the Doctor to be understood The Doctors censure of the Refuters additions just 42 SECT VI. The Refuter acknowledges his own ignorance of a generally received opinion Love a genus to the habit and the act Proved for the Refuters instruction His charging his ignorance on Aristotle Aristotle his Master why vainly quoted He speaks not to the present controversie The assumption onely denyed 72 SECT VII The Refuters reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of love into the habit and the act found in the tract of Will-worship and the answer to M. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions referr first and immediately to the inward acts of love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doctor never asserts that love was univocally predicated of the habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a clear truth His third most false In univocal productions the cause and effect still comprehended under the same genus sometimes also in equivocall His assumption of his first reason infirm His second and fourth reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally predicated of the habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor 78 SECT VIII The Refuters tongue-combat He a man of business The pertinency of the Doctors first papers to explain the meaning of the latter Unjustly censured for speaking cautelously The Refuters understanding the Doctor for a critick and a dunce Erasmus's sate the same with the Doctors Critick an honourable title The best Scholars criticks and who The true critick an universall Scholar Sextus Empericus and Crates character of a critick Quintilianus character of the true Grammarian Aristotle the first author of criticisme and grammar Necessary to compleat the Divine The best way to advance learning to unite criticisme and school-learning Pity the Refuter had not been a critick His mistake of the word Salvo what it signifies The method of the Schools in polemicall discourses observed by the Doctor The Refuter saying and unsaying 91 SECT IX The Refuters impertinent referring to former performances His vain pretences of proof The Refuters reasonings with himself inconsequent proved The intention of the act proportioned to the intension of the habit so as not to exceed it unless by accident but not alwayes to equall it Proved by instance of the Lutenist and Painter and Preacher Habits not necessary but voluntary causes unless ab extrinseco determined 104 SECT X. The Refuters saying is the onely proof that actuall love is in the predicament of action The contrary proved by Suarez Smiglecius Scheibler In actuall love the action and the terminus of it considerable The Refuters remarques in Scheibler impertinent His oracles nothing to the purpose The propositions to be proved Immanent acts in what sense qualities Scheibler not slighted Aristotle his character of Eudoxus agreeable to the Refuter His words not home to the Refuters purpose proved from reason and Suarez Habitual and actuall love both qualities and species of the same genus proved from sundry places in Suarez The Refuters further impertinencies Immanent acts of love in what sense dispositions in what not from Smiglecius Aquinas Acts of two sorts 112 SECT XI The Doctors explication from the Refuters concessions The Refuters reply and valiant resolution His first charge answered His second charge answered in three distinct propositions 1. Expressions gradually different may and in Christ alwayes did flow from a love equally intense in the habit This not the question 2. Nothing naturally hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from acts of love gradually the same Proved Gods outward favours and expressions different The inward act of his love still one and invariable Proved against the Socinian Gods love one infinite and substantiall act against Crellius In what sense God in Scripture said to love some more some less The doctrine of the Schools safer then that of the Socinian God by one immutable act dispenses all the variety of his favours Illustrated The variety in Gods outward favours whence it arises Confirmed from Lombard Aquinas Scotus Applyed to the Refuter 3. In men the outward expressions ordinarily vary according to the graduall difference in the inward acts of love Proved by reason and the authority of Gregory Durand Aquinas Estius The Doctors assertion hence proved as fully as the thing requires The Doctor not ingaged to prove that expressions gradually different could not proceed from a love equally intense The third charge answered No mystery in the word proportionably The correspondence between the inward acts of love and the outward expressions to be understood not according to Arithmetical but Geometrical proportion 131 SECT XII The Doctors proof of the vanity of the Refuters use of confutation made good from the Refuters mixture The Refuters reply and endeavour to make good his charge by consequences impertinent The Refuters momentous objection strikes as well against himself and other his friends as the Doctor The weakness of it The intention of Christs actual grace so proportioned to that of his habituall grace as not to exceed it but not so still as to equall it Illustrated by a clear instance The Schoolmen no where say that the Intension of Christs actuall grace is exactly equal to that of his habituall Aquinas of the Refuters not the Doctors ciration He speaks fully to the Doctors purpose What meant by works and the effects of wisdome and grace in Aquinas An intensive growth in the inward acts of wisdome and grace argues not an intensive increase in the habits Asserted also by the Refuter Cleared by a distinction The Chedzoy challenge The vanity of it Christ did gradually increase in the acts of wisdome and grace as he did in stature Proved from the Refuters mixture from Ames Vorstius Grotius Hooker Field Suarez Estius others both Fathers and Schoolmen and reformed Divines The Defenders advice to the Refuter to be more wary in his challenges 171 SECT XIII The Refuters melancholy phansie his acknowledging the Doctors innocence The Doctor constantly speaks of the gradual difference in some acts of charity never of the habit The Refuters consequence hereupon His monstrous Syllogism examined The acts of Christs love were primariò perse and not onely secundariò and per accidens capable of degrees demonstrated Actions and passions intended and remitted onely in regard of their termes The habits and acts of charity in Christ gradually onely and not specifically different from those in all other men God in his extraordinary power may create something greater and better then the habituall grace of Christ Asserted by Aquinas Suarez and many other Schoolmen and the Refuter himself The acts of the habit of grace in Christ de facto gradually diflerent in themselves and from the habit The phrase The love of God variously taken in Scripture proved In what sense the Doctor constantly takes it Demonstrated The greater good to be more intensely beloved There
great a Master Go on and prosper in your study of him so long till you rightly understand him and know how better to apply his Maximes to your advantage then you have done in the present Controversie § 9. For what I pray Sir saies Aristotle to misguide you in the case Is this it you mean in the place quoted from his Topicks 1. Top. c. 15. n. 11 Is it this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas alas Sir why should you conjure up Aristotles Ghost to speak an Oracle and Truth that never was yet questioned You might have saved the Printer the labour of troubling his Greek Characters Smiths Elements of Logick had been sufficient to prove that which every Fresh-man in Logick knows to be an undoubted Axiome But you were willing to let us know you had Aristotles Organon in your study and that you could quote him in Greek § 10. But good Sir I pray tell me how could your great Master Aristotle misguide you in the point depending betwixt you and the Doctor Was it ever denied by your Adversary that Entia primo diversa cannot be put in the same Praedicament or has he any where asserted that a word is not ambiguous that is attributed to things that are put in divers Praedicaments To this only speaks Aristotle But by the way give me leave to tell you that either the Printer or your Amanuensis were mistaken in this Quotation For it is not to be found in the 15th but in the 13th Chapter at least in my Edition wherein there are but fourteen Chapters in that Book Howsoever the words I acknowledge and pass by the Lapse as veniall and if you can now prove that Love which the Doctor makes the Genus of the Habit the Act is a transcendental thing and found in several Praedicaments like the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he in that place instances in I shall then acknowledge the force of this Quotation from Aristotle but till you can make this appear and make good your Assumption I cannot take it for an Oracle that the Habit and the Act of Love are Entia primo diversa things put in several Praedicaments because that you have asserted it You may spare your pains Sir in proving Axiomes and your Major should have been granted you for asking without Aristotles authority Till the Minor which is only the matter in debate betwixt you and the Doctor be made good and you can prove that Actual Love is not a Quality but a simple Praedicamental Action I must say that since Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem you have concluded nothing against the Doctor And so I take my leave of this Section with a Nego Minorem SECT 7. The Refuters Reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act found in the Tract of Will-worship and the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions refer first and immediatly to the inward Acts of Love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doct. never asserts that Love was univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four Reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a Clear Truth His third most false In univocal productions the Cause and Effect still comprehended under the same Genus sometimes also in aequivocal His Assumption of his First Reason infirm His second and fourth Reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor § 1. THe Doctor now having cleared the Ambiguity of the Phrase that gave the Captious advantage to the Vse of Confutation and shewed that he spake of another matter then the Author of the Mixture did comes now to shew that this was no new-coined distinction on purpose invented to decline the force of that Vse Doctor HAMMOND 15. THis Distinction I thought legible enough before both in the Tract of Will-worship and in the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey 16. In the former the Refuter confesseth to find it reciting these words of mine It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another Where the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love § 2. To this our Refuter makes a very large reply but nothing to the purpose thus JEANES THe distinction which you thought legible enough before in your Tract of Will-worship in which you say that I confess to find it is such a distinction between the Habits and Acts of Love as that Love equally comprehends them both as Species Now I utterly deny that there is any such distinction in those words of yours which I recite It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then another And the reason of this my denial is because love as a Genus doth not comprehend the expressions of Love equally with the Habit. 1. Nothing can as a Genus be equally praedicated of things put in several Praedicaments but the Habit of Love and expressions of Love are put in several Praedicaments therefore Love as a Genus doth not equally comprehend them both 2. The Habit of Love is formally and intrinsecally Love the expressions of Love that is as you expound your self § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination from the inward acts of Love and therefore Love doth not as a Genus equally comprehend the Habit and expressions of Love Raynaudus in Mo◠discip dist 3. n. 144. makes mention out of Gabriel Biel of a distinction of Love into affective and effective and what is this effective Love but the effects and expressions of Love But now that he doth not take this to be a proper distribution of a Genus into its Species appeareth by what he saith out of the same Author concerning the division Effectivum dicit ipsum illius Amoris eliciti effectum Translato quippe causae nomine ad effectum is dicitur amare effectivè qui non ostentat infertilem ac sterilem amorem sed cum se dat occasio erumpit in fructus dignes amoris Quam esse admodum impropriam amoris divisionem fatetur Gabriel quia amare propriè est in sola voluntate tanquam in subjecto ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur estque actus transiens non immanens voluntatis 3. No one word can as a Genus equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect The Habit of Love is the Efficient cause and the sincere and cordial expressions of Love are the Effect therefore Love is not predicated of them equally as a Genus 4. That which is predicated properly of one thing and tropically of another cannot equally comprehend them both
as a Genus But Love is predicated properly of the habit of Love tropically viz. Metonymically of the expressions of Love by a Metonymie of the efficient for the effect therefore love as a Genus cannot equally comprehend them both § 3. Put the case Sir And what will you thence conclude against the Doctor Will this ever make him guilty of denying the Habitual Fulness of Christs Grace or prove that he never aimed at the distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act in either of these Discourses Suppose you had not found this distinction so clearly laid down in the Tract of Will-worship me thinks unless you had resolved to be captious it might have sufficed you to have seen it in the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey which was the Treatise you quarrelled at For does not the Doctor tell you plainly that he thought it legible enough in both Is there no such distinction in either Tract to be met with either in terminis or by just consequence Let us know your positive answer and run not out into new Controversies Howsoever though the whole that is here replied be a most perfect digression to a matter clearly impertinent not any waies hinted or occasioned by the Doctor yet I am resolved to follow you through all this winding Labyrinth § 4. Thus then you return The distinction which you thought legible enough before in your Tract of Will-worship in which you say that I confess to find it is such a distinction between the Habits and Acts of Love as that Love equally comprehends them both as Species Now I utterly deny that there is any such distinction in those words of yours which I recite It is possible for the same person to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another And the reason of this my deniall is because Love as a Genus doth not comprehend the expressions of Love equally with the Habit. § 5. Well Sir if this be all you aim at your reasons might have been spared It is granted as to the recital and express mention of that distinction in the words by you recited But yet I beseech you deal plainly is it not clearly there intimated For what speak the Antecedents and Consequents Read you not in the two very next preceding lines this distinction very plainly implyed Are not these the Doctors words (a) Treatise of Will-worship Sect. 49. p. 101. edit London which loving God in a more intense degree may be observed amongst the Angels themselves the Soraphin being so called because they are more ardent in zeal then other Angels Nay for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet c. Is it not clearly here evident the Doctor means the height and fervour of the Seraphins actual Love Can their greater ardency in zeal refer to any thing else then that Love which is modificated by it But yet if this be not plain enough what think you of the words immediately following the passage by you recited and which the Doctor added on purpose to prove and explain it Consider what he saies Sir (a) Treatise of Will-worship ibid. Thus we read of Christ himself Luc. 22. 44. who we know did never fail in performing what was mans duty in Prayer or any thing else yet that he at that time prayed more earnestly which is a demonstrative evidence that the lower Degree is not sinful when the higher is acceptable to God What say you now Does not this evidently refer to the height and fervour of the inward Act of Prayer And does not the Doctor expresly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say so in the Recapitulation of this whole passage in the (b) Account of Mr. Cawd trip Diat c. 6. sect 5. §. 5. p. 222. Account to Mr. Cawdrey's triplex Diatribe and in the very words by you cited in your Vse of Confutation This that sincere Love was capable of Degrees was first shewed in several men and in the same man at several times in the several ranks of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another Is not this now plain enough and by you acknowledged also in your Mixture (c) Jeanes Mixt. of Scholast Divin with Pract. treat 2. p. 258. where you have in perpetuam rei memoriam your self recorded it And therefore said not the Doctor truly that he thought this distinction legible enough before both in the Tract of Will-worship and in the answer to Mr. Cawdrey For I hope you will not say that the Doctor in the last passage on which your Vse of Confutation is grounded does refer to the outward sensible expressions and that by Christ's greater ardenoy in this Act of Prayer in his bloody Agony he only meanes a more earnest cry and louder noise and deeper groan § 6. But suppose we that no more had been expressed concerning this distinction then what is intimated in these words rehearsed and by you acknowledged to be recited in your (d) Jeanes Mixture ibid. p. 259. Mixture Yet Sir deal plainly with the world can you think the Doctor a man of so crude raw Judgement as to take the outward sensible expressions for the inward Acts of Love Or can you believe him so weak as not to understand his own meaning or to have lost so much of Christianity with his Ecclesiastical preferments as that he is not fit to be believed and trusted when he professes to declare what was his own meaning One of these you must needs say or this whole Reply is nothing to the purpose § 7. For though it were granted as the contrary has been shewed that the Doctor in that Passage does only mention the Habit of Love and the outward expressions yet plain it is that the outward sensible expressions can refer to nothing but the inward Acts of Love which according to the Doctrine of the best Metaphysicians and Schoolmen as has been declared the Doctor makes specifically distinct from the Habit. For the expressions of Love must first and immediately refer to the Acts and by them to the Habit otherwise your great Master * Aristoteles eum qui tantum habet Habitum comparat dormienti eum verò qui Actum exercet vigilanti Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 9 §. 14. Aristotle had vainly compared the Habit to a man asleep and the Act to one waking The outward expressions in the subordinate inferior Faculties must first denote the promptness and facility in the Act and then this ready nimbleness in the Act must declare the perfection of the Habit. If therefore expressions be expressions indeed and there be a necessary relation between the sign and the thing signified then the expressions of Love the outward sensible expressions must of necessity respect the inward Acts of Love of which alone they are properly and immediately expressions And therefore we may well take the Doctors word when he saies
though in the words acknowledged and cavilled at by this Refuter he only mentioned the outward sensible expressions yet there the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love Which inward Acts alone and nothing else he makes to be specifically distinct from the Habit of Love § 8. But in a Parenthesis to his second Argument he tells us that by the expressions of Love the Doctor expounds himself to mean § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love which are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination § 9. True Sir But is it with exclusion of the inward Acts How then are they expressions of them But let us view the Doctors own words in the 21. § that our Refuters fair dealing may notoriously appear I must only say saies the Doctor there that is a mis-apprehension for that by loving with all the heart in the first place I certainly meant the sincere habit of Love by love in the latter place the inward Acts of Love and by the expressions of Love the outward expressions of those inward Acts and of these Acts only I speak and of these expressions when I say they are more intense at one time then another § 10. But now though it be so clearly evident that in the places already quoted the Doctor by the expressions of Love still refers to the inward Acts which only he makes specifically distinct from the Habit yet this was hint enough to give our Refuter advantage to make a noise and a Book He has now found new matter of Dispute and with might and main he labours to prove that which no man ever doubted and the Doctor never thought of We shall now have Reasons and Authority no less then a whole Page-full in this puisny Pamphlet to prove that which might have been granted for asking And O what pitty it is that our School-man should not have Truth more often on his side because he makes so much of it when he chanceth to meet it though it be out of his rode § 11. But in good sadness Sir why no less then four Reasons to prove that which was never denied you Has Doctor Hammond asserted any thing to the contrary Did he ever affirm that Love was univocally predicated of the Habit and the outward sensible expressions as its Species If he has pray quote us the place that we may also confess and acknowledge his mistake If he has not as without doubt he no where has then you only fight with a shadow of your own casting and much good do you with the Conquest If you set up a Shroveing-Cock from your own Dunghill I shall not any waies forbid you to throw as many Cudgels at him as you please § 12. But yet Sir I cannot chuse but take notice of your Craft you have cunningly raised a Cloud of Dust to amuse your unwary Readers who will think that all this while you fight with the Doctor because they see you so zealous in your Mood and Figure and have urged no less then four Reasons backed and confirmed with two venerable Authorities most demurely against No body § 13. And now I assure you Sir it is well that your Conclusion is a Truth sufficiently evident of it self For otherwise so profound a Disputant you are your Reasons would very very hardly enforce it § 14. Your Third to begin with that for I shall not tye my self to your Methode is most ridiculously false You say not to trouble our selves about the Mood and Figure 3 No one word can as a Genus equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect the Habit of Love is the Efficient cause and the sincere and cordial expressions of Love are the Effect therefore Love is not praedicated of them equally as a Genus § 15. Your Major Sir your Major by all means have a care of your Major For what think you Sir of all * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 2. Gener. Animal c. 4. in fine univocal productions When Fire produces Fire and Corn brings forth Corn when a Man begets a Man and one Heat makes another does not one and the same word as a Genus comprehend the Efficient and the Effect And is it not in these a certain Maxime that Qualis est causa talis est effectus such as the Cause is in nature such also is the Effect And I hope you will think it lawful for things of the same nature to be comprehended under the same Genus Nay are not these distinguished from (a) Quaedam est quae effici◠Effectum ejusdem rationis haec dicitur Vnivoca ut Ignis quum generat Ignem universaliter Causa quae operando per virtutem suae formae similem reddit Effectum est Causa univoca in suo ordine Principalis ut recte notat D. Thomas 3. p. q. 62. art 1. Alia vero est Causa producens Effectum alterius rationis quam oportet esse nobiliorem Effectu et haec appellatur Causa Aequivoca quia non convenit formaliter cum Effectu in eâdem formâ sed eminenter illam continet Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 17. sect 2. §. 21. Vid. cund disp 26. sect 1. §. 6. sect 5. §. 13 14 15 16 c. Aequivocal productions because in these Effectum est ejusdem rationis cum Efficiente but in the other Efficiens non convenit cum effectu in eâdem formâ sed eminenter illam continet Nay does not your own (b) Scheibler Metaph. l. 1. c. 22. tit 9. n. 116 117 c. Scheibler as well as Suarez both whom you so seriously commend to the Doctors perusal tell you that Causa univoca est quae producit effectum similem in specie But me thinks Sir if since your more noble more serious imployments in the study and writing of Scholastical and Practical Divinity you had thought fit to neglect such vulgar Authors and to forget the common Notions and Maximes delivered by them yet you should at least have observed this in your Reading of Aquinas that in his Summes (a) Vid. Aquin Sum. p. 1. q. 4. art 2. in corp Cajetan Javel alios in loc 3. part q. 62. art 1. in corp alibi saepissime does frequently deliver this Doctrine and makes very good use of it And now Sir I hope you will think it lawful for things of the same nature to be comprehended under the same Genus For where I pray will you rank the several Individuals of the self-same Species for such are all Vnivocal Causes and Effects as is plain from sense and experience if not under the same Genus § 16. I might prove the gross and palpable falshood of your Major Sir by divers instances drawn from Aequivocal Productions where the cause and effect must be placed in the same Praedicament and consequently under the same remote Genus at least which is sufficient to
