saints and Angels in heaven differ in degrees of glory aff 423 424 425 466 467. Whether Christians are now bound sub periculo animae to that degree of innocence and prudence and perfection of Adam in paradise neg 425 426 429 430 446 447 605 606 607 608. Whether Christians are now bound by the first great law of love to all the degrees of love either in this life or the next so that whatsoever falls short of the utmost height is sinful as Chamier asserts neg 431 432 486 487. Or to as high a degree as is possible to the humane nature as the Refuter Neg. 433 445 446. Whether the first great law of love excludes all possibility of freewill-offerings neg 442 443 c. And consequently Whether there be certain acts of religion and degrees of piety to which no man by any particular law is obliged which yet when spontaneously and voluntarily performed are approved by God and accepted of him as freewill-offerings over and above what any law in particular requires as the Doctor maintains aff 383 442 c. 446 447. Whether this Doctrine of Gospel-freewill-offerings inferrs the Romish Doctrine of supererogation neg 448 c. And whether the Doctor has freed it from this charge aff 436 437. Whether the Doctor asserts lukewarmness in love neg How it differs from sincerity And whether Christianity be a state of proficiency and growth aff 438 c. 455 456. Whether God is to be loved above all things objective appretiativè intensivè And whether the Doctor approves all aff 442 443 444 496 c Whether the Christian is bound to aspire to and endeavour after the loving of God according to the perfection of the Saints in heaven aff 446 447 448 467 472. Whether the modus of virtue and charity falls under the precept neg 453 454. Whether charity may be increased in infinitum aff 458 468 469 502. Whether the creature may be obliged to love God as much as he is lovely neg 459. Whether we are bound to love God as much as we can in this life and infinitely and without measure aff 460 464 465 474 475 476 505 619. Whether the quality or grace of divine charity or holy love admits of an eight or any set highest degree to which all are bound to arrive at neg 467 468 469 470. Whether Aquinas maintains that the first great commandment of love requires of Christians by way of Duty that perfection of love that is onely attainable in heaven neg 485 c. Whether perfection of state according to Aquinas admits of uncommanded acts and