effective or in plain English the issues and effects of Love yet the termes are not reciprocal and convertible For there are many effects of Love that are not sensible and thus external For instance good Wishes good Prayers are the effects of true Love so also are Joy at the wel-fare of the beloved Persons well doing and Sorrow and Grief at his miscarriage and yet they are not alwaies expressed nor does any prudent man alwaies shew his Joy or Grief or express his good wishes thoughts and desires to him he most tenderly affects The truth is Raynaudus speaks clear and plain to any man of understanding and with him Love effective is nothing else but the effect of the Affection of Love This an Imperate Act which is the Effect the other an Elicit Act the Cause This performed by any of the other Faculties and is purely a transient Act that an immanent Act of the Will wherein this Love affective is subjected His words as you cite them for I have not the Author by me are these Effectivum dicit ipsum illius amoris eliciti effectum translato quippe causae nomine ad effectum is dicitur amare effective qui non ostentat infertilem sterilem amorem sed cum se dat occasio erumpit in fructus dignos amoris Quam esse admodum impropriam amoris divisionem fatetur Gabriel quia amare propriè est in sola voluntate tanquam in subjecto ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur estque Actus transiens uno immanens Voluntatis § 21. And the truth of it is Love cannot as a Genus comprehend nor be equally praedicated of the Habit and the outward expressions of Love 1. Because this Love the Genus of the Habit is seated in the Will and not in any other Faculty wherein the outward expressions are subjected Now since (a) Vid. Keck Log. l. 1. c. 3. can 2 a. Generis perfecti p. 55. Ar. 4. Top. c. 1. tota natura generis continetur in qualibet specie (b) Vid. Burgersdic Log. Institut l. 1. c. 11. §. 15. if the Genus and Species be Accidents they must have both the same Subject Hence it is that Science is not cannot be the Genus of Moral Vertue quia Scientia est in intellectu Virtus in appetitu And therefore (c) Aristot l. 4. Top c. 3. mihi pag. 314. A. Aristotle tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2. I might adde if it were needful in a case so clear that the outward expressions of Love are either Actions or Passions or Patible Qualities but never any thing belonging to the first Species of Quality wherein the Love we now speak of is alwaies placed 3. That Love is an Elicit Act of the Will but the expressions of Love are alwaies Acts imperate 4. That Love is an immanent Act of the Will but the expressions of it are transient and performed by the other Faculties in obedience to the Dictates and Commands of the Will as Raynaudus has well observed § 22. Sed jam dic Posthume de tribus Capellis Martial What is all this Pro or Con to Doctor Hammond who never said any thing to give just occasion to this Digression of our Refuter Go we on then to the next SECT 8. The Refuters Tongue-combat He a man of Business The Pertinency of the Doctors first papers to explain the meaning of the latter Vnjustly censured for speaking cautelously The Refuters understanding the Doctor for a Critick and a Dunce Erasmus's fate the same with the Doctors Critick an honorable title The best Scholars Criticks and who The true Critick an universal Scholar Sextus Empiricus and Crates character of a Critick Quintilianus character of the true Grammarian Aristotle the first Author of Criticisme and Grammar Necessary to compleat the Divine The best way to advance Learning to unite Criticisme and School-learning Pitty the Refuter had not been a Critick His mistake of the word Salvo what it signifies The method of the Schooles in Polemical discourses observed by the Doctor The Refuter saying and unsaying Doctor HAMMOND § 1. ONly I guess not what Temptation he had to chuse that expression which he there makes use of viz. That there Doctor Hammond minceth the matter and speaketh more cautelously adding that what he there saies is nothing to the matter now in hand Whereas 1. those of Will-worship being the First Papers written on that Subject are sure very pertinent to ascertain him of the meaning of the latter written in defence of them JEANES THat your first Papers written on this Subject are very impertinent to ascertain me of the meaning of your latter is easily discernable unto any man that will compare both together however I shall offer to your consideration two reasons to prove the impertinency of them for that purpose 1. In your first papers you speak only of the Expressions of Love i. e. as you interpret your self the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love in your latter Papers you speak of Love it self Now the outward expressions of love are termed love only extrinsecè denominativè participativè from the inward act of Love as some say the imperate acts of the Will are said to be in this sense only free or voluntary 2ly That your first Papers are very short in explaining the meaning of your latter is apparent by this your Reply wherein you extend the Love of God which you affirm to be capable of Degrees beyond the outward expressions unto the very inward acts of Love Doctor HAMMOND ANd 2ly the early cautelous speaking there might have made further latter caution unnecessary JEANES I Had thought that in Polemical writings it had still been needful for a man to continue on his caution for otherwise he may expose himself unto blowes and knocks which he never dream't of Early cautelous speaking is no Salvo unto after-unwariness Doctor HAMMOND ANd 3ly I could not be said to mince which to vulgar eares signifies to retract in some degrees what I had said before and again speak more cautelously when that was the first time of my speaking of it JEANES I Am very loath to enter into a contest with so great a Critick touching the meaning of a word however I shall adventure to say thus much That a man may be said to mince a matter and speak more cautelously at the first time of speaking of it then afterwards at a second time of speaking of it Neither shall I be beaten from this mine assertion by your bare and naked affirmation that to mince to vulgar eares signifieth to retract in some degrees what hath been said before for I appeal to both vulgar and learned eares whether or no we may not say truly of divers erroneous persons that in the first broaching their Errors they mince the matter and speak more cautelously then afterwards when they are fleshed and incouraged with success Doctor HAMMOND
17. MEan-while it is manifest and his own confession that there these were my words and those so Cautious that this sense of the words which he undertakes to refute could not be affixt on them And this I should have thought sufficient to have preserved my Innocence and forestalled his Use of Confutation JEANES SVppose that in your tract of Will-worship those were your words and withall that they were so Cautious that this sense of the words which I undertake to refute could not be affixt on them yet this is nothing at all unto the purpose and contributes nothing to the clearing of your Innocence and forestalling my Vse of Confutation and the reason hereof is very evident Because that which I undertook to refute was affixt by me not on these your so Cautelous words in your tract of Will-worship but on a passage in your Answer to Mr. Cawdrey Indeed I censured those your words in themselues impertinent unto your matter in hand and withall proved them to be so But if you had gone no further then these words you should not have heard from me touching this subject for time is more pretious with me then to wast it in medling meerly with the impertinencies of any mans discourse § 2. And here in all this we find very little to the purpose but an empty Contest about words and phrases which he carps at in the Doctor who is a little too old to be taught the meaning of his Mother-tongue and the usual import of it Only I observe that though he profess in the Close of this Tongue-combat That time is more pretious with him then to wast it in medling meerly with the impertinencies of any mans discourse yet he is so much at leasure for all that as to spend the compass of two pages at least in his puisny Pamphlet upon some words and phrases of the Doctors He is a man of business indeed § 3. But I cry him mercy Did I say it was only a controversie about words this I am afraid I was mistaken For he will offer to consideration no less then two reasons to prove the impertinency of the Doctors first Papers to ascertain him of the meaning of the latter The first is because the Doctor there mentions only the Habit and the expressions of Love which are called Love only by extrinsecal denomination but here he mentions the inward Acts themselves The second is because the Doctor now extends the Love of God which he affirms to be capable of Degrees beyond the outward expressions unto the very inward Acts. § 4. And with your Patience good Sir ought he not so to extend it why else did you so lately blame him for not doing so But what then Sir what then Conclude man with your Ergo Pot-lid What 's all this to the purpose Suppose the Doctor there speaks only of the outward expressions of Love and yet we have clearly evidenced that he speaks also of the inward Acts yet must not these of necessity imply and relate to the inward Acts of Love whereof they are Expressions Why then could you not guess at his meaning in this passage Can you be so uncharitable as to think the Doctor was a man of so slender shallow parts as to take the outward Expressions of Love for Love it self and a coordinate Species of the same Genus If not without doubt the Doct. must of necessity mean nothing else then what he professes that best knew his own meaning of any man in the world § 5. The truth is the Doctor then thought he writ to men ingenuous and candid that would not look for knots in Bull-rushes But after finding by sad experience that he was to deal with some that endeavor to move every stone to throw at those that are not in every thing of their Judgement though never so ridiculous and false though never so disadvantageous to the peace and welfare of the Church he was forced clearly to express that which before he had sufficiently implyed § 6. And yet now he must be told that at first he did mince the matter and speak more cautelously then afterwards as Hereticks indeed are wont Before he was condemned for speaking too little and now he is upbraided for speaking too much Nay our Refuter can do no less then to appeal to both vulgar and learned eares whether or no we may not say truly of divers erroneous persons such as without doubt the Doctor is that in the first broaching of their Errors they mince the matter and speak more cautelously then afterwards when they are fleshed and encouraged with success § 7. It is readily granted Sir and for your further confirmation I refer you to Lysimachus Nicanor and to Sleidan's History of the Anabaptists in Germany and other true stories and Pasquills and practises of later times § 8. And now though it be high time to leave this Tongue-Combat yet I cannot part with this Section without expressing my just indignation at this Refuters so contemptuous undervaluing the Doctors excellent Learning I am very loath saies he to enter into a contest with so great a Critick touching the meaning of a word The Doctor in our Schoolmans opinion is some petty Grammaticaster that knowes the meaning of Musa and can tell how to decline Lapis some great Critick forsooth one fit to teach Schoole-boyes perhaps the meaning of a Greek or Latine Author but for any skill in the Arts and Reserches of Philosophie he is a very Dunce and not at all seen in the curious Speculations and Subtleties of Schoole-learning § 9. And now I see this under his hand in print my wonder must cease that he even among his Apron-men of Bridgewater so fastidiously decries the Doctor for a Dunce For it has been assured me from very credible witnesses that he every where braggs he has made this Doctor a very Dunce § 10. This minds me of the Fate of the great Erasmus that Phosphorus to all curious learning which so brightly shines in the Christian world whose wit and Judgement and industry and skill all Scholars admire and very few equall and scarce any exceed whose Country-men thought themselves so highly honored in his Birth as once the Graecians did in that of their Homer that at the publique charge they erected a Brasen Statue for him as well to their own honour as his memory And yet this Erasmus whose Writings shall outlast ten such Brasen Statues was so highly undervalued by our Country-man Lee and the Paris Divines and some such Pretenders to School learning as our Refuter is as to be counted no Scholar no Divine but a Critick and a whiffling Grammarian His Apologies for himself in this kind are swelled into a Volume and in this Work he has shewed as much Judgement and Learning as in any that he ever wrote and has clearly demonstrated the advantage of the Critick above the Pretender to the Summes and the Sentences and that more goes to the making a true
impertinent referring to former performances His vain pretences of proof The Refuters reasonings with himself inconsequent proved The intension of the Act proportioned to the intension of the Habit so as not to exceed it unless by Accident but not alwaies to equall it Proved by instance of the Lutenist and Painter and Preacher Habits not necessary but voluntary causes unless ab extrinseco determined Doctor HAMMOND 18. BUt the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey which occasioned it was I think as cautious also 1. in the words recited by the Refuter viz. that Christ himself was more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another 2. in the words following in that Answer but not recited by him viz. that the sincerity of this or that Vertue exprest in this or that performance is it we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath Degrees where the this or that performance are certainly Acts of the Vertue consisting in a latitude and having Degrees viz. in that latitude no way implies him that hath Vertue in that latitude viz. Christ to want at present and in that sense to be capable of further Degrees 19. I am willing to look as jealously as I can on any passage of my own which falls under any man's Censure and therefore finding nothing in the words set down by him as the ground of the Refutation which is any way capable of it I have reviewed the whole Section and weighed every period as sufficiently as I could to observe whether I could draw or wrest that Consequence from any other passage not recited by him 20. And I find none in any degree liable except it should be this in the beginning of the Section where setting down the Argument as it lay in the Tract of Will worship I say 't is possible for the same person which so loves God i. e. with all the heart to love him and express that Love more intensely at one time then another as appeared by the example of Christ 21. And if this be thought capable of misapprehension by reason of the and disjoyning Love from the expressions of it and so the expressions belonging to the Acts the Love be deemed to denote the habitual Love I must only say that is a misapprehension for that by loving with all the heart in the first place I certainly meant the sincere habit of Love by Love in the latter place the inward acts of Love and by the outward expressions of Love the outward expressions of those inward Acts and of those Acts only I speak and of those expressions when I say they are more intense at one time then another JEANES I shall here briefly represent unto you that which made me think you guilty of detracting from the All-fulness of Christs habitual Grace and refer you for confirmation hereof unto what I have said in the beginning of this my Discourse The undenyable consequence of what you say in answer to Mr. Cawdrey is as I have proved that Christ's Love of God was capable of further Degrees Now hereupon I thus reasoned in my mind You were to be understood either of the Habit or of the inward Act of Love for as for the outward Expressions of Love it is without dispute that they cannot be said to be Love properly but only by a Trope If you should have said that you spake of the Habit of Love then you would have expresly impugned the All-fullness of Christs habitual Grace and if you should say as now you do that you meant the inward Acts of Love why then you would even hereby impliedly by consequence have opposed the perfection of Christ's habitual Grace because the intension of the inward acts of Love proceedeth from the intension of the habit of Love and is therefore proportioned unto it But of this more fully in the place above mentioned Thus having shewed you what invited me to my Vse of Confutation I shall pass over the three other Sections which you your self I presume would have spared if you had been privy unto that which I now acquaint you with § 1. The Doctor in the four former Paragraphs had truly stated the Question in Debate and clearly set down his own meaning and after the most impartial survey of every suspicious period in the quoted Section had found nothing that with any ingenuity could be forced to speak contrary to his present judgement here expressed And now our Refuter in stead of convincing the Doctor and disproving any thing here said steps in and tells us that he shall briefly represent to the Doctor that which made him think him guilty of detracting from the All-fullness of Christ's habitual grace and refer him for confirmation hereof unto what he has said in the beginning of his Discourse § 2. Say you so Sir I see then your skill in Musick is but little because you are alwaies harping upon one string But good Sir forbear in charity forbear for know you not that Occidit miseros Crambe repetita Magistros Juvenal Howsoever if you can allow us no new Arguments it is not fit nor can you in justice expect to receive any but old Answers And therefore have the Patience to look back and you shall find this your invincible Demonstration proved no better then a ridiculous Sophisme and a Farrago of Mistakes § 3. But he goes on with Triumph and the Galliardise of a Conqueror and saies The undeniable consequence of what the Doctor saies in answer to Mr. Cawdrey is as he has proved that Christ's Love of God his habitual Love he must mean if he speak any thing to the purpose for the Doctor positively maintains a gradual difference in the Acts of Christs Love was capable of further Degrees § 4. But good Sir I beseech you do not talk too much of Proof Where where have you performed this so wonderful Atchievement In good earnest tell us that we may erect for you no less then Bacchus monuments and Hercules Pillars with a Ne plus ultra inscribed for a Motto and a Trophee of your great Acquests For my own part I cannot yet tell where to find it but all along I see that your Proofs and your Conclusions are at far greater distance then your self and Doctor Hammond For little hope there is they should ever be reconciled though in good time you and the Doctor may You seem indeed to speak to you in your own Rhetorical expressions which I hope Jeanes Answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 15. will therefore please you most vehemently to assert your Conclusion and to affirm that you have proved it But you must pardon me if I entertain not your vehement Asseverations for solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae Pray Sir review your Proofs again and put more strength into your Arguments If you can make good that they contain any disproof of what the Doctor has said unless begging of the Question and your own 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be argumentative you shall have my hearty leave to triumph o're the Doctor as you please And now I give you thanks for this answer with which your own papers have supplied me § 5. But now we have need of an O yes For he will condescend to discover to the world his own secret thoughts that surpass those Contemplations of Columbus that first drew him on to the search of a New world Say on Sir and we shall give you as venerable Attention as the votaries of Apollo Pythius did to the Oracle when it spake § 6. Now hereupon saies our Refuter I thus reasoned in my mind You Mr. Doctor were to be understood either of the Habit or the inward Act of Love for as for the outward Expressions of Love it is without dispute that they cannot be said to be Love properly but only by a Trope If you should have said which he never did but alwaies declared the contrary that you spake of the Habit of Love then you would have expresly impugned the All-fulness of Christ's habitual grace which yet the Doctor does alwaies profess to acknowledge and if you should say as now you do that you meant the inward Acts of Love as he alwaies did why then I concluded that you would even hereby impliedly and by consequence have opposed the Perfection of Christ's habitual grace because the intension of the inward Acts of Love proceedeth from the intension of the Habit of Love and is therefore proportioned unto it But of this more fully in the place above mentioned And thus he saies he has shewed us what invited him to his Vse of Confutation § 7. Well we see what rouzed the good man But yet I cannot chuse but suspect the whole for a plain sophistical Elench since all that followes the Because upon which alone as the Basis the whole Argumentation is founded is a very gross mistake But they say the Ephesian Temple one of the Wonders of the world was built upon a Quagmire § 8. And therefore good Sir notwithstanding your because I must needs deny your sequele and because I deal fairly with you I shall give you my Reasons for it § 9. It is true the intension of the inward Acts of Love must proceed from the intension of the Habit so as it is (a) Potentia ex vi Habitûs non potest efficere Actum intensiorem quam sit ipse Habitus quia nulla forma remissa potest per se conferre ad effectum intensiorem ut supra disp 18. fusiùs tractatum est Suarez Metaph disp 44. sect 6. n. 3. impossible that the Act should per se be more intense and perfect then the Habit. Because the Act is the Effect and the Habit is Cause of the Act now no Effect can be more noble then its Cause because Nihil dat quod non habet aut eminenter ut in causis Aequivocis aut formaliter ut in Vnivocis For I speak not now of Causes per Accidens because they have no place here § 10. But then though the Act which is the Effect cannot be more high and intense then the Habit from whence it effectively flowes and so the intension of the Act must proceed from the intension of the Habit and is therefore in this sense (b) Propter necessariam proportionem inter Habitum Actum non potest Habitus remissus per se efficere intensiorem Actum se quia Habitus non inclinat nisi ad Actus similes illis à quibus fuit genitus teste Aristotele 2. Eth. c. 1. teste etiam experientiâ c. Suarez ib. n. 4. Denique etiam in Habitibus infusis docent communiter Theologi ex vi illorum non posse Potentiam efficere Actus intensiores ipsis Habitibus quamquam in eis posset esse major ratio dubitandi vel quia tales Habitus sunt perfectiores suis Actibus vel quia non solum dant facilitatem sed etiam potestatem nihilominus quia revera sunt Habitus dantur cum debita proportione ad Actus ut ex vi illorum fiant Actus connaturali modo ideo quantum est ex intrinseca virtute talium Habituum non valet Potentia efficere intensiores Actus ipsis Habitibus sed si eos interdum elicit est ratione alterius auxilii Divini Suarez ibid. n. 5. Vid. ibid. ampl n. 6 7. proportioned unto it yet let me ask you Sir is it necessary vice versâ that the Act should be alwaies as high and perfect and intense as the Habit I trow not Sir And if it appear so in the issue as without doubt it will then you have put a Fallacy upon your self and by a down-right mistake fallen upon your Vse of Confutation § 11. For instance I hope you will not say that any Lutenist can ever play better then his Art can guide him or that his playing shall regularly and per se exceed his skill or that the Painters fingers should out-do his Art unless the †This story is at large in Strabo Geograph l. 6. p. 180. edit Basil which Erasmus in his Adagies Tit. Taciturnitas laudata Adag Acanthia Cicada seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has thus elegantly rendred Strabo Timaeum citat authorem quendam in Pythiorum certamine Eunomum Locrensem Rheginensem Aristonem in canendi certamen venisse Aristonem Apollinem invocasse Delphicum ut sibi canenti fieret auxilio quod à Delphis Rheginenses olim essent profecti Eunomus respondit Rheginensibus nè certandum quidem omnino de Musica apud quos Cicada vocalissimum animal voce careret Vtrisque ceâ—taâ—tibus cum in Eunomi Cithura una inter canendum chorda frangeretur Cicada supervolans astitit ac vocem alioqui defuturam suo cantu supplevit atque ita victor declaratus statuam Cithara di posuit cum cicada citharae infidente Vide etiam Erasmum Tit. Auxilium Adaâ— Chordae vice Grass-hopper as I remember to have read that once in the Pythian Games he did come in to mend the Musick which the Artist failed in or the * Est in ea Canis mirè factus ut quem pariter casus ars pinxerit Non judicabat se exprimere in eo spumam anhelantis posse cum in reliqua omni parte quod difficillimum erat sibi ipsi satisfecisset Displicebat autem ars ipsa nec minui poterat videbatur nimia ac longiùs à veritate discedere spumaque illa pingi non ex ore nasci anxio animi cruciatu cum in Pictura verum esse non verisimile vellet absterserat saepius mutaveratque penicillum nullo modo sibi approbans Postremò iratus arti quòd intelligeretur spongiam eam impegit inviso loco tabulae illa reposuit ablatos colores qualiter cura optabat fecitque in Pictura Fortuna Naturam Hoc exemplo similis Neaclem successus in spuma equi similiter spongiâ impactâ secutus dicitur eum
Species unius generis subalterni ut dicantur Dispositiones illae qualitates primae Speciei quibus convenit secundum propriam rationem ut de facili amittantur quia habent causas transmutabiles ut Aegritudo Sanitas Habitus verò dicantur illae qualitates quae secundum rationem habent quod de facili transmutentur quia habent causas immobiles sicut Scientiae Virtutes secundum hoc Dispositio non fit Habitus Et hoc videtur magis consonum intentioni Aristotelis c. Thus he § 48. It will not now for a close of this Section be amiss to tell you the Doctor never takes Acts for Habits but specifically distinguishes them nor yet counts them Dispositions as that word is properly taken but saies only at large that habitual and actual love are both Qualities and Species of the same Genus And now that you may have no opportunity to mistake his meaning I must mind you of the known distinction of Acts some whereof precede the Habit to be produced and effectively concur to the making of it and others follow the Habit now compleat and perfect as effects and issues of it The first are inchoate imperfect things in order to the production of a Habit and so are Dispositions properly so called The other are not so but follow as Effects from their Cause whether the Habit be infused or acquisite and are called Dispositions not specially and properly but generally and improperly taken for reasons formerly alledged And strange it is you should not observe this doctrine in Suarez in Scheibler in Aristotle where it is to be found all which you yet recommend to the Doctors inspection for satisfaction in this kind § 49. And so much at present for our Refuters long-since forgotten Metaphysicks we come now to his Familiars his dear Acquaintance the Schoolmen SECT 11. The Doctors explication from the Refuters Concessions The Refuters Reply and valiant resolution His first Charge answered His second Charge answered in three distinct Propositions 1. Expressions gradually different may and in Christ alwaies did flow from a Love equally intense in the Habit. This not the question 2. Nothing naturally hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from Acts of Love gradually the same Proved God's outward favours and expressions different The inward Act of his Love still one and invariable Proved against the Socinian Gods Love one infinite and substantial Act against Crellius In what sense God in Scripture said to love some more some less The doctrine of the Schools safer then that of the Socinian God by one immutable Act dispenses all the variety of his favours Illustrated The variety in Gods outward favours whence it arises Confirmed from Lombard Aquinas Scotus Applyed to the Refuter 3. In men the outward expressions ordinarily vary according to the gradual difference in the inward Acts of Love Proved by Reason and the authority of Gregory Durand Aquinas Estius The Doctors assertion hence proved as fully as the thing requires The Doctor not engaged to prove that expressions gradually different could not proceed from a Love equally intense The third Charge answered No mystery in the word proportionably The correspondence between the inward Acts of Love and the outward expressions to be understood not according to Arithmetical but Geometrical Proposition § 1. THe Doctor having now truly stated the Question in Controversie between him and his Adversary and shewed that the Acts of Christs Love of which alone he spake were sometimes gradually differenced one from another and in this respect were capable of Degrees though his habitual grace were not he comes now § 23. to explain explain he saies and not confirm or prove this by the Refuters own Confession Doctor HAMMOND 23. I Shall explain this by the Refuters own confession The Death of Christ saith he was an higher Expression of Christ's Love of ut then his Poverty Hunger or Thirst To this I subjoin that such as the Expression was such was the Act of inward love of which that was an expression it being certain that each of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions And from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superiour to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty and so the same Person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely at one time then at another which was the very thing I had said in another instance But this I have added ex abundanti more then the Refuters Discourse required of me § 2. To this our Refuter returns three things in three Sections JEANES IF you had repeated that which you call my confession full and entire as it lay in my Book the impartial and unprejudiced Reader would soon have discerned that there was in it nothing that made for your advantage My words at large are these There may be a gradual difference in the expressions of the same Love for Degree Christs Death for us was an higher expression of his love of us then his Poverty Hunger Thirst c. and yet they might proceed from a Love equally intense Now Sir have you said any thing to prove that they could not proceed from a Love equally intense You seem indeed most vehemently and affectionately to affirm that they could not but you must pardon me if I entertain not your vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae Pray Sir review this Section and put your Argument into some form If you can make good that it conteineth any disproof of what I have said unless begging the Question be argumentative you shall have my hearty leave to triumph over me as you please however untill then I shall take your words asunder and examine every passage in them Doctor HAMMOND TO this I subjoin that such as the expression was such was the Act of inward Love of which that was an expression it being certain that each of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions JEANES THat each of these expressions had an act of inward Love of which they were so many different expressions is an obvious Truth but impertinent to the matter in hand unless you can prove that they were of necessity equal in point of intension and the proof of this you have not hitherto so much as attempted Doctor HAMMOND ANd from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superior to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty and so the same person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely at one time then at another which was the very thing I had said in another instance But this I have added ex abundanti more
then the Refuters discourse required of me JEANES FRom hence whence I pray If from the words immediately foregoing then your Argument stands thus Every of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions therefore that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superior to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty And here I must profess that the reason of your Consequence is to me invisible and I shall never acknowledge your Inference legitimate untill you drive me hereunto by reducing your Enthymeme unto a Syllogisme But perhaps there may be some Mystery in the word proportionably and your meaning may be that these different expressions in regard of intension must be proportioned exactly unto their inward respective Acts of Love equal or parallel unto them And if this be your meaning then your Argument is guilty of that Fallacy which is called Petitio principii It is my desire and purpose to have faire wars with you and my pen shall not drop a disrespective syllable of you but yet I am resolved to swallow none of your proofless dictates Seing you have entred the Lists with me you must not think me irreverent and sancy if as the Souldiers speak I dispute every inch of ground with you and be so bold as to call upon you for the proof of whatsoever you assert touching that which is in controversie betwixt us § 3. And thus our valiant Hector is resolved to stand his Ground and not yield an Inch to this Achilles till he be forced and dragged by the heels about the walls of his falling Troy § 4. But I find him yielding already For he grants to the Doctor that it is an obvious Truth that each of these expressions had an Act of inward Love of which they were so many different expressions I shall desire him to remember it For I doubt not but from this poor Concession to prove the pertinency of the Doctors Discourse and also to demonstrate before we part that he can have nothing justly to reply against it § 5. In the mean while I come to give an answer to his three Charges he has laid in against the Doctor in these three several Sections § 6. The first Charge is That if the Doctor had repeated his Confession full and entire as it lay in his Book the impartial and unprejudiced Reader would soon have discerned that there was in it nothing that made for his advantage c. Because he added these words which the Doctor has omitted and yet they expressions gradually different might proceed from a Love equally intense § 7. How pertinent this reply is the Reader if he will but peruse your words at large as they lie in your * But of this we may say as he doth of Mr. Cawdrey's answer it is nothing to the matter now in hand Because there may be a gradual difference in the expressions of the same Love for Degrees Christ's death for us was an higher expression of his Love of us then his Poverty Hunger Thirst c. and yet they might proceed from a Love equally intense His argument then you see from Christs example will not serve the turn unless it conclude a greater intension in his Love of God at one time then at another And the falshood of such an assertion is evident from the point here handled and confirmed the absolute fulness of Christs grace which by the general consent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was such as that it excluded all intensive growth It was a Sequele of the Personal union and therefore it was from the very first moment of conception The Word was no sooner made Flesh but it was forthwith full of grace and truth His Love of God was uncapable of further Degrees unto whom God gave not the Spirit that is the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit by measure c Jeanes Mixture of Scholast c. Tract 2. p. 259 c. Vse of Confutation will instantly discern and that you are a most exquisite Architect for a Monument of Confusion that thus pull down with one hand what you build with the other For how I pray Sir understand you the word Love in the Clause you pretend that the Doctor has so much to your prejudice omitted of the Habit or the Act if you say of the Act of Love then you make the whole passage in your Vse of Confutation to be nothing to the matter there in hand that only concerns the fulness of Christ's habitual grace If you say it was meant of the Habit as the Antecedents and Consequents and Proofs from Scripture and the authority of the Fathers and School-men and your Subject and Title-Page confirm then this Reply is nothing to the present Purpose and you contradict not the Doctor who speaks only of a gradual difference in the Acts of Christs Love and the several expressions of them Which way soever you shall take you cannot avoid either the Quick-sand or the Rock § 8. The truth is the Doctor finding this Clause in that part of your Treatise which was designed to prove the allfulness of habitual grace in Christ he would not be so uningenuous as not to understand this general expression but with Relation to the subject matter of your discourse Your Title had proclaimed you a Writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity and the Doctor well knew that it was not the Custom of such Authors to speak loosely and at random Though in Poets and Orators whose aim is rather to delight and perswade then convince it may be pardonable to leap from one thing to another and Digressions sometimes may be looked on not as Blemishes but Ornaments yet those Military men among whom you desire to be numbred that by the power and force of Reason endeavour to conquer the Judgement and subdue it to assent must still carefully traverse their Canon to the Point otherwise they will prove as contemptible as the Gunner that has neither Powder nor Bullet and like the Engineer in Kett's camp that discharged his Artillery over the heads of his enemies they may fall by the Sword of that Conquerour whom they would be thought to have spared I doubt not but if the Doctor had made use of those words and imposed the sense on them to your disadvantage which your self do now give he should have been impleaded for injustice and you would have managed your cause by clear Arguments drawn from the Antecedents and Consequents in the Vse of Confutation But since you have shewed your self so ill a Master of Defence as by warding one blow upon the Shin to expose your whole Body to the stroke and since to acquit your self from the Doctors Argument à Concessis you are content to proclaim your self no Master of Method in a Professed Scholastical discourse and are willing when your Argument is the Habitual grace of Christ to restrain your general expressions to
the Actual of which you there spake not I am content for the present so to understand you Nor shall I labour by Consequences to rack your words to make them speak and confess that which you would not be thought to mean though this has been your own frequent Practise all along against the Doctor § 9. But then I must adde that Doctor Hammond who understood you in this Passage according to the Current of your Discourse did you therefore no wrong in omitting those words which in the sense he justly conceived he was bound to understand you did no more concern the present Debate then any part of your whole Book For it was a received and acknowledged truth on both sides that the Habit of Divine Grace was alwaies perfect and at the utmost height possible in Christ and therefore though the outward expressions were gradually different in themselves it must also mutually be granted that they must flow from a Love still equally intense in the Habit. But then this being nothing to the present controversie which only concerns the gradual difference of the Acts of Christ's Love it was no whit material whether he took it in or left it out and he might justly use his freedome without any mans offence But be your meaning what you please I shall easily grant you the liberty my good Sphinx Philosophicus to expound your own Oracles and Riddles And what then will be the issue § 10. Why then saies our Refuter and it is his second Charge The Doctor has said nothing to prove that these several expressions could not proceed from a Love equally intense Nay as he addes in the following Section he has not hitherto so much as attempted it unless vehement Asseverations be solid Arguments c. § 11. That I may give a cleer account to this Charge and bring the present debate to some issue it will be necessary to distinguish And couch the Answer I shall in these several Propositions § 12. First then I say That Expressions gradually different may flow and in Christ alwaies did from a Love equally intense as respecting the Habit. § 13. But then this is not the Question and makes nothing to the purpose unless our Refuter can prove That all the Acts of Christ's Love represented by those expressions were equally intense and full as the Habit from whence they proceeded It is true in this Reply he does vehemently and affectionately affirm it that I may retort his own language but pardon me he must if I entertain not his vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae And as he has no where in all this Pamphlet attempted the Proof of it unless begging the Question be argumentative so I know it is impossible for him to make it good and I have in due place demonstrated the contrary And therefore § 14. Secondly I say That nothing Naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that several outward expressions of Love in themselves gradually different may sometimes flow from several Acts of inward Love that are gradually the same § 15. For the outward expressions of Love being Imperate Acts of the Will and under it's command the Will is naturally free and still at Liberty unless it be by some superior cause ab intrinseco determined to one uniform expression to represent its own internal and Elicite Acts how and in what manner it pleaseth § 16. And now because this may be of some importance in this Controversie I shall to gratifie our Refuter endeavour to clear it by some apposite instances § 17. Suppose we then a Father with the same height of Actual love to affect his only Son for some space of time at least Suppose we the same Husbands or Friends to do the like in respect of the Wives of their bosomes and the inmates of Vid. Platonem in Convivio in Phaedro their Breasts We need not run to Plato's School for Examples the world does daily afford us such lovers as well as his Socrates And yet no man will say that these are alwaies bound or do or can express the same equal love after one and the same sort and with the same height and fulness For sometimes they have not the opportunity to do it and sometimes Prudence enjoines them to conceal it and sometimes there may be a necessity to express it beyond what they have or indeed can do at another time § 18. Further yet that I may clear it beyond exception we know that God loves his Chosen his Predestinate in Christ with the same equal Love not only because he loves them as in and for Christs sake but also because this inward Act of his Love is no other but himself And yet Gods outward Love and favour does not alwaies shine on them in it's Noon and Zenith sometimes it looks higher sometimes lower and though it knows no night no going down though the native light be still the same yet sometimes by the interposition of a dark opacous body the light as that of the Sun lies hidden from our sight in a sad Eclipse Sometimes the (a) Cant. 3. 1 2. Spouse in the Canticles was put to seek him whom her soul loved and though she sought him yet she found him not And therefore the Lord her Redeemer saies to her in (b) Esai 54. 8. Esay In little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee Nay it is also true of Christ (c) Matt. 3. 17. the Beloved in whom alone he was well pleased That though he were alwaies Christ alwaies God-man yet the * Leo it is that first said it and all Antiquity allow of it Non solvit unionem sed subtraxit visionem The union was not dissolved true but the Beams the Influence was restrained and for any comfort from thence his Soul was even as a scorched heath-ground without so much as any drop of dew of Divine comfort c. Bp. Andrews Serm. 2. Passion p. 356. Confer Leonem Serm. 16 17. de Passione Domini p. 53 54. humane Nature did not alwaies enjoy the comfortable influence of the Godhead And therefore we find him crying out upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me § 19. And as in respect of the same Person the light of Gods Countenance is not alwaies lift up to the same Degree of Altitude so it shines not equally on several Objects There are as well the sands and stones and desarts of Arabia as the Spices and though the whole Country enjoy the same common name and Climate yet all is not Felix but some part is Petraea and another Deserta Though those that live under the Aequator enjoy a constancy of Sun-shine and equality of Day yet those of Lapland Finland have little else but night and Frost for almost half the year together The case is very plain I believe no man will
tertiò illa quae remotiùs sunt ordinata ad attingendum Finem Cum igitur Deus rationabilissimè velit licet non diversis actibus sed tantum uno in quantum illo diversimodè tendit super Objecta ordinate primò vult finem in hoc est Actus suus perfectus Voluntas ejus beata secundò vult illa quae immediate ordinantur in ipsum praedestinando sc Electos tertiò vult illa quae sunt necessaria ad attingendum hunc sinem sc bona gratiae quartò vult propter illos alia quae sunt remotiora puta hunc mundum sensibilem ut serviat illis c. Patet igitur inaequalitas volibilium quantum ad ipsa volita non ut volitio est ipsius Voluntatis sed ut transit super Objecta modo praedicto Nec tamen illa inaequalitas est propter bonitatem praesuppositam in Objectis quibuscunque aliis à se quae sit quasi ratio sic vel sic volendi sed ratio est in ipsa Voluntate Divina quia sicut ipsa acceptat alia in gradu ita sunt bona in talia gradu non è converso Vel si'detur quod in eis ut ostensa sunt ab Intellectu ostenditur aliquis gradus bonitatis essentialis secundum quam debent complacere voluntati hoc saltem est certum quod complacentia eorum quantum ad actualem existentiam est merè ex Voluntate Divina absque alia ratione determinante ex parte eorum And then he adds in his Answer to the third Objection Et ista inaequalitas Dilectionis hoc est effectus Dilectionis concedenda est non solum quantum ad gradus specificos sed etiam in individuis ejusdem speciei nec ratio est in isto in illo sed sola Voluntas Divina c. Thus Scotus § 35. I might adde more from Durand l. 3. Sent d. 32. q. 1. art 3. Nichol. de Orbellis l. 3. Sent. d. 32. Dub. 1. Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 32. § 1. pa. 110. E. F. 111. A. B. Hales and Bonaventure Argentinus Gabriel Biel and others are quoted by H. Cavellus to this purpose in his Scholia on this place of Scotus But it were vain to fill paper with more quotations since in citing these I have pointed out all the rest And I believe there is not a writer on this distinction in the Sentences or on that question in the Summes but has expresly delivered himself to this purpose as the Master and these his Scholars had done before them § 36. And therefore I cannot chuse but wonder that our Refuter should take no notice of these or the like passages which to ordinary eyes would have shewed more to his advantage then all that he has quoted in his Pamphlet from the Schoolmen and Suarez and Scheibler to boot But this and some other Passages in his Book which offered themselves at first sight make me not value his School-learning at the same rate and price he has put upon it in the Title-Page of his Mixture But old Homer was blind though he were the prince of Poets and our writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity sees not all things in those Doctors that may most serve for his advantage § 37. Howsoever the Proverb is on his side and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his second thoughts may be wiser Now I have helped him to a Festcue and pointed him to the places we may in his next rejoinder meet with these and more the like observations For methinks I already hear him at his Dicite Io Paean Io bis dicite Paean and that as cheerfully he sings it as the great Archimâ—des did his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he had found out the Demonstration of that Probleme which a long time in vain he had attempted Here at least it is acknowledged that he has all the Schoolmen on his side and therefore did not he rationally challenge the Doctor in any of those Writers to be had in Pauls-Church-yard or the Library at Oxford § 38. But good Sir soft and fair For I doubt not but I shall yet be able to pull off the Wheeles from your Triumphal Chariot though you were now entring the very gates of the Capitol to sacrifice to your Goddesse Victory § 39. For in the third place I must tell you that though nothing naturally hinders but that the inward Acts of Love in Men may be gradually the same where the outward Expressions are gradually different yet ordinarily they are not but the inward affection commonly varies according to the intension and remission of the outward Expressions and Effects § 40. And hence it is that God Almighty is very frequently in Scripture that speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after the manner of men said to love some more then others and the same person more or less at one time then he does at another though his Love in the inward Act must of necessity be still the same because it is most usual with men from whose custom this is borrowed and applied to God that the outward Expressions do carry a proportionable correspondence to the inward Affections and as the one gradually varies so most commonly do the other Nor would the Scriptures by an Anthropopathy have applyed this to God unless it had been most usual and ordinary with men § 41. Indeed this is in it self so familiar and obvious a Truth so commonly also received among the Schoolmen that I am even ashamed at our Refuters either Ignorance or Folly that he should put the Doctor because he is a Critick to prove that which every daies experience does manifest to all sorts of people For else how can we be able to distinguish true Love from that which is hypocritical and counterfeit but only upon the supposal of this Maxime That in the ordinary course of affaires among men there is and must be a Correspondence between the inward Acts of Love and the outward Expressions Upon what score but this did our Saviour reprove Judas for betraying the Son of Man with a kiss Luke 22. 47. Judges 4. 18. 5. 25 26. When Jael courted Sisera with fair language and profers of security and protection at the time she had resolved his destruction in her heart when in one hand she brought milk and butter in a Lordly Dish and the nail and hammer in the other when Joab strook Amasa under the fifth rib and killed him and at 2 Sam. 20. 9 10. the same time cried Hail Brother and took him about the neck and kissed him where else lay the cruel hypocrisie but only in this that the outward Expressions spake abundance of Love when there was warr and blood-shed in the Heart § 42. And indeed were not this a generally-received Truth amongst men that such as are the outward Expressions such also ought the inward Acts to be and that as the one does grow or
decrease so ordinarily do the other there could be no security of any mans Love or Friendship in the world but all things must fall into Jealousie and Confusion For the inward Acts of Love being immanent Acts of the Will it is impossible that they should appear and be discovered to others but only by the outward signs and Expressions And as it is impossible that the inward and elicite Acts of the mind should be discerned and known to others but only by the outward transient Acts so also it is generally received from Saint Austin that mentiri est contra mentem ire and men in Sinceritie are bound as well candidly to express as to speak truth to their neighbours else there will be as much a Lie in the Action as is in the Tongue § 43. If our Refuter shall here reply from the 38th Page that though it be a piece of high dissembling for a man to make great pretenses and shewes of Affection when there is little or none in the Heart yet there is no such matter where either it is not expressed to the height or else totally concealed § 44. To this I answer That as there is no General Rule without exceptions so it has already been granted that it may be lawful sometimes to conceal our Love or not express it to the height and Prudence also dictates that in some cases it is both commendable and necessary to assume and put on even a * Illud hic generatim dici potest Vbicumque Simulatio aut dissimulatio per se nihil habet quod Dei gloriam laedat aut in alterum sit injurium aut nostrae laudi vel commodo nimium aurigetur eam ad breve tempus cum res ita fert adhiberi posse saepe enim ad gubernationem rerum ad consilia perficienda opus est quaedam dissimulare nonnunquam etiam severitas quaedam simulari potest in liberos aut alios qui nobis subsunt ad eos imperio continendos quod tantum abest ut reprehensionem mereatur ut potius laude sit dignum tanquam ad disciplinam servandam vehementer utile Joh. Crellii Ethic. Christian l. 4. c. 27. pa. 517. contrary Passion of Anger and Severity toward those we most tenderly affect and consequently that he is no Hypocrite that in these cases hides his Love or does not fully expresse it But then these being but extraordinary cases and exceptions from general Rules can no whit prejudice the usual contrary Practice and Obligation And hence it is that I said which this Objection no waie strikes at that ordinarily the outward Expressions must and commonly do carry a correspondence and proportionable agreement with the inward Acts of that Love which they are designed to represent § 45. And now for this in the next place I appeal to the Common Notions and general apprehensions of Mankind For all men naturally are perswaded that where they conceive the Passion is not counterfeit there such as are the outward Expressions such also is the inward Love and as the one falls or rises so also does the other I pray Sir do not you your self guesse at your welcome by the freedome and nobleness and height of your entertainment Though the Table be loaded with plenty yet if a Super omnia vultus Accesscre boni if locks Ovid. Metam come not in to grace the entertainment or if others be more friendly accosted then your self you will soon enough descry that you are none of the Guests for whom the Feast was provided and that your room would be better accepted then your company When the Jewes saw our Saviour weeping for dead Lazarus Joh. 11. 35 36. did they not make a just construction of this Action and say truly Behold how he loved him When Mary Magdalene washed Luke 7. 38 c. our Saviours feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair and kissed them and anointed them with pretious oyntment did not our Saviour from thence truly argue the greatness of her Love and prove that it was though she were a sinner far more then that of Simon his entertainer because he neither as the Custome was had offered him a kiss or oyle for his head or else water for his feet And therefore the Schools do generally conclude from Saint Gregory that Probatio dilectionis Gregor Magn. Homil. in Evangel mihi pa. 321. E. exhibitio est operis It is in his 30th Homily upon the Gospels Such as is the Expression such is also the Love and the one is the Index and Touchstone to manifest the other § 46. Indeed true Love is a very fruitful and operative thing and it cannot chuse but be communicative Like Mines of Gold and Silver in the Bowels of the Earth it manifests the rich treasure by certain Signes and Indications And though we would our selves yet it cannot will not lie hid Every Concealment laies Shackles and Bonds upon it and shuts up that in a most tedious imprisonment which was born to be free and cannot long live restrained Like the natural heat in the Body it must have its vent and therefore if the Pores be shut up it puts all in a Flame till the Passages be opened Every Tree saies Luke 6. 44 45. our Saviour is known by its fruit and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh And again If ye love me keep my Joh. 15. 21. commandements He that hath my commandements and keepeth them he it is that loveth me and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father and I will love him and manifest my self to him Indeed true Love does as naturally manifest it self by the outward Expressions as Springs of water discover themselves by the verdure of the grass they run under It 's excellence consists in doing good and being communicative and like Light it was as well made to shew it self as comfort others and it has this Property also of Light that the greater or lesse it is still in the Fountain the stronger or weaker it alwaies is in the Ray. Nay it is altogether uselesse unlesse it be working and manifesting it self and a Love concealed is altogether as if it were not What Saint James saies of Faith may be as well said of this As Jam. 2. 26. the body without the Spirit is dead so Love without works is dead also § 47. This then being the nature of true Charity the Christian grace of sincerity requires that our Love be not only such as it seems but that it appear in the effects to be such as it truly is And therefore saies S. John My little Children let 1 John 3. 18. us not love in word neither in tongue but in deed and in truth From which place Tolet in his Commentary on Rom. 12. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let Love be without dissimulation observes that Tolet. Commentar in Epist ad Rom. c. 12. p. 527 528. there are
two sorts of hypocritical and counterfeit Love Nota saies he duas dilectiones fictas simulatas Una est quae fit verbo quando aliquis amat quidem sed amor ejus non se extendit ad opera sed ad sola verba bona erga eum aut de eo quem amat Huic opponitur dilectio seu amor conjunctus operi quando qui amat verbo opere amorem internum ostendit erga amatum Joh. 14. 21. Qui habet mandata mea servat ea ille est qui me diligit et Jacob. 2. 15 16. Si frater aut soror nudi sint indigeant victu quotidiano dicat autem aliquis Ite in pace calefacimini saturamini non dederit autem ea quae necessaria sunt corpori quid proderit Haec igitur est dilectio ficta quamvis enim qui sic se habet interius aliquo modo amet tamen ad verba sola progreditur Altera est quae fit solâ linguâ quando homo non amat interius tamen exterius amare se dicit iste amat linguâ cui opponitur amor dilectio in veritate De illa dicitur Matt. 15. 8. Populus hic labiis me honorat cor autem longè est à me Joannes ergo verbo Opus linguae veritatem opponit quia ficta dilectio est quae sit verbo sine opere aut linguâ solâ Illa verò est perfecta sine simulatione quae fit opere veritate tam erga Deum quam erga proximum ad quam nunc Paulus exhortatur § 48. The Love then that is true and sincere and such as ought to be found among Christians is neither barren nor counterfeit hypocritical nor lame and is alwaies perfect as well in deed as in truth except where Christian Prudence does dictate a temporary concealment in some very few cases And therefore though he that pretends love where it is not is in that regard only an Hypocrite yet he also that pro tempore conceals it either in whole or in part puts on another shape and appears to be what he is not and in that sense does dissemble And if all men should do that which is lawful only for some time and in some cases and for good ends there could be no certainty and assurance of any man's Love or Friendship and the concealment of our Love generally would prove as dangerous as the personating of it § 49. Since then that Love and Charity where it is true and perfect cannot chuse but be operative and Sincerity requires that it appear no other then it is except only in some cases since also men apprehend where they conceive there is no deceipt that such as are the outward expressions such is also the inward Love and since there is no other way to distinguish the Hypocrite and pretender from the true Lover it necessarily follows that there is and ordinarily must be a Proportion and Correspondence in respect of Intension Remission between the inward Acts of Love and the outward Expressions and as the one falls or rises so commonly do the other and the Love else would prove imperfect and fruitlesse or counterfeit and hypocritical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 50. And now though this be sufficient to demonstrate the truth of the Assertion and to give a full and satisfactory Answer to the utmost pretences of the Objection yet because I conceive that this is all that with any colour of Reason can be said against it and we are now to deal with a Schoolman and a souldier that is resolved to dispute every inch of ground with us I shall to give him a total Rout call in the Auxiliary forces of the School And indeed it will be necessary at least for the Doctors Vindication For whereas he had most truly asserted that such as the Expression was such was the Act of inward Love of which that was an Expression it being certain that each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions this our Refuter calls a proofeless Dictate a plain begging of the Question and a Fallacy and expresly saies that the Doctor must pardon him if he entertain not his vehement Asseverations as solid Proofs as if they were Propositiones per se notae And who that reads this and a great deal more such vaunting stuffe would not verily think that the Doctor was most grosly mistaken and had asserted that for a Truth which could not possibly be made good by any shadow of Reason or Countenance from Authority But this is not the first time that our great Writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity has betrayed his Ignorance in the Schoolmen And that I may make this appear as evident as the Doctors Assertion which he so highly decries I shall now come to them § 51. To begin then with Durand Quantum ad secundum sc An ordo iste Charitatis attendatur secundum solum Durand l. 3. Sent. dist 29. art 3. E. affectum an secundum effectum Dicendum est quod secundum utrumque Cujus ratio est Quia quando duo Actus sic se habent quod unus dependet ab alio praecise sicut posterius à priore secundum ordinem qui est in primo oportet ponere ordinem in secundo Sed affectus interior effectus exterior se habent sicuti prius posterius quia effectus est posterior affectu ab ipso dependet praecise quia ad completum affectum seu ad completum velle sequitur effectus seu operari respectu eorum quae sunt nobis possibilia Ergo secundum ordinem qui est in affectu est ordo in effectu Unde Gregor in Homil. Probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis Unde ei quem plus teneor diligere in affectu teneor ex debito charitatis plus impendere in effectu si aequaliter indiget ita quod si oportet alterum carere eligendum esse illum carere qui minus ex charitate diligendus est Est etiam advertendum quod cum dicitur quod effectus correspondet affectui intelligendum est de effectu qui non est ex alia causa debitus c. Thus Durand § 52. To the same purpose Aquinas upon the same Question Utrum ordo charitatis sit attendendus secundum affectum vel secundum effectum His words are Sed contra Gregor dicit quod Probatio dilectionis est exhibitio operis si ergo secundum effectum est ordo oportet quod etiam sit secundum affectum 2. Praeterea Bonum est Objectum Charitatis quantum ad affectum sed ordo Charitatis ut dictum est attenditur secundum diversitatem bonorum ergo Charitas habet ordinem non solum secundum effectum sed etiam secundum affectum 3. Praeterea sicut Charitas principaliter affectum ita Beneficentia respicit effectum si ergo ordo esset solum secundum
effectum non esset haec ordinatio Charitatis sed solum Beneficentiae quod est contra authoritatem Canticorum in litera inductam Respond Dicendum quod effectus exterior non pertinet ad Charitatem nisi in quantum ex affectu procedit in quo primo est Charitatis actus Unde si esset ordo in effectu tantum attendendus ordo ille nullo modo ad Charitatem pertineret sed ad alias virtutes magis sicut ad Liberalitatem vel Misericordiam Unde cum Charitas ordinata perhibeatur oportet quod ordo in affectu observetur ex affectu in effectum procedat non hoc modo quod ei qui plus ex affectu diligitur magis in effectu impendatur sed quod homo sit paratus magis impendere si necesse foret quia quandoque qui diliguntur nostris auxiliis non indigent Et hoc etiam patet per simile in Natura quia unicuique rei naturali tantum inductum est à Causatore de amore naturalierga aliquid quantum necessarium est ut effectum circa id exhibeat Et similiter secundum gradum qui necesse est ut observetur in effectu ordo affectus lege Divinâ imperatur Aquin. l. 3. Sent. distin 29. q. 1. art 2. in corpore § 53. To the same purpose Estius Alia Scriptura est Gal. 6. Operemur bonum ad omnes maximè autem ad domesticos fidei Cum igitur probatio dilectionis exhibitio sit operis teste Gregorio homil 30. in Evangelia consequens erit eos maxime diligendos qui fide charitate sunt nobis conjunctiores I confess the whole is brought in by him as an Objection but I urge it only for the Antecedents sake upon which the Consequence is built And that this is acknowledged by him for an undoubted Truth that Probatio dilectionis exhibitio sit operis appears from what follows in his Resolution of the Question ibid. p. 102. col 2. C. D. Vt ad haec objecta breviter respondeamus sciendum circa id quod primo loco objiciebatur quorumdam fuisse opinionem quam in textu Magister recitat omnes proximos pari charitatis affectu diligendos esse etsi non pari charitatis effectu i. e. operum exhibitione prosequendos And what say you now Mr. Refuter are not you one of this number at least by just and lawful consequence Quam sententiam merito Magister rejicit pray mark it Sir against another time S. Thomas refutat 2. 2. q. 26. art 6. quia sicut in naturalibus ita in spiritualibus oportet Inclinationem rei proportionatam esse actui ejus convenienti Quare sicut Terra majorem habet gravitatem quam Aqua eo quod naturâ petat locum inseriorem ita major debet esse affectus Charitatis erga eos quibus debemus externa beneficentiae opera Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 39. § 5. p. 102. col 1. C. col 2. C. D. § 54. Aquinas in his Summes delivers the same Doctrine Respondeo Dicendum quod 2ª Opinio circa hoc fuit Quidam enim dixerunt quod omnes proximi sunt aequaliter ex charitate diligendi quantum ad affectum sed non quantum ad exteriorem effectum ponentes ordinem dilectionis esse intelligendum secundum exteriora beneficia quae magis debemus impendere proximis quam alienis non autem secundum interiorem affectum quem aequaliter debemus impendere omnibus etiam inimicis Sed hoc irrationabiliter dicitur Non enim minus ordinatus est affectus Charitatis qui est inclinatio Gratiae quam Appetitus naturalis qui est inclinatio Naturae Utraque enim inclinatio ex Divina sapientia procedit Videmus enim in naturalibus quod inclinatio naturalis proportionatur actui vel motui qui convenit Naturae uniuscujusque sicut Terra majorem habet inclinationem gravitatis quam Aqua quia competit ei esse sub Aqua Oportet ergo quod etiam inclinatio Gratiae quae est affectus Charitatis proportionetur his quae sunt exterius agenda How say you Sir what think you now of your Doctor Critick had he not the Schoolmen before his eyes when he delivered his Proposition in the very English reddition of Aquinas words And is it not certain as he said that each of these Expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different Expressions ita scil ut ad eos intensiorem Charitatis affectum habeamus quibus convenit nos magis beneficos esse c. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 26. art 6. in Corpore § 55. Upon which place Cajetan thus Secundò repugnat corpori praesentis articuli Nam contra primam opinionem conclusum est quod proportionalis est interior dilectionis affectus exteriori Beneficentiae Si enim Benevolentia Beneficentia proportionatae sunt non erit Benevolentia ad omnes Beneficentia ad quosdam Et si una est ad quosdam altera ad omnes sequitur quod non respondeant sibi invicem proportionaliter Ad quod dubium dicitur quod procedit ex malo intellectu Literae Non enim in Litera docemur proportionalitatem simpliciter absolutè inter diligere benefacere quia potius ut modo expositum est falsa invenitur ista proportionalitas sed traditur in Litera proportio inter Beneficentiam Benevolentiam ita quod major Beneficentia I pray mark it Sir praesupponit majorem Benevolentiam ut causam Et hoc contra opinionem dicentem quod erat major Beneficentia absque majori Benevolentia how say you now Mr. Refuter Ex hac enim proportione sc quod major Benevolentia major Beneficentia mutuò se inferunt non sequitur quod si Benevolentia est ad omnes Beneficentia sit ad omnes hoc enim est extra rationem majoris minoris intensivè de quibus est sermo I pray again mark it sed bene sequitur quod major est Benevolentia ad illos ad quos est major Beneficentia Cajetan in loc § 56. It were vain to trouble the Reader and my self with more quotations to this purpose I dare say not any Author on the Summes or the Sentences that have written on these questions but have declared their minds concerning that Proportion that is and ought to be between the inward Acts of Love and the outward Expressions as the Doctor here has done § 57. That I may not fill paper with Translations the summe and substance of the former Doctrine in short is this That there is and ought to be a proportionable correspondence betwixt the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love and that the one does manifest the other according to that of S. Gregory Probatio dilectionis est exhibitio operis For the Cum ergo causa per Accidens non sit proportionata ad Effectum sed solum Causa per se c. Aquin 2. Sent. d.
21. q 1. art 3. in Corp. outward Expressions depending precisely upon the inward Acts as the Effect upon their Cause it necessarily follows that the more I love the greater Expressions of this Love I am bound to exhibite and to whom I am bound to shew the greater tokens of Love him I ought to love more in proportion to the Expressions otherwise let me adde the Love will be lame and imperfect or else hypocritical and counterfeit Not that every man is bound at all times to express his Love according to the height and intension of the inward Act but that he is obliged to do it when a just Occasion offers and a Necessity requires it For sometimes they whom we love do not either stand in need at all of our outward signs and expressions or perhaps do lesse want them then others lesse beloved or else there may not be a fit Opportunity to express our Love unto the height when they want or we desire or perhaps it may be more advantage for those we love to have the height and Ardour of this Love for the present concealed as we also have already intimated But then though sometimes it be convenient not to expresse our Love unto the height yet ordinarily it is required that there be a proportion and agreement in respect of Intension and Remission between the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love For the affection of Charity which is an inclination of Grace is not less ordinate then the Appetite and Inclination of Nature because both flow from the same divine Wisedome But we see in Nature that the inward Appetite is proportioned to that outward Act and Motion which is proper to every thing For the Earth has a greater inclination to gravity then Water which naturally is seated above it And therefore since as the good Father said Amor meus pondus meum since Love is as it Augustin were the weights and plummets of the Soul the more the Soul loves in the inward Act the more it carries the Soul to higher and nobler Expressions and a proportionable agreement and correspondence there will and must be between the inward Affection and the outward Effects and as the Bounty increases and is more intense so in proportion does the Love which is the very same that the Doctor had asserted § 58. And this was abundantly sufficient to the Doctors purpose though he never had attempted to prove that Expressions gradually different in themselves could not flow from several Acts of Love that were gradually the same or that the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love were of necessity equal in point of Intension For since you grant to the Doctor that it is an obvious Truth That each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love in Christ of which they were so many different Expressions then if to use Cajetan's word major Benevolentia major Beneficentia mutuò se inferunt and unless there be a proportion between the outward and the inward Acts of Love the Inclinations of Grace as Aquinas proves would be less orderly then those of Nature the Doctor might very well conclude that where the outward Expressions were gradually different there the inward Acts from whence the Expressions issue were gradually different also If it be ordinarily so with all others that the greater Expressions argue the greater Love what should hinder but that the Doctor might conclude it was so in Christ § 59. It will not be enough to Reply in this case and yet this is all you have to say that the Doctor has said nothing to prove that these Expressions which are acknowledged to be gradually different in themselves might not could not proceed from a Love equally intense § 60. For though nothing naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that different Expressions because they are imperate Acts of the Will and subject to its Command may flow from Acts of Love still the same for Degrees yet ordinarily they do not And therefore unless you can shew that the case is different in Christ from all other men and that every Act of his Love that flowed from the same all-full all-perfect Habit of Divine Charity was of the same height and intenseness and equal to the Habit it cannot be denied but that the Doctors Conclusion is most rational and just § 61. For Morality admits not of Mathematical Demonstration but as the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 1. Eth. c. 3. §. 1. great Master of Method tells us sufficient it is if here the Conclusion be inferred from Praemisses and Medium's that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and most commonly so And therefore Sir if the gradual intension and remission in the inward Expressions do most commonly argue and inferr a proportionable increase and decrease in the inward Acts of Love you must needs be unjust for charging the Doctor for not saying any thing to prove that these different Expressions could not proceed from a Love equally intense and for speaking impertinently to the matter in hand unless he can prove that they were of necessity equal in point of Intension For why should you require the Proof of that which the nature of things will not admit of The Doctor now was not engaged in the Demonstration of a Mathematical but an Ethical Probleme for the Schoolmen will tell you of Theologia Moralis and he that proves that such a Proposition is most commonly so has as demonstratively concluded as that Science does re-require § 62. But why cannot the Doctors Conclusion evidently follow unless he can first prove that they ought of necessity to be equal in point of Intension For will you therefore conclude because Expressions gradually different may flow since there is no necessary reason to the contrary from Acts of Love gradually the same that therefore they do so or necessarily must If you should as you intimate by this your redoubling your charge against the Doctor I must tell you that you are guilty of arguing A potentia ad Actum affirmativè which is the most simple and palpable Sophisme of all just as if I should argue Because nothing naturally and of necessity hinders but that Mr. Jeanes may be a Jesuite in a Ministers cloak therefore without doubt he is so § 63. Whereas you then put the Question to the Doctor and thus ask him Now Sir have you said any thing to prove that they Expressions of Love gradually different could not proceed from a Love equally intense and then adde in the following Section That though it be an obvious Truth that each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love of which they were so many different Expressions yet it is impertinent unto the matter in hand unless he can prove that they were of absolute necessity equal in point of Intension the proof whereof he has not hitherto so much as attempted It is evident you are mistaken and the
Doctors Conclusion will rationally and clearly follow though he never attempts to prove that which you so eagerly require and though indeed it is impossible for him to perform it in respect of every Act. And so much for your second Charge § 64. And now because you profess and it is your third Charge that the reason of the Doctors Consequence is to you invisible and that you shall never acknowledge his Inference legitimate untill you be driven thereunto by reducing his Enthymeme unto a Syllogisme I shall once for your better satisfaction perform it Thus then If ordinarily there is and must be a proportionable agreement in respect of Intension and Remission betwixt the inward Acts of Love and the outward Expressions then that Act of internal Love expressed by Christs Dying for us was superiour to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty c. But the Antecedent is true as we have shewed from Reason and Experience and the Authority of Gregory and the Schoolmen Therefore also is the Consequent § 65. And thus you see Sir that there was no Mystery but a plain and obvious Truth in the word proportionably Not as if the Doctor thereby had meant as you descant that these different expressions in regard of their Intension must be proportioned exactly unto their inward respective Acts of Love equal or parallell unto them but only thus That the greater or the less the outward Expressions are the greater or the less commonly are the inward Acts of Love For here I must mind you of a known Distinction There is an Equality of Proportion and an Equality of Quantity and it is made use of by Estius to Estius 3. Sent. d. 29. §. 5. p. 104. col 2. E this very purpose For whereas among other Passages this also had been urged out of Austin for an Equality of Love where the Expressions were different Quis est inquit qui non judicat personaliter qui diligit aequaliter Dilectio aequalis facit non acceptari personas Nam cum homines diverso modo pro suis gradibus honoramus tunc timendum est nè personas accipiamus Augustin tract 30. in Joan. To this Estius there answers Non aliam hîc requirit aequalitatem quam quae personarum acceptionem excludit Itaque aequalitatem intelligit Proportionis non Quantitatis So say I is the Doctor to be understood as speaking of an Equality of Proportion betwixt the outward Expression and the inward Act and not as you would have him to mean an Equality of Quantity Sufficient it is if as the inward Acts of Love increase or diminish the outward Expressions do so too though the increase and decrease in both be not parallel and exactly equal § 66. But in case that Distinction should be quarrelled at yet I hope this of your great Master Aristotle shall be allowed He tells us in his Ethicks of a twofold Proportion and it is approved of as most undoubted by all Mathematicians in the world for ought I ever could find to the contrary The one * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist li. 5. Ethic. ca. 3. §. 8. Vid. l. 5. Eth. c. 4. §. 1 2. Et l 2. c. 6. §. 2. Quod proportionem Arithmeticam observat eodem modo semper se habet ubique atque omnibus unum idemque est quod proportionem observat Geometricam hoc non ubique aut omnibus aut semper est idem sed pro rerum diversitate varium l. Crellii Eth. Aristotel par 2. c. 5. p. 42. Arithmetical Proportion is when divers numbers differ according to equal reason that is have equal differences Geometrical Proportion is when divers numbers differ according to like reason c. Wingate's Arithmetick Natural lib. 1. c. 9. §. 4. 17. he calls from them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the first the Proportion Arithmetical the increases are alwaies equal as in 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. in the other the Geometrical they are like as 2. 4. 8. 16. 32. When therefore the Doctor saies that there is a proportionable difference between the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love and that as the one increases and decreases in respect of Intension and Remission so also do the other he is to be understood that the increase or decrease between them is not according to Arithmetical Proportion so as the Intension in the outward Act is still equal to the Intension of the inward but only according to Geometrical Proportion and that as the inward Act increases so in like manner also does the outward though the Intension be not equal and parallel in both § 67. And thus you see Sir though the Doctor added it ex abundanti more then your discourse required of him that even from hence from hence I say he did justly suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by Christ's Dying for us was superiour to those former Acts expressed in his Poverty c. And so the same Person that loved sincerely did also love and expresse that Love more intensely at one time then at another quod erat demonstrandum and was the very thing he had said in another Instance And so I proceed to the next Section SECTION 12. The Doctors proof of the vanity of the Refuters Vse of Confutation made good from the Refuters Mixture The Refuters Reply endeavour to make good his Charge by Consequences impertinent The Refuters momentous Objection strikes as well against himself and other his friends as the Doctor The weakness of it The intension of Christs actual Grace so proportioned to that of his habitual Grace as not to exceed it but not so still as to equal it Illustrated by a clear instance The Schoolmen no where say that the Intension of Christs actual Grace is exactly equal to that of his habitual Aquinas of the Refuters not the Doctors citation He speaks fully to the Doctors purpose What meant by works the effects of wisdom and Grace in Aquinas An intensive growth in the inward Acts of wisdom Grace argues not an intensive increase in the Habits Asserted also by the Refuter Cleared by a Distinction The Chedzoy Challenge The vanity of it Christ did gradually increase in the Acts of wisdom and Grace as he did in stature Proved from the Refuters Mixture from Ames Vorstius Grotius Hooker Field Suarez Estius Others both Fathers and Schoolmen and Reformed Divines The Defenders advise to the Refuter to be more wary in his challenges Doctor HAMMOND 24. IT now only remaines that I consider whether this Refuter have in the process of his Discourse added any thing wherein I may be any whit concerned 25. And 1. saith he the falshood of such an Assertion is evident from the point there handled and confirmed the absolute fulness of Christs Grace which by the general consent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was such as that it excluded all
to demonstrate and was sufficient to secure him from your Vse of Confutation that spake clearly of another thing then he meant § 15. But for the present be it granted that the Doctor meant to make advantage by this latter Passage of Aquinas and thence had concluded that as Aquinas denied all increase in the habitual Grace of Christ so he no waies denied but asserted a Capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Christs Love of God and the Expressions of it as appears from this place of Aquinas by him cited in his answer ad 3 m. For does not Aquinas say there expresly that as Christ increased in Age so he did in Wisedom and Grace because according to the process of his Age he did more perfect more wise and vertuous works and that both in things belonging to God and Men also And have we not already cleared it from Aquinas that such as the outward Expressions of Grace are such are also the inward Acts from whence they flow and that the Schoolmen in particular Aquinas do generally maintain from Saint Gregory that Probatio dilectionis is Exhibitio operis If this be clear as indeed it is why then might not the Doctor say truly that the Consent of the Schoolmen was no way denying as most plain it is to any man that will read the places by you cited because they speak not a word expresly of the inward Acts but rather asserting for the Doctor though he positively there speaks must be comparatively understood a Capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Christ's Love of God and the Expressions For that Aquinas speaks plainly of a gradual difference in the Expressions of Christs Love your self do maintain and that this by consequence implies a gradual difference in the inward Acts themselves whereof they were Expressions we have also declared to be the opinion of Aquinas and other of the Schoolmen § 16. But how plain is it I pray Sir that in that place of Aquinas by the Effects of Wisedom Grace are meant such as are only outward Is it because these are most properly termed works § 17. But now suppose Sir this reason be invalid For what I pray Sir do you think of a Mathematical Demonstration Arist l. 2. Eth. c. 6. §. 3. Our Refuters Master Scheibler also calls a mental Syllogisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a work Vid. Scheibler Metaph. l. 2. c. 10. n. 29. p. 703. already quoted Is it not truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opus a work why else does Aristotle say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet I hope you will not say that it is external as it is an intellectual work and purely formed in the brain and there subjected For no necessity lies upon the Mathematician to express by words or writing the Demonstration he has framed But perhaps you heard of the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that in artificial productions such as properly are Poietical the works as they are permanent and lasting so they are commonly external But does not Aquinas expresly say that alio modo proficere quis potest secundum effectus in quantum sc aliquis sapientiora virtuosiora opera facit et sic Christus proficiebat sapientiâ gratiâ sicut aetate And are not the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace as truly nay more properly the Effects of the infused Habit of Wisedom and Grace then any outward Expressions of them For the inward Acts that flow from this Habit as the Effect from the Cause are the proper natural elicite Acts of the Will but the other are imperate transient Acts. Besides I would desire our Refuter to tell me how it is possible for any man to do sapientiora virtuosiora opera or perfectiora opera sapientiae virtutis where the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace are supposed to be the same For I must here remember him of his own distinction and tell him that the * Suppono ex prima 2 da q. 20 21. proprium formale meritum esse in actu elicito Voluntatis actus vero externos per se non addere me ritum actui Voluntatis neque esse formaliter intrinsece meritorios sed solum per extrinsecam denominationem ab actu meritorio voluntatis à quo imperantur extrinsece seu moraliter informantur sicut etiam ab illo denominantur liberi studio si Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 39. sect 1. p. 540. col 1. C. D. Vide Aquin. 1. 2. q. 20. art 1. in corp Cajetan alios in loc outward works are not properly called works of Wisedom and Grace but only by a Metonymy of the Effect and by extrinsecal denomination it is the very same with the outward Expressions of Wisedom and Grace as he saies of the outward Expressions of Love that are Love only by extrinsecal Denomination and the Metonymy of the Effect And therefore †Suarez in tert part Thom. q. 7. p. 315. col 2. E. F. in Comment ad loc infra citat Suarez who without doubt as well understood Aquinas as our Refuter or any man else expounds him in his Commentary on this very place of an intensive growth of the inward Acts themselves of Wisedom and Grace as shall in this Section be manifested in due place § 18. The truth is Aquinas is no otherwise to be understood and though the word Opus a work sometimes signifies that which is external yet it is generally received in the Schooles that a Moral work or Action such as these without doubt are of which Aquinas speakes in this place consists both of the inward Act of the Will and the outward Performance as the two essential Parts that concur to the being and constitution of a Moral Action For this let Suarez speak * Suarez tom 1. in 1. part Thom. disp 38. sect 4. p. 519. col 2. A B. Illud praeceptum saies he directè cadit in ipsum Actum exteriorem qui est objectum interioris Actus Voluntatis qui etiam consequenter praecipitur quatenus cum exteriori componit unum Actum moralem liberum But to make it more authentick let us hear Aquinas himself †Aquinas 1. 2. q. 20. art 3. in corp respons ad 1m. Vide Cajetan in loc Dicendum saies he quod sicut supra dictum est Actus interior Voluntatis Actus exterior prout considerantur in genere moris sunt unus Actus In Corp. And then in his Answer ad primum Dicendum saies he quod ratio illa probat quod Actus interior exterior sunt aiversi secundum genus naturae sed tamen ex sic diversis constituitur unum in genere moris ut supra dictum est The place he refers to is in the 17th Question art 4. in corp Thus Sicut autem in genere rerum naturalium aliquod totum componitur ex materia forma ut homo ex
Grace in Christ he knew it was not necessary so precisely to distinguish that phrase the Love of God which the whole subject matter of that argument must needs clear to be understood as parallel and aequipollent to habitual Grace and the Acts of it § 37. Besides the Doctor in the very entrance of that Treatise § 2 3. had so fully cleared his own and the Refuters meaning saying expresly that the Refuters meaning was this that he had affirmed Christ's Love of God meaning thereby the habitual Grace of divine Charity to have been capable of further Degrees so as that capacity of further Degrees is the denial of all fulness of that habitual Grace already in him and accordingly in that Treatise he makes answer to that Charge that no other sense could by any ingenuous man be affixed unto that Phrase § 38. Adde to this that the Doctor expresly denies that he ever said these words That Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees And now I shall desire our Refuter to shew me so much as the very subject of it Christs Love of God in terminis either in the Treatise of Will-worship or the Defence of it against Mr. Cawdrey The truth is the Proposition is none of the Doctors and all that the Refuter pretends to is that he rightly inferred it from these words in the Account That Sincere Account to Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diat c. 6. sect 9. §. 5. Love is capable of Degrees as appears among other instances from the Example of Christ more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another and therefore in all equity must have no other meaning and signification then what the place from whence it is pretended to be deduced does admit of which can be no other then what we have given of it And though the Doctor here acknowledge that those other words not found in his Papers are yet not illogically inferred from them viz. That Christ's Love of God was capable of further Degrees more intense at one time then at another yet he that best knew his own meaning there expresly declares that they only import that Christs Love of God or holy Charity in the general Notion as he distinctly expresses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 12. it § 14. had in its Latitude or Amplitude several Degrees one differing from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in that full all-perfect Love of God which was alwaies in Christ so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees Besides that this and no other could be his meaning is evident from his instancing in that Place whence the Proposition is pretended to be inferred in the different Ardency of Christ in several Acts of Prayer which is rather an Act of Religion then Charity And though it be founded in Charity and flowes from it yet Prayer that is Deprecation or Petition such as that of Christ's then was is rather an effect of that Love of God which the Schooles call Amor Concupiscentiae a love of God for our own sakes then that which they call Amor Amicitiae a love of God purely for himself Vid. Durand l. 3. Sent. d. 28 q. 1. art 1. B. and nothing else Beseech God indeed we do to help us because we believe he is the fountain of all goodness which makes the Act formally an Act of Religion and rather to be radicated in Charity then formally and immediatly an Act of Love the Effect and issue of Charity rather then it § 39. Adde to this that the Doctor expresly saies that the Vide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 14 15 16 18 21 22. word Love in that Passage was to be taken by a Synecdoche generis for the Acts of holy Charity and not for habitual Love § 40. And then he explains his meaning by an instance taken from the Refuters own Confession thus The Death of Christ §. 22. saith he was an higher expression of Christ's Love of us of us but for God's sake then his Hunger c. To this I sub join That such as the expression was such was the Act of inward Love c. And so the same person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely then at other times Love but what God as the immediate Object no that was neither the meaning of the Refuter nor the Doctor But us he loved and expressed that Love to us more in his Death then any other Act of holy Charity and Love to us An Act of Charity Love of God this was without doubt which he bestowed on us but us in these Acts he loved immediatly for Gods sake § 41. This will further appear by the several other Phrases he uses as aequipollent to this of the Love of God For sometimes nay most commonly he rather uses the word Love absolutely then the Love of God sometimes he expresses it by Graces sometimes by Acts of vertue sometimes in the Concrete thus a sincerely-pious man a true lover of God c. § 42. I confess I have been over tediously curious in this part of the Reply But I conceive it necessary to shew how beyond all possibility of defence this Refuter is unjust in affixing that other sense to the Doctors words which he never meant nor could possibly serve his turn But so it was that the Doctor had so fully acquitted himself from the Vse of Confutation that nothing now but Consequences and new-devised meanings of words and phrases would help him and he was forced of necessity to prevaricate otherwise it had not been possible to have found out a Medium to have confuted Doctor Hammond a second time And as the Reader will see a necessity of this Travel before the Discourse is ended so I doubt not but the ingenuous will therefore pardon it § 43. Well then it being plain that this phrase the Love of God may be taken generally in confuso as they speak in the Schooles and as it prescinds or abstracts from this or that particular Act or else specially as it relates in particular to the prime and most noble Act of Divine Charity that is immediatly terminated in God and it being as plain that Doctor Hammond takes it in the first sense when he saies that The Love of God or the Acts of that Love do consist in a latitude and if we compare them one with another are more intense at one time then another it now remains that I make good the Assertion for the full and absolute acquitting of the Doctor Which I do by these Arguments § 44. Where there is and of necessity must be a gradual rence and more in respect of the goodness of the Objects of the Habit of Charity or the Love of God there is and of necessity there must be also a gradual difference in respect of the several Acts of this Habit of Charity or the Love of God
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
Charity here signifie not outward sensible expressions but morall duties Proved from Aquinas Cajetan Suarez His second Reason His Ignorance and Confusion in it Necessity Liberty of three kinds What. He denyes Christ to be the meritorious Cause of our Salvation He confounds Christ's naturall liberty of Will with the morall liberty of the Action Contradicts Scripture Christ how no more free to the outward Expression then the inward Act. How indifferent Actions determined Christ how free to the use of outward Expressions how not Proof from Suarez examined Grossely misunderstood What Suarez intends Defenders advise to the Refuter JEANES As for the second sentence that a Tempestuous time a time of Christs affliction was a season for his zeal to pour it self out more profusely then in a calmer season This is not I grant denyed by me if by this more profuse pouring out of his zeal you onely understand the outward expressions of his zeal but I cannot but extreamly wonder that you affirm this to be the utmost that you undertook to demonstrate to M. Cawdrey or to justifie now against me For first in your answer to M. Cawdrey c. § 1. SIr I must here declare to all the world that I am quite tyred with your Impertinencies What The Doctor so weak and shallow as to think zeal and the more profuse pouring it out at such a time to be nothing else but a louder Noise and a deeper sigh and perhaps a Groan Is this all the honour our Refuter will allow to this heightned Ardency of our Saviours Devotion Is this the encrease and all the Earnestness of it was this worth the recording by the Evangelist for our after-instruction No Sir the Doctor knows too too well the difference between true zeal and loud noise He knows this is a Fruit of the Spirit a Flame in the soul that mounts up to the throne of Grace a Flame that is quickned and made active and vigorous by the Wind and Storms of Affliction that blow upon it It is of the heightening these inward Acts of Piety and zeal and fervency in Prayer that the Doctor understands Saint Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the graduall Intention of these and the like Inward Acts the Doctor has not onely justified against M. Cawdrey but I also all along have demonstrated against you And therefore your following Reasons to prove a difference between the Inward Acts and the outward Expressions might have been spared and you lose time to no purpose in evidencing that which was never denyed and is so plain in it self that it needs no confirmation § 2. But let us hear Reason howsoever for now perhaps we shall find it at parting JEANES For first in your answer to M. Cawdrey you affirm by ††If it be not a fault in the Printer Master Jeanes is much mistaken for it should be by consequence if I understand Logick consequent that Christs Love of God was capable of further and higher degrees but Love is predicated of the outward expressions thereof onely analogically Analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas dicitur de urinâ Secondly In this your reply c. § 3. To the first I could wish Sir you had told us the Place for as yet I know not where to find it I remember indeed the Doctor asserts and makes good in his Treatise of will-worship that Christs Ardency in Prayer was heightened in his Agony and M. Cawdrey in his Triplex Diatribe acknowledges Cawdrey Triplex Diatribe p. 116. the Proof and sayes Christ was above the Law and did supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and so in the degree of affection in Prayer it self c. And as this is all the Ardency that the Doctor either directly or by consequence affirms of Christ so this of M. Cawdreys is the very distinct confession of all that the Doctor in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contends for And will you be so cruelly passionate to wound a Friend that you may strike him you count an Enemy because he tells you the truth If M. Cawdrey be Orthodox then surely Doctor Hammond is unjustly opposed and if the Doctors Tenet be erroneous then M. Cawdrey himself must fall under that use of Confutation that was first written in his Defence Either then Sir take in your bloody flagg of defiance that you hang out with such Terrour and Menace in your Title-Page or let the world plainly understand your new and exquisite Policy to confute by an Apology and though you name onely Doctor Hammond yet you also mean M. Cawdrey though as the world now goes you must seem to abet him Compare your Title-Page and this very passage together and see whether it fits best M. Cawdrey or the Doctor But not to intrude upon your secret thoughts and designs you plainly here manifest to the world that you have read the Doctors Account and Answer to the Triplex Diatribe And therefore I must proclaim you inexcusable as well for not understanding if not plainly perverting the Doctors sense so expresly there declared as for not taking notice at all of the Answers he made to many of your Objections before you undertook to Refute his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 4. And therefore what you add But love is predicated by the outward expressions thereof onely analogically Analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas dicitur de urinâ is nothing at all to this purpose § 5. For the Doctor confounds not the Outward Expressions with the Inward Acts but onely à posteriori concludes the heightening of the one by the multiplying and aggrandation and growth of the other As then the Philosopher collects and demonstrates the Cause by the Effect as the Mariner portends the greatness of the storm by the leaps and playing of the Porcpisce and other signs and observations as the Mathematician from the print of Hercules foot in the sand or snow did find out the true dimensions of his Body so S. Gregory has told us that probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis that the performance of the outward work is the true Index and Touchstone and proof of our Love And nature it self teaches us without any other Tutor to conclude the Inward Affection to be greatest where the Outward Expressions of Love are most eminent § 6. Though then Love as you say is predicated of the Outward Expressions thereof onely analogically analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas de urina yet since the Outward Expressions if true and genuine and not hypocriticall and counterfeit are the Fruits and signs of the Inward Affection we may then by the Graduall difference of them conclude the Rise or Abatement of that Love as the Physician judges of the health or sickness of his patient by his urine and other symptomes § 7. And therefore Sir if you will but grant me as you do the Doctor that a Tempestuous time a Time of Christs affliction was a season for his zeal to pour
it self out more profusely even in Outward Expressions then at a calmer season I shall not doubt to conclude that his Inward Devotion was also then more enlarged I never read of any but the Hypocrite and Crocodile that have Tears at command and can assume a sad countenance and at pleasure disfigure their faces and counterfeit a passion True zeal and devotion knowes no other expressions then what are Naturall and Genuine Gods Spirit gives no Rules no Examples for the heightening of our Outward Devotion onely nor to make a Trade of lifting up the eye and smiting the breast and making the Tears full and raising of our Cryes and Noise They were the Pharisees onely that did teach and practise such Arts and I read of miscreant Jews that were professed Praeficae and hired mourners at funeralls We need no Tutors nor Instructors to teach us to express the true passions of the heart They whether we will or no uncommanded unthought of rise and fall as the soul it self is affected Nature teaches us this lesson and it is the first that we practise The Child the more it longs after the Mother or the Nurse the more it cryes and sheds tears and the further they go from it the louder still it calls and the more earnest more violent are the Shrikes and lamentations If a man be fallen into a Pit or have lost his way among the Woods the deeper he finds the Pit and the more remote from any Village or company that he conceives himself to be the louder he calls and the more multiplies his cryes It is just so with a truly sanctified soul The more eager and violent is her Love of God the more earnestly it longs and Psal 51. 1 and 12. yearns after him and the comforts of his presence and when God withdraws himself from it the further that he seems to remove the deeper still is the sigh the more humble the Prostration the more dejected the countenance and the more earnest are the Cryes and more plentifull the Tears and the more ardent still the Prayers Our earnest Longings and * Psal 42. per tot pantings after God and the Joy of his countenance without any other Monitor and Instructor can advance and heighten our devotions Indeed nothing but Love and more then ordinary Affection can quicken and raise them as nothing but Moses Rod could make the Waters flow and gush forth from the Rock in the Wilderness Love is often compared to Fire As then the Fire must raise the Spirits in the Alembick before any water can distill and drop and as the more Spirits are raised by it the more Water issues forth so the Flames of holy Love must first raise the spirit of zeal and devotion in us before it will dissolve into Tears and breathe out in Sighs and as that spirit of zeal and true devotion does increase the deeper will be the Groan the more vehement will be our Prayers And therefore S. †Mat. 27. 46. Mar. 15. 34. Matthew tells us that our Saviour when * Subtraxit visionem non dissolvit unionem Leo. now the comfortable Influence of the Deity was suspended he cryed with a loud voyce My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And of this devotion this Ardency it is the Doctor speaks and of this onely he understands S. Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed the more carnestly § 8. And therefore you to no purpose add when the case already is so plain JEANES Secondly In this your reply unto me you expresly averr that the inward Acts of Christs Love of God were more intense at one time then at another Sect. 21. and I hope you have more Philosophy then to confound the inward Acts and the outward expressions of Love That which herein hath occasioned your mistake c. § 9. What the Doctor so expresly averrs in his 21. Section has already been cleared and sufficiently demonstrated And though you beguile your self and others with the ambiguity of this Term the Love of God yet the Doctors meaning is so plain that it is impossible for any man to be deceived in it that resolves not to be willingly mistaken § 10. But you are not deluded in your hopes The Doctor has more Philosophy then to confound the Inward and Outward Acts and Expressions of Love though you betray so little Ethicks to divide and sever them For though the Metaphysician and Naturalist may precisely and abstractly consider them yet the Divine and Moralist know that as the Soul Vid. Durand l. 2. sent dist 42. q 1. A. B. C q. 2. ib. Aquin 1. 2. q. 11 art 4. q. 18. art 6. in Corp. q. 20. art 3. in corp Suarez infra citat and Body make a man so the Inward and the Outward Act concurr to make up one compleat Moral Action Without this the Outward Expressions are but empty Paint and Varnish and all that they can do is but to dress and tire an Hypocrite to make him truely more ugly because it onely makes him more handsome to the eye and appear otherwise then he is § 11. And now our Refuter as if he were some Licentiate in Physick having cast the Doctors Water and as he conceives discovered his distemper he proceeds to acquaint him with the Procatartick cause of his Malady JEANES That which hath herein occasioned your mistake is I believe a supposal that the inward acts of love and the outward expressions thereof are if they be sincere alwayes exactly proportioned in point of degree but this proposition hath no truth in it as you will easily find if you attempt the proof of it who almost but may easily c. § 12. That the Inward Acts of Love and the Outward expressions thereof if they be sincere are alwayes exactly that is Arithmetically proportioned in point of degree so as they be equall and parallel in graduall intension * Jeanes Answer to the Ectenest p. 16. as you formerly express your self is an imaginary phantà sm and Creature of your own brain and no supposall of the Doctors But that the Ardency of the Inward Acts does ordinarily rise and fall according to Geometricall proportion as the Outward Expressions gradually do though the increase and decrease is not Arithmetically parallel in both is a most commonly received Truth in the practise and opinion of all sorts of people in the world for ought I find to the contrary and has been already demonstrated and therefore needs not further Proof § 13. What follows is a very clear mistake and belongs not to the matter you would prove by it When therefore you ask the question and say JEANES p. 38. Who almost but may easily conceive how 't is very ordinary for the outward expressions of Love to be gradually beneath the inward Acts thereof He is no hypocrite in expressing his Love that loveth inwardly more then he expresseth outwardly the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall but also transcend the most sincere expressions of Love It
may be so in all men and I shall alleage two reasons why in Christ c. § 14. To your first question I return that it is readily granted For every prudent Father does often deal so with the child he most loves and God himself sometimes in mercy hides his face and withdraws the light of his countenance from his dear children and servants when yet with an everlasting Love he affects and with everlasting kindness will have Jer. 31 3. Isa 54. 8. mercy upon them But will you thence conclude against the express letter of the Gospell that Christs earnestness in prayer was not greater in his Agony then at other times Sir you must consider that you are not now to remonstrate what may possibly come to pass or what in other men at other times and in other cases happens but what de facto then was at the time of our Saviours bloody Agony And who sees not at first glance that your Proofs fall a hundred short of your Conclusion For we are not now upon the disquisition and enquiry of what was Physicê and naturally possible but what was Morally such and what de facto according to S. Lukes plain Narration and the ordinary course and Practise of men did then come to pass And therefore since the Rule of the Law is that illud possumus quod Jure possumus if it has already appeared and clearly been demonstrated that the Christian Grace of Sincerity does ordinarily and in most cases require it and usually where the Charity is true and perfect and not counterfeit or innocently concealed for the advantage of the beloved there is and ought to be a proportionable correspondence between the Outward and the Inward Acts of Love and as the one falls or rises so also in Proportion do the other then it will not be enough to inferr which yet is all you conclude that the degrees of the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall but also transcend the most sincere expressions you must prove that they still must and ought to do so which I think will be impossible But yet let me tell you that if you should perform this more then Herculean Task you will still be very far short of concluding any thing against the Doctor For again I must remember you that we are not now speaking of the Elicite Acts of the Formall virtue of Charity and the Love of God properly taken but onely of the Imperate Acts of that Charity the Ardency of Prayer which is onely Tropically such and this will yet make your task more impossible § 15. And therefore whereas you add for a Confirmation that he is no hypocrite in expressing his Love that loves Inwardly more then he expresseth Outwardly I answer that this is manifestly impertinent to the matter in debate Christs Ardency in Prayer And though in some cases I shall make no scruple to grant it yet mind you I must that the Christian Grace of sincerity requires that in the Ordinary Course of humane affairs as our Love should not be Personate so it should be fruitfull and operative otherwise it would in this be lame and imperfect as well as in the other it would be counterfeit And this further manifests that from such not onely vain and impertinent but also false allegations as understood according to the ordinary course of morality and practise among men you will never be able to demonstrate that our Saviour in his Agony did not more earnestly according to the inward Act and Fervour deprecate his last bitter cup then any other worldly cross and affliction to which he was exposed in the dayes of his flesh § 16. But yet he will essay to make good his undertaking JEANES It may be so in all men and I shall alleage two reasons why in Christ the inward Acts of his Love were alwayes equally intense though the outward expressions thereof were gradually different § 17. And if you can make this good in the sense that the Doctor understands all along the Phrase The Love of God nay if you can clearly prove it in your own I am so great a friend to any Reason you shall bring that though you have failed in all your other undertakings yet I shall give you the whole cause for that single Reasons sake § 18. Let us weigh then your reasons to this Purpose and try them at the touchstone JEANES The first reason agreeth unto Christ in common with other men Christ as man was alwayes obliged unto the most intense ardent and fervent inward acts of Love of God But he was not c. § 19. Say you so Sir Nay then I do not doubt but notwithstanding my fair proffer you yet will fall short and so lose the golden Ball at last § 20. For Christ as Mediator and one that had undertook to pay our debt was not onely Priviledged in the humane nature by virtue of the hypostaticall union to be holy harmless undefiled but by virtue of the Covenant and contract betwixt him and the Father as well as by that First made with all mankind in Adam was obliged to be spotless and innocent otherwise he could never have been that Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world But then Man though in his integrity by virtue of the first Covenant he were bound to sinless perfection yet now since the Fall and the Fatall curse incurred and in Part inflicted on him he may as justly by that or any other New Covenant be obliged to be Immortall as the Condition of his Salvation as to be absolutely sinless and pure from all even Originall Pollution since his Corruption as well as his Mortality is an equall fruit of the first Sin and it is a part of the Curse and Punishment of Adam even inflicted on him by God that all his posterity should be left to be born after the similitude of his fallen nature For by one man sin entred into the world and death Rom. 5. 12. by sin and so death by that one passed upon all men to condemnation for that all have sinned or as S. Austin constantly reads it in quo omnes peccaverunt in whom all have sinned § 21. As then God may justly though not by Positive infliction yet by spirituall desertion and Penall decree punish one sin with an other so the Scripture assures us that this originall guilt and pollution and the vitious effects of it seize on us as a part of our punishment and Praeludium of eternall damnation and all the sons of Adam for their transgression in him are by virtue of the first covenant as certainly dead in Law and in some measure also executed as the damned are now in Hell though not so absolutely so irreversibly as they I would not be mistaken I say by virtue of that Covenant so certainly dead in Law though not so irreversibly And if the Mediatour of the new Covenant
which the * Rom. 7. 12. law still holy and the Commandment holy just and good is the eternall Rule as the full condition of their Justification here and Salvation hereafter § 32. And thus is evidently shewed the great difference between the Obligation of our Saviour to holiness and purity and that of all other Men besides § 33. Though then it is readily granted to our Refuter that Legal sinless perfection did admit of no degrees nor growth nor proficiency nothing less then what was absolutely sin-less yet since even M. Cawdrey himself grants that Cawdreys Triplex Diatribe p. 116. our Saviour still innocent and spotless did yet supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and do more then the law required particularly in the degree of affection in prayer if not in the prayer it self it evidently follows that such Perfection as this will not at least according to this doctrine of M. Cawdrey conclude that the inward Acts of our Saviours Charity were alwayes equally intense but onely that they were equally innocent which as the Doctor does in that very place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expresly grant so it is so far from infringing his Assertion of the greater ardency in Christs prayer that he layes it down as the very Basis and foundation of his Argument § 34. But since M. Cawdrey's concessions may be of little moment to our Refuter whose Apologist yet he is I shall onely mind him that it is not legal sinless perfection that the Doctor any where speaks of when he sayes it consists in a latitude and has degrees but onely the sincerity of this or that particular grace in this or that particular performance suppose of prayer or alms-deeds or the like above what any particular Law requires of all persons at all times and in all Cases And therefore his following Reasons might very well have been spared that concern so distant a purpose § 35. But at least for our promise sake we will hear his Reasons for all that JEANES The first Reason agreeth unto Christ in Common with other men Christ as man was alwaies obliged unto the most intense ardent and fervent inward Acts of love of God but he was not alwayes obliged unto the most intense expressions of these inward Acts the reason of the difference between his obligation unto the intension of the inward Acts of his Love and his obligation unto the intension of the outward expressions thereof you may fetch from what is said by Aquinas secunda secundae q. 27. art 6. ad tertium Nec est simile de interiori actu Charitatis exterioribus actibus Nam interior actus Charitatis habet rationem finis quia ultimum bonum hominis consistit in hoc quod anima Deo inhaereat secundum illud Psalmi mihi adhaerere Deo bonum est Exteriores autem actus sunt sicut ad finem ideo sunt commensurandi secundum charitatem secundum rationem The second reason is peculiar unto Christ c. § 36. The Argument stands thus If Christ as man were obliged to the most intense Inward Acts but not to the most intense Outward expressions then there may be a graduall difference between the Inward Acts and the Outward expressions of Love But Christ was obliged c. ergo § 37. The Assumption consists of two parts and therefore cannot be answered at once § 38. To the first part then I say that this Proposition Christ as man was alwayes obliged unto the most intense inward Acts of Love of God is very ambiguous and therefore must be distinguished First then Christ as Man may be considered according to his twofold state either of Comprehensor in the superiour part of his soul or as Viator Secondly this term The love of God may be diversly understood For first either it may signifie the Love of God properly and as taken in a Formall sense for that which the Schools call Dilectio Dei and Aquinas and the Schoolmen call Charitas ut finis or Metonymically and in a Causall sense for the Love of our Neighbour for Gods sake or any other virtue or Grace of the first table suppose of Religion and the like that springs from the Love of God and is in order to him And this is that which the Schools call Charitas ut medium and Charitas Praecepti Thirdly this phrase the most intense ardent and fervent inward Acts of love may be variously taken For first either they may signifie the most intense absolutely and simply that the humane nature of Christ either by the omnipotent power of God can or else de facto shall ever arrive at Or secondly Comparatively and that either first in respect of the Law or secondly in respect of the present State or thirdly in respect of the grace or quality precisely and abstractly considered § 39. Now unless these be distinctly considered it is impossible to give a true and satisfactory answer And for want of this distinct consideration it is that our Refuter all along is so confused in his discourse and exposed to so many errours and mistakes § 40. First then Christ as Man considered in the state of comprehensor and enjoying the beatificall vision in his mind was not under any Obligation to love God because as the learned Chamier well observes Precepts are not given to Angels and the spirits of just men made perfect because they Chamier Panstrat tom 3. l. 6. c. 12. §. 35. p. 191. Col. 2. D. Vid Suarez in 3. P. Them â—o 1. disput 37. sect 4. p. 516. col 2. B. are extra statum merendi in a state not of Tryall but of Trust not in the way but at the end of their Race And the Schools resolve that this Beatifick love of God was simpliciter necessarius whereby our Saviour loved him to the utmost height possible for that state as a naturall and necessary consequent of the beatificall vision Secondly Christ as considered in the state of viator was not obliged to the most intense Act simply and absolutely attainable or as enjoyed by him as Comprehensor for this implyes a contradiction in Adjecto that he should be Comprehensor and viator in one and the same respect Thirdly Christ as viator was obliged to the most intense love of God formally taken that he in that state could possibly arrive at by the assistance of grace Fourthly Christ as viator was obliged to the most intense Acts of Charity Metonymically taken that the Law of God still required Fifthly The quality and grace of the love of God properly taken as precisely and abstractly considered has no set limits and periods beyond which it cannot be increased no such gradus ad octo as all other Naturall Qualities capable of intension and remission have And consequently nor Christ nor any Man else is obliged to any one such highest degree Sixthly the love of God as Metonymically taken for the love of our Neighbours has its set
bounds and limits For we must love them as our selves and some more some less according to their nearness of allyance and kindred and Countrey and the grace of God shining in them and the like And therefore it is resolved in the Schools that datur ordo in charitate And then for the other virtues and graces they have all except the three Theologicall Graces of Faith Hope and Charity that have an infinite Object God and therefore can have no limits their excesses as well as defects they have their set periods and bounds they consist as Aquinas resolves in a middle point between two extreams But then this middle point also is not like the Eclipticke but the Zodiack and consists in a Latitude And therefore Seventhly in these last the Law requires not at all times the most intense degree of the Act but onely such a degree as befits the Object at this time and with relation to all other Circumstances § 41. And hence it is that the Doctor speaking onely of some of these Acts in particular affirms them to consist in a latitude and that in respect of the particular Law obliging all men to the performance of them there may be degrees above that particular command that God leaves to our Liberty freely to exercise that so we may have something to offer to him freely out of those very graces which himself has freely bestowed upon us And consequently that Christ in the Acts and Exercise of these in particular the Ardency of Prayer was not alwayes obliged to one equall uniform highest degree of intensness And therefore the first part of his Assumption as confronted to D. Hammonds Assertion is unsound § 42. All these in their severall orders have been largely prosecuted and confirmed and therefore nothing now remains but that we proceed to the second part or Proposition contained in the Assumption § 43. And it is this But Christ was not alwayes obliged unto the most intense expressions of these inward Acts of his Love § 44. To which I answer that if by the Expression of these inward Acts he means the outward sensible expressions of the inward acts it is thus far granted that nor Christ nor any man else is obliged to any one particular act or kind of outward expression suppose in prayer to use any one particular gesture or language or form and the like but by Gods law is left indifferent to use any that is quoad specificationem decent and fitting § 45. But then I must add that Aquinas his authority comes not up to this purpose nor am I moved to this concession for any reason that I or any man else can gather from the passage cited to confirm it For Aquinas here means not by the exteriour acts of charity the outward sensible expressions of it but onely the performances of those duties and graces of the first and second table quae sunt in ordine ad finem which God requires us to perform in order to our last end and happiness our eternall union and sight and love and enjoyment of God in heaven The exteriour acts of charity he there means are I say no other then the acts and performance of all virtues and graces whatsoever as no man that is any way versed in that Author can be ignorant § 46. But because our Refuter is a Schoolman and a Souldier and resolves to dispute every inch of ground with us I shall for a full displaying of his Ignorance proceed to make it good § 47. Thus then I lay down the full sense of the place By this interior actus charitatis the inward act of divine love the Schoolman means the immanent and elicite act of that love that is immediately fixed on God in which love mans last happiness consists This other where he calls finis praecepti from S. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy the end of the commandment because all the commandments onely drive at this and aim to bring us unto God And in the place here urged he sayes it has rationem finis because mans last happiness consists in this love and this union of the soul with God in heaven By the exteriour acts of charity he means not the materiall sensible expressions as for instance the more abundance of tears deeper sighs more patheticall phrases and forms and expressions more humble gestures of the body in prayer which is all the heightening and advancement our Refuter will allow to our Saviours ardency in prayer in the garden not the outward acts but morall duties and gratious works and performances of any virtue or grace that the law of God prescribes § 48. The first are elicite acts of divine love and therefore immanent and interiour to it But these latter morall duties are imperate acts of that love And therefore though they are or may be intrinsecall to the will wherein they are subjected yet are they extrinsecal to charity belong not to the formall essence and nature of it but are outward fruits and effects and symptomes of it because the more the man loves God the more he will labour to keep his commandments and the more sincere and cordiall he is in the exercise of any duty or grace the more it appears that he truly loves God that has commanded it But then though these be exteriour because imperate acts of divine love yet in their formall nature and essence they are immanent acts of the will because they are the elicite acts of the virtuous habits there seated and consequently they are not as our Refuter very ignorantly outward corporeall sensible tokens and expressions For the exteriour Acts of Charity he speaks of he sayes are siout ad finem such which God has commanded us to perform as the way and means that we may be perfectly united to him and see and enjoy his goodness in the land of the living and love him eternally ideo sunt commensur andi secundum charitatem secundum rationem and therefore are to be measured and proportioned according to charity and reason which words cannot possibly have any sense after the meaning of our Refuter § 49. Now that this and no other is the meaning of Aquinas will appear from the very question it self the answer in corpore and the beginning of this answer ad tertium which our Refuter warily omitted The question is utrum charitas habeat modum whether charity has any set bounds or limits any gradus ad octo as M. Cawdrey and our Refuter sayes it has He resolves it in the Negative from the authority of S. Bernard Causa diligendi Deum est Deus ipse modus sine modo His answer in corpore is this Dicendum quod modus importat quandam mensurae determinationem In omnibus appetibilibus agilibus mensura est finis Et ideo finis secundum seipsum habet modum ea vero quae sunt ad finem habent modum ex eo quod sunt fini proportionata Finis
when he has betrayed so much weakness and ignorance in the first But we will consider it howsoever JEANES p. 39. The second reason is peculiar unto Christ above all other men whilest he lived here upon earth he injoyed the beatificall vision and the naturall and necessary consequent thereof is a most intense actuall love of God and therefore the inward acts of his love of God were equally intense at all times but as for the outward expressions of his love of God c. § 56. Sir how often and often have we heard of this to no purpose Onely let me ask what is all this to Christs love and holy charity as viator you must now remember you talk of obligation and duty But then this Beatifick love of Christ was simpliciter necessarius And therefore this is still the old Sophism à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter But enough and enough of this For though you are not at all troubled still to repeat the same objections yet I am very much ashamed that I should be forced still to return the same Answers and say I must as he in Plautus in a very like case vi'n tibi adferri noctuam Quae Tou Tou usque dicat tibi nam nos jam nos defessi fumus JEANES But as for the outward expressions of these acts Christ had to them a proper freedome taking the word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso and therefore they might be more intense at one time then another But of this you may if you please see further in Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae disp 37. sect 4. where the question debated is Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera § 57. Here is ignorance upon ignorance and confusion upon confusion and I am quite tyred with cleansing this * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucian Pssudomant Augean Stable A †They say Hercules cleansed it by the turning of a River into it Vid. Erasm Adag Diodor. Sicul. River of Ink must do it I see the * Basket in Lucian is to very little purpose § 58. To acquit this harsh censure of calumny and to remonstrate the charge it will be fit I reduce his discourse into Form § 59. The whole supposes a Prosyllogisme and this which he calls his second Argument is a proof of the Assumption Thus then it stands If the inward acts of Christs love of God were equally intense at all times but the outward expressions of these Acts might be more intense at one time then another then the outward expressions and the inward Acts are not alwayes exactly proportioned in point of degree but may not onely equall but also transcend the most sincere expressions of Love and consequently S. Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood of a graduall heightening of the outward expressions onely not of the inward ardency in prayer But the inward acts of Christs love c. Ergo c. The assumption consists of two parts and is here severally proved The first that the inward acts of Christs love of God were all equally intense at all times he thus proves because Christ whilst he lived here upon earth enjoyed the Beatisick vision the naturall and necessary consequent whereof is a most intense actuall love of God But then as for the outward expressions of these acts which is a proof of the second part Christ had to them a proper freedome taking the word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso And of the truth of both these may be further seen in Suarez Ergo c. § 60. And this his second reason he sayes is peculiar unto Christ above all other men § 61. Plain then it is First that here he confounds the state of Christ as comprehensor with his state of viator Secondly plain it is that he confounds the beatifick and necessary acts of Christs love of God agreeing to him as comprehensor with the free and meritorious acts of his love agreeing to him as viator And then thirdly plain it is that he confounds the inward acts of Christs love of God as properly taken with the inward acts of other virtues and graces suppose of religion and ardency in prayer which because they are the effects and signs of that former love of God are Metonymically so called And fourthly as plain it is that he confounds all these three very distinct acts and takes them one for another § 62. But then as if this were not sufficient he fifthly further confounds the outward sensible expressions of charity largely taken with the acts of virtue and piety that as we have formerly manifested are extrinsecall to the love of God strictly and properly taken and makes the inward acts of religion and devotion of chastity and temperance of patience and brotherly kindness and the like to be upon the matter all one with the outward sensible expressions of these virtues and graces And then sixtly he confounds the naturall necessity and freedome of the Agent with the morall necessity and freedome of the action § 63. For the better opening of which last for the former need not further clearing know we must that the Moralist and Divine distribute necessity and freedome into three kinds The first is that they call necessitas naturae and this arises from a naturall determination of the form and faculties of the Agent to one uniform kind of working and is intrinsecall to it To this they oppose that freedome which they call naturall which arises from an indetermination of the rationall appetite called the will to one uniform kind of operation and supposes it naturally left at liberty either to act or not act which they call libertatem contradictionis or Exercitii or else to do this or that which is contrary to it which they call libertatem contrarietatis seu specificationis and this at its own free election and choice Thus stones and vegetables and the like are called necessary agents but Men and Angels are called agentia libera free agents and this freedome is as essentiall and naturall to these as the other necessity is to the former The second they call necessitas praecepti a necessity of duty arising from the morall obligation in the action requiring it to be performed or omitted by a free creature that is lord of his own actions And to this is opposed that morall liberty and freedome and indifferency of the act whereby it comes to pass that it may be done or omitted without sin no law here interposing to command or prohibit it Thus whatsoever the law of God has enjoyned or forbidden is necessary and whatsoever is not thus forbidden or commanded is of a middle nature secundum speciem indifferent and morally free to be done or not done And this is a liberty extrinsecall to the Agent The third they call necessitas coactionis arising from outward violence and compulsion But
because the will cannot possibly be enforced it is improperly called necessity and though in respect of the outward danger impending the will moves against its own genuine inclination yet in the act and exercise it voluntarily chuses that which if the force were not impending it would not have embraced And therefore the great Philosopher in his Moralls Arist Ethic. l. 3. c. 1. S. 3. does truly call such actions as these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are made up and compounded of violence and choice To this they oppose that kind of freedome which they call signally spontaneity that arises from the inward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impetus and inclination of the agent without any outward force and compulsion to rouze and quicken it and is common at least in some proportion and inferiour degree to Beasts as well as Men. § 64. When therefore our Refuter sayes that the inward acts of Christs love of God were all equally intense because they were the naturall and necessary consequents of the beatificall vision clear it is that he takes the word necessary for that which is naturally such and so by consequence he destroyes the merit of our Saviours death and Passion which was the first stone of offence and rock of stumbling to that Arch-heretick Socinus For plain it is that the Saints in Heaven and Comprehensores in Patriâ among which number Christ on earth must be reckoned in regard of the Beatificall vision love not God by way of duty and election and choyce but by a necessity of their glorified natures and they cannot chuse but do it and consequently as themselves are now extra statum merendi so these acts of their love are no more rewardable and meritorious then the naturall motion of heavie bodies downward or light bodies upward For as Lawes are prescribed to free agents onely and rewards and punishments are onely proposed to those that are lords of their own actions and are left at their own liberty and election and choice so one of the conditions necessary to make an act or acts * Meritorium opus dicunt Scholastici quod potius dicendum remunerabile apud Deum Forbesii Iren l. 1. c. 3. S. 2. pag. 77. Secunda conditio in opere meritorio necessaria estut sit liberum quoniam per ea quae naturalia sunt quorum Domini non sumus nec meremur nec demeremur Quam conditionem locum etiam habuisse in actibus voluntatis Christi satis fusè in praecedenti q. 18. which is the very disputation our Refuter here referrs to disputatum est c. Quinta conditio ex parte etiam personae merentis est ut sit viator quam necessariam esse saltem ex lege Dei ordinariâ quicquid fit de absolutâ potentiâ omnes Theologi docent ut latius videbimus statim sect 3. ubi simul oftendemus conditionem hanc etiam in Christo Domino fuisse necessariam Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 39. sect 1. p. 536. col 2. E. p. 537. col 2. F. meritorious or remunerable is that it be free and not naturall and necessary and performed by a person that is in viâ because such persons onely and such actions are remunerable by God And consequently our Refuter that makes all the inward acts of Christs love to be the naturall and necessary consequents of the Beatificall vision destroyes the merit of his whole life and death and sufferings and eo ipso denyes him to be the meritorious cause of our justification § 65. But then secondly whereas he sayes that Christ had a proper freedome taking this word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward expressions of these acts though he had not such freedome to the inward acts themselves and therefore these might be more intense at one time then another though the inward acts might not Plain it is that here he confounds the naturall liberty and freedome of the will of Christ with the moral liberty and freedom of the actions themselves For that freedom which is taken for an active indifferency in sensu diviso and is here by our Refuter opposed to those naturall and necessary acts which were the consequents of the Beatifick vision is no other but that naturall liberty and freedom of the will essentially determined either in respect of contrariety or contradiction And so the Vid. Suarez in tertiam part Thom. tom 1. disp 37. sect 2. p. 512. col 1. E. F. sect 3. p. 513. col 1. C. c. p. 516. col 1. B. C. words in Suarez are to be understood who frequently makes use of this expression whence our Refuter borrowed it though plain it is he mistakes it But then the freedom that he speaks of in the conclusion is a moral freedom and indifferency of the action For thus his Argument must stand Christ in respect of the intention and fervour of the outward expressions was under no obligation nor necessity and duty and therefore they might be more intense at one time then another § 66. But then this is not all the misadventure of his discourse in the next place he splits himself upon the rock of downright falshood and contradiction to Scripture § 67. For whereas he sayes Christ had a proper freedom or active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward expressions though he had none to the inward Acts of them plain it is that his words must be understood either of the naturall liberty of the will of our blessed Saviour the active indifferency and indetermination of that to the outward expressions or else of their morall liberty and indifference in respect of any Law or divine precept determining these outward acts and expressions If he understand his assertion in the first sense plain it is that Christs will was thus equally free to all the inward acts of divine love and piety and religion and other virtues and graces as to the outward expressions of them and no more liberty he could have to the one then he had to the other For since * Suppono ex 1. 2. q 20. 21. proprium et formale meriâ—um esse in actu elicito à voluntate actus vero externos per se non addere meritum actui voluntatis neque esse formaliter intrinsece meritorios sed solum per extrinsecam denominationem ab actu meritorio voluntatis à quo imperantur extrinsecè seu moraliter informantur ficut etiam ab illo denominantur liberi studiosi Suarez in 3. Part. Thom. tom 1. disp 39. Sect. 2. pag. 540. col 1. C. freedome of the will and liberty of election and choice are essentiall to merit and since all the morall goodness and virtue and honesty and rewardableness in the work arises onely from the inward act which is the form and gives being to the whole it evidently follows that Christs will must be as free and actively
indifferent to the inward acts nay rather more then to the outward expressions of them otherwise he could not be the meritorious cause of our salvation § 68. If here he shall reply though this be true in respect of all other men yet the case is otherwise with Christ The reason here is peculiar unto him above all other men whilest he lived here on earth he enjoyed the beatificall vision and the naturall and necessary consequent thereof is a most intense actuall love of God I accept of his answer But then withall I must desire him to tell me how he can reconcile this position with the many Scriptures that so clearly assert the meritoriousness of our Saviours whole life and glorious example as well as of his death and passion For if Christ had onely a proper freedome of will and active indifferency to the outward expressions and not to the inward acts of virtue and charity but did perform them all ex necessitate by a necessity of his glorified state and condition and clear intuitive sight of God it was not possible he should merit by any of them as has already been observed § 69. If he understand his assertion in the second Notion of liberty for a morall indifferency of the action it self plain it is that Christ had no more morall freedome and indifferency to many if not to most of the outward expressions then to the inward Acts themselves For where the outward act and expression does aeque cadere sub praecepto and is aswell the object and matter of duty commanded as the inward act there both outward and inward act are equally necessary to be bone or omitted I desire him to tell me what greater liberty and indifferency there was to Christ in respect of the outward acts of all the negative precepts of the moral law more then to the inward acts what liberty and indifferency there was in respect of the outward acts of many of the affirmative precepts more then to the inward acts was he not aswell bound at least in most cases to the outward acts of adoration of honouring Gods name of reverence to parents and the like as he was to the inward acts But then what thinks he of all the Mosaicall rites and ceremoniall observances which clearly consisted in the exterior Act As he was born of Abrahams seed and under the law so was he not bound upon pain of excision to be circumcised the eight day And consequently being thus circumcised did he not become a debtor to the whole Mosaicall law ceremoniall and judiciall that consisted chiefly in the outward acts as well as to the morall and this upon condition of the curse annexed to the very least breach of the least tittle that was written in the book of Moses law was he not bound to the outward sanctification of the Sabboth the rites and ceremonies of the Passover and the like as well as all other persons circumcised Once more what thinks he of our Saviours obligation to the outward acts and exteriour expressions and performances of his prophetick office As the spirit of the Lord was upon him anointing him to preach the Gospel to the poor c. So an * Joh. 12. 49 50. cap. 18. ver 37. Luk. 2. 49. obligation from God his Father lay upon him to do it And Luk. 4. 18 21. therefore sayes he to his parents that found him in the Temple disputing with the Doctors and asking them questions How is it that ye sought me wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers business To conclude what thinks he of the death and passion of our Saviour was it not an high act of charity and love both to God his Father and us Men and yet plain it is that an absolute necessity lay upon our Saviour for performance of the outward act and manifestation of this love bound he was to suffer and to lay down his life for his sheep For ought not Christ to suffer these things and then to enter into Joh. 10. 49. Luk. 24. 26 27. Heb. 10. 5 6 7 8 9 10. his glory For what sayes he himself Sacrifice and burnt-offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me Then said I lo I come in the volume of the Book it is written of me to do thy will O God by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all And it is observable from Suarez even in this very question to which our Refuter here referrs that this Precept did directly and immediately first fall upon the outward act and expressions Quod maxime declarari potest in praecepto illo moriendo pro hominibus nam illud praeceptum directe cadit in actum ipsum exteriorem qui est objectum interioris actus voluntatis qui etiam consequenter praecipitur quatenus cum exteriori componit unum actum moralem liberum Suarez in 3 part tom 1. disp 37. sect 4. where the question is Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera p. 519. col 2. A. and immediately and by consequence onely on the interiour inasmuch as the outward is the object of the inward act of the will and together with it does compound and constitute one compleat morall action § 70. If here he shall reply that he spake not of the outward expressions that were matter of duty and under command but onely of those expressions of the inward acts that were left indifferent such as are the outward prostrations and gestures the words and other signs of the inward ardency in prayer though it is evident that his words indefinitely proposed must reach to all the outward acts and expressions of the inward acts of divine love that necessarily issued from the beatificall vision yet I shall for the present accept of this answer though nothing at all to the words and the purpose of this his second reason which he sayes is peculiar to Christ above all other men But then withall I must tell him that this grant and acceptation will do him no service § 71. For though it be true even in respect of the outward acts and expressions of the inward ardency and devotion in prayer that no law of God has interposed to determine and necessitate the outward act of devotion either quoad speciem or quoad exercitium either for kind or degree as that we should use this gesture suppose of standing kneeling or prostration c. this form of words these lifting up the eyes or hands to heaven and the like but has left us at liberty to use what we shall see fit in either kind whensoever we pray yet since the law of God and religious prudence requires that all things be done decently and in order in Gods worship it evidently follows that whatsoever outward gestures or words or signs or expressions he should make use of they were of necessity to
25. proposition r. proportion p. 194. l. 19. dicir diei p. 230. l. 33. onoc r. once p 304. l. 1. 28. as every r. as of every p. 341. l. 27 partialis sit aequalis r. partiali deficiente deficiet effectus licet reliqua causa sit aequalis p. 365. l. 32. mortalium r. moralium p. 383. l 4. to 4. to r. by l. 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 392. l. 17. sinners r. sins p. 396. in marg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 417. l. 13. externum r. extremum p. 430. l. 6. his great r. this great p. 483. l. 18. our r. your p. 484. l. penult vices r. vires p. 501. l 14. oppositè r. oppositi p. 504. l. 10. quum r. quin. p. 508. l. 11. in his r. not in his p. 527. l. 8. possibili r. passibili p. 564. l. 2. in cautis r. incautis p. 566. l. 12. fome r. fomes p. 598. l. 13. by the r. of the. p. 621. l. ult dilectionis r. dilectioni A TABLE of the QUESTIONS here handled WHether Doctor Hammond be guilty of a direct or consequentiall deniall of the fulness of Christs habituall Grace neg Whether all actions as well immanent as transient have their terms affir p. 26. c. Whether the immanent acts of the habit of divine Grace or holy charity in Christ are terminated in the quality of his actual holy love affir p. 30. c. Whether immanent acts are dispofitions and ranged under the first species of quality aff p. 33. c. 120. c. 126. Whether grace may physically and effectively by humane endeavours be augmented or dispositively onely p. 35. c. Whether the acts of divine love in Christ are and justly may be called dispositions aff 37. c. 127. c. Whether acts and habits are specifically distinct aff p. 38. c. 73 74 75. 126. Whether the perfection and in being of the habit can any other way be rationally discovered then by the perfection of the Acts neg And consequently Whether the Doctor has not taken the best course to demonstrate the fulness of Christs habitual grace p. 53 54 c. Whether there were an all-fulness of habituall grace in Christ aff p. 58 c. 195 571 c. 586 587 588. Whether though the habit of divine grace in Christ concretively considered were allwayes so full that it was incapable of increase yet precisely and abstractly considered it were capable of intension at least by the extraordinary power of God aff p. 60 61 214 215. Whether the love of Christ were more intense at some times in some acts viz. in his agony and death then at other times in other acts viz. in his suffering hunger c. And whether his death be the greatest act of his love to us men aff p. 57 63 66 67. Whether a graduall heightning in the Acts of Christs love could possibly intend and augment the habit of his love neg 65. And consequently whether an intensive increase in the inward acts of wisdome and grace in Christ will argue and conclude an intensive increase in his habituall grace and whether the Doctor asserting the one does by consequence assert the other neg p. 63 65 184 c. 201 202 248 249. Whether our charity to God and our neighbours be one and the same habit aff p. 70 233 234. Whether the distinction of love into the habit and the act be not onely legible in the Doctors writings but love is also truly a genus to the habit and the act p. 81 c. p. 116 c. Whether love as a genus does equally comprehend the habit and the outward sensible expressions of it neg p. 84 c. 89 90. Whether criticisme be not highly usefull to compleat the Divine aff p. 97 c. Whether the intension of the act be so proportioned to the intension of the habit as still to equal it in perfection neg p. 109 110 111. And consequently Whether the actual grace of Christ be so exactly proportioned to his habitual grace as still to equal it in fulness height and intension neg p. 101 177 178. Whether any thing naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that several outward expressions of love in themselves gradually different may sometimes flow from the same or severall acts of inward love gradually equal neg p. 139. Whether though the outward acts of Gods favour be different yet the inward act of his love is still one and the same substantiall act no other then himself aff against the Socinian p. 141 c. And confequently Whether any thing but God himself can be the proper object of Gods love neg p. 145 c. Whether the gradual intension and remission in the outward expressions of love in men do most commonly argue and infer a proportionable increase and decrease in the inward acts of love aff p. 155 c. And consequently Whether we are obliged ordinarily to afford the greatest expressions and demonstrations of our love where we are bound most to love aff 161 c. 165. Whether the gradual intension and remission of the inward and the outward acts and expressions of love must be so exactly proportioned in point of degrees as to be alwayes equall or parallel neg p. 168 169. And consequently Whether the Doctor did rightly conclude that that act of internall love expressed by his dying for us was superiour to those former which onely expressed themselves in his poverty aff p. 166 167 168 170. VVhether the Schoolmen particularly Aquinas affirm that the intension of Christs actuall grace is exactly equall to that of his habituall neg p. 180 c. VVhether a morall work or action consists of the inward and the outward act as the two essentiall parts aff p. 183 184. 591. 601. VVhether the Fathers and Schoolmen Protestants and Papists and the Refuter among the number affirm that Christ did truly and really increase in the perfection of the inward acts of wisdome and grace and holy love aff p. 188 c. VVhether the acts of Christs love were primario and per se and not onely secundario and per accidens capable of degrees aff p. 209 c. VVhether D. Hammond by the phrase the love of God means any thing else then the grace of divine charity in its general notion and comprehension neg 216 c. VVhether the acts of the grace of divine charity in Christ were not only de facto different in graduall perfection among themselves and from the habit but ought also thus to differ aff 216 c. 245 c. And consequently VVhether the first great law of holy charity binds all in every act to the same equal intenseness and utmost degree of love and holy charity neg 240 241 c. 360 361 433 464. Whether when the number of degrees of any quality is multiplyed in the same subject the quality it self also is
counsels but perfection life does not aff 491 492 493. Whether Scotus maintains that the first great law of love requires that perfection of Christians by way of duty that is onely attainable in heaven neg 496 c. Whether Durand maintains the same neg 504 c. Whether S. Austin and S. Bernard do assert the same neg 509 c. Whether the distinction of Quatenus indicat finem and quatenus praecipit medium were invented by Bellarmine to avoid the Refuters testimonies of Aquinas and Scotus 517 c. and whether it is agreeable to the sense of S. Austin aff 519. Whether the clear intuitive knowledge and happiness and necessary love of Christ as comprehensor had any influence on or altered the nature and freedome of the acts of his love and virtues and graces as viator neg 522 c 529 634 635 636 637. Whether Christ as comprehensor though he had alwayes sufficient cause to love God to the utmost height yet could have any more grounds and motives thus to love then he had occasions neg 530. 531. Whether as viator he might have occasions grounds and motives to heighten his love and ardency in prayer aff 532 533. Whether as viator he were capable of hope aff 535 536. Whether the love of desire and complacency immediately fixed on God were in Christ as viator capable of increase and de facto augmented aff 533 534 535 536 537 538. Whether it may be rightly inferred from this saying of S. Austin Charitas quam diu augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est that to ascribe growth to the ardency of Christs actuall love is to charge it with imperfection and sin neg 550. Whether the phrase ex vitio est be to be causally understood as denoting our originall corruption aff 558 c. What was S. Austins opinion concerning original sin and whether all born in it aff 560 c. 605 606 c. Whether the Refuter be very unjustly confident that besides this Replyer D. Hammond no learned man either Protestant or Papist hath ascribed any such growth to the actuall love of God And whether severall eminently Learned both Protestants and Papists have asserted it aff 570. c. How Christ might increase in actuall grace the habituall still continuing in one equal fullness 583 584 585. Whether the first Covenant since the fall of man were ever in force to justification or obligatory by way of duty to any but Christ neg 605 c. Whether God under the second Covenant requires sinless perfection to the justification of believers neg or onely faith and evangelicall righteousness aff 460 462 610 611 612. Whether from the more profuse pouring out of the outward expressions of devotion at the time of our Saviours agony may rightly be concluded the increase of his inward ardency aff 598 c. Whether Aquinas means by the exterior acts of charity moral duties and not outward sensible expressions aff 617 c. Whether the will of Christ had the same equall natural and proper freedome to the inward acts of love and the outward expressions of it aff 628 629. Whether Christ had more morall freedome and indifferency to many or most of the outward acts and sensible expressions then to the inward acts of charity neg 629 630 631. Or might indifferently use any outward gestures or actions or expressions in prayer then what pro hic nunc were prudentially decent and fit neg 632 c. Whether every act of piety and charity that is meritorious or remunerable is quoad exercitium and in individuo determined in respect of outward circumstances affirm 632. Whether Suarez asserts that the will of Christ had a naturall and proper freedome or active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward sensible expressions onely and not to the inward acts of the love of God or holy charity neg 633 c. Authors omitted in the Catalogue Petrus S. Joseph Suarez F. Errata Epist ded p. 4. l. 26. Raunandus Raynaudus Treatise p. 123. l. 21. love good 139 8. intrinseco extrinseco 167. 13. inward outward 377. 23. perfectly perfect 387. 24. aliud aliud nisi 393. 23. the form and that form of 415. 32. Deum ex parte De um amari ex parte 422. 6. de quibus praecepta de quibus dantur praecepta 562. 11. ut omnino non ut omnino 581. 24. as with out as we in all things without 640. l. 12. would call would you call Smaller literall escapes the Reader will amend and pardon THE END A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane London Books written by Doctor Hammond and Printed for Richard Royston and Richard Davis A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Hen. Hammond D. D. in fol. the second Edition enlarged 2. A Paraphrase Annotations upon the books of the Psalms briefly explaining the difficulties thereof by Hen. Hammond D. D. fol. new 3. The Practical Catechism with other English Treatises in two volumes in 4. 4. Dissertationes quatuor quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis Primaeva Antiquitate adstâ—uuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum in 4. 5. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries in 12. 6. Of Schism A defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists in 12. 7. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice in 12. 8. Paraenesis or a seasonable exhortation to all true sons of the Church of England in 12. 9. A Collection of several Replies and Vindications published of late most of them in defence of the Church of England now put together in four volumes Newly published in 4. 10. The Dispatcher Dispatch'd in Answer to a Roman Catholick Book intituled Schism Dispatch'd in 4. new 11. A Review of the Paraphrase and Annotations on all the Books of the New Testament with some additions alterations in 8. 12. Some profitable directions both for Priest and people in two Sermons in 8. new Books and Sermons written by J. Taylor D. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays of the year together with a discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity Sacrednesse and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ third Edition in fol. 3. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12. 4. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying in 12. 5. The Golden Grove or A Manuall of daily Prayers fitted to the daies of the week together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness in 12. 6. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance rescued from popular Errors in a large 8. newly published 7. A Collection of Polemical and Moral discourses in fol. newly reprinted 8. A Discourse of the Nature Offices and Measure of Friendship in 12. new 9. A Collection of Offices or forms of prayer fitted to the needs of all Christians taken out of the Scriptures and Ancient Liturgies of severall Churches especially the Greek together with the Psalter or Psalms of David after the Kings Translation in a large octavo newly published 10. Ductor Dubitantium or Cases of Conscience fol. in two vol. Now in the Press Books written by Mr. Tho. Pierce Rector of Brington THe Christians Rescue from the grand error of the heathen touching the fatal necessity of all events in 5. Books in 4. new The new Discoverer Discover'd by way of Answer to Mr. Baxter with a rejoynder to his Key for Catholicks and Disputations about Church government 4. new The Sinner Impleaded in his own Court whereunto is added the grand Characteristick whereby a Christian is to be known in 12. newly printed The Lifelesness of Life on the hither side of Immortality with a timely caveat against procrastination Books in Fol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae Anglicane Suspiria The Tears Sighs Complaints and Prayers of the Church of England setting forth her former Constitution compared with her present condition also the visible Causes and probable Cures of her Distempers by John Gauden D. D. of Bocken in Essex fol. new The Royalists defence printed at Oxon. 4. The Regall apology printed at Oxon. 4. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas by the Archbishop of Tuam 4. printed at Oxon The Image unbroken or a vindication of his Majesties Book entituled A Pourtraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his solitudes and sufferings in 4. by B. Bramhall in a reply to Milton Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae or the Works of that Great Monarch and Glorious Martyr King Charles the first 8. with a short view of his Life and Death Place this CATALOGUE at the end of the Book The End
is an order in the acts and degrees of love Asserted by the Schools Of the order in the love of Christ The habit of love to God and our neighbours one and the same quality proved God and our neighbours not to be loved with the same equality and degree of affection Actus efficaces inefficaces what they are That they were in Christ Of the gradual difference between them Hence demonstratively proved that the first great law of charity Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart c. does not alwayes oblige us pro hic nunc to the highest degree and noblest act of Divine love Of the gradual difference between the free and necessary acts of Christs love Phrase actuall love distinguished The acts and operations of grace in Christ were neither intensively nor extensively still commensurate with the habit Proved In what sense Aquinas's rule urged by the Refuter holds 205 SECT XIV The Doctors discourse here onely ad hominem The Refuters reply grants all that the Doctors argument aims at Where the degrees of any Quality particularly the love of Christ are for number multiplyed in the same subject there the quality particularly the love is more intense Proved This inferrs not Intension to be a meer coacervation of homogeneous degrees The Refuter reaches not the Doctors meaning The Doctor argues from the effect to the cause The reasonableness of the proof The onely way to conclude the servour of the inward devotion by the outward performance Length and continuance in prayer an argument of high zeal Suarez and Hurtado's discourse concerns not the Doctor The Refuters ignorance notwithstanding his confidence Quantitas virtutis molis No absurdity in the Doctors discourse if as the Refuter falsly charges him he had concluded a greater ardency in Christs devotion from the multiplying of the severall acts of prayer Continuance in prayer a demonstration of fervour Frequent repetitions of the same words in prayer an argument of an heightened fervour of Spirit 251 SECT XV. The pertinency of the Doctors Argument and impertinence of the Refuters charge The Doctors argument à posteriori from the necessary relation between the work and the reward Not understood by the Refuter The outward work more valuable in Gods sight for the inward fervour and devotion The Refuters petitio principii Works in a Physicall sense what and what in a Moral The Refuters discourse of the infinite value of Christs merit arising from the dignity of his person Nothing to the purpose The dignity of a morall action according to the physicall entity of the act or according to the dignity of the person performing it The actions of Christ in regard of his person infinite in value Not so in regard of their substantial moral goodness Proved and acknowledged by our Refuters own Suarez Consequently in this regard they might exceed one another in moral perfection The Doctors argument that it was so in Christ The appositeness of the proof The Scriptures say the same 265 SECT XVI The second part of the Refuters second answer The distinct confession of all the Doctor pretends to The English translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more earnestly justified The Refuter's nonsense What ardency in Christ it was that was heightned Luk 22. 43. Comprehensor Viator what In what state whether of Comprehensor or Viator Christ was in a capacity to pray as that signifies either petition deprecation or thanksgiving and this whether onely for others or also for himself Of prayer and the severall kinds Whether though Christ were in a capacity thus to pray yet being God that was able of himself to accomplish whatsoever he might desire as man it was expedient for him to do so and whether God had so determined What things Christ might and did pray for both for himself and others M. Hooker commended Whether Christ did in truth and reality or onely in shew pray for a removal of that cup which he came on purpose to drink Whether these prayers and desires were not repugnant to Gods decree and the end of his coming into the world and his own peremptory resolution to drink it How those desires for a removall of this Cup might be advanced notwithstanding his readiness and resolution to drink it How Christs ardency in prayer for a removal of this cup might be increased above what it either was or there was occasion for at other times Of the greatness of his agony and bloody sweat How his zeal in prayer at this time might be advanced without derogation from the fulness of his habitual grace the impeccability of his soul and the uninterrupted happiness of it and perfect love as he was Comprehensor Strictures on the former part of the Refuters second answer 276 SECT XVII The Refuters three arguments to prove the act of Christ's love alwayes equally intense impertinent to the present question His confident proposal of them to be examined as rigidly as the Doctor pleases and his vain ostentation in placing them in his Title-page censured The ambiguity of the phrase Christs love of God distinguished from Crellius Estius Aquinas and others In what sense still used by the Doctor 333 SECT XVIII The Refuters first argument contradicts his second and proves not his conclusion Reduced to form The Sequele denyed The reason His authorities concern not the question His citing Aquinas from Capreolus censured The conclusion to be proved Hurtado's and Aquinas first saying from Capreolus true with the reason of it from Suarez but not pertinent A view of the place in Aquinas He speaks of the habit c. not the act The different workings of necessary and voluntary causes The Refuters argument guilty of a double fallacy His next place of Aquinas from Capreolus impertinent His gross ignorance or prevaricating in his third place of Aquinas Scotus testimony impertinent Aquinas and Scotus maintain that proposition which he would confute in the Doctor by their testimonies 337 SECT XIX The Refuters second argument Christ on earth Comprehensor true but Viator also Proved from Scripture Aquinas Scotus in the places referred to by the Refuter From Suarez also None but the Socinians deny Christ to be thus Comprehensor His beatifick love as Comprehensor an uniform because necessary act Fruitless here to enquire wherein the essence of happiness consists according to the Thomists or Scotists It follows not because Christs love as Viator was more intense at one time in some acts then at another in other acts that therefore his happiness as