endeavours even of the most accomplished pen much more any slender performances of mine For it is with his writings as it was with Apelles Pictures Those that were finished by him and received his last hand are inimitable and the other he left unfinished are not possibly to be perfected there being none equal to himself but himself § 35. Howsoever because it is not easie to unfold the nature of that Ardency in our Saviours Prayer and how it might be heightned without it and because that learned man has there treated of this argument to a far different purpose I shall therefore again attempt it And in this very difficult Passage I shall carefully steer by that Chart and Compasse which that judicious hand has drawn taking in the Observations of the School-men to supply those defects which his Argument in that place did not engage him to treat of § 36. For answer then to this Difficulty most certain it is 1. That Christ did pray for a removal of that Cup which he tasted notwithstanding and consequently had not a promise that the Cup should be removed because it was not effected 2. Most certain it is that notwithstanding God had decreed that he should taste of this Cup yet he had also decreed that Vide Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disp 38. sect 4. p. 528. col 2. D. F. c. disp 37. sect 4. p. 518. col 2. Christ should pray against it otherwise it had been absolutely impossible that it should have come to pass 3. Most certain it is that as God had decreed he should suffer for our Redemption and therefore gave him up for us all so Christ also knew the Decree and had also voluntarily contracted with God his Father for the Performance of it And therefore when he cometh into the world for this purpose he saith Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me Heb. 10. 5 6 7 10. In burnt-offerings and sacrifice for sin thou had'st no pleasure Then said I Loe I come to do thy will O my God By the which will as the Apostle addes we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all And this he perfectly knew in all the minute circumstances not only as God that had decreed them and a Person that was a Party in the Covenant but also as Man For being Comprehensor in his Soul * Vide Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 26. sect 1 2 3 c. by virtue of the hypostatical union he saw all things clearly in verbo and the glass of the divine nature as they call it in the Schools and moreover as Viator he had also †Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 25. sect 3. Joh. 18. 4. an Infused Habit of knowledge whereby he perfectly knew all things at least that concerned himself in the whole course of his Ministration during his abode here on earth And therefore the Scriptures expresly tell us that he knew all things that should come upon him and accordingly we find that he foretold his Death the time the persons the Actors and the manner and the place and every minute circumstance of it Nor can it be said that his sufferings had so clouded and darkned his understanding that for the present he forgot it since none of the Evangelists in recounting his unspeakable and unknown Torments as the Greeks call them in their Liturgie mention any such defect and impossible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was he should forget the peremptory determination of his Father and his own unchangeable purpose most willingly to undergo it Besides his pronouncing the Consummatum est upon the Cross when the whole Scene of his sufferings in all the parts and circumstances of it was now finished shews that not any thing was forgotten by him even in the very height of his sufferings And therefore we find in S. John c. 12. v. 23 24 c him answering and saying to his Disciples in a publick audience The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified Verily verily I say unto you except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and dye it abideth alone but if it dye it bringeth forth much fruit He that loveth his life shall loose it and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal If any man serve me let him follow me where I am there also shall my servant be If any man serve me him will my Father honour Now is my Soul troubled and what shall I say Father save me from this hour but for this cause came I unto this hour Father glorifie thy name And he addes vers 31. Now is the Judgement of this world now shall the Prince of this world be cast out And I if I be lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto me This he said as the Apostle adds signifying what death he should dye § 38. For the resolving this doubt and reconciling the seeming Vide Aquin. 3. part q. 18. art 1. Suarez in Commentar ibid. disp 37. sect 1. Estium l. 3. Sent. dist 17. §. 1. alios ibi Contradictions know we must as Christ was God man so two wills he had answerable to his two natures though his person were but one And both these his divine and humane will were as distinct as his two Natures For the Will whether of God or of Man belongs to the Essence or nature of both and consequently is not a Personal propriety but a Natural attribute and Emanation § 39. Christ then as God must of necessity will the same whatsoever his Father did because though the Persons in the Trinity be distinct yet the Nature is the same and the divine will but one in all the three Persons And then as for his humane will all the works and operations of that were still subject to the will of God and still most exactly conformable to his holy laws and precepts and secret decrees And therefore he saith John 4. 34. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work In the volume of the book it is written of me I delight to do thy will O my God yea thy law is within my heart Psal 40 7 8. § 40. But now as every man else so the Schools also observe Vid. Aquin. 3. part q. 18. art 6. 1. part q. 41. art 2. q. 79. art 9. 1. 2. q. 74. art 7. Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 38. sect 2. Estium l. 3. Sent. d. 17. §. 2. and the Schoolmen generally on this distinction and those other places in the Summes Vide etiam Aristot l. 3. Eth. c. 2 ubi spontaneum seu voluntarium ad plura extendi docet quam Electionem Est enim inquit cum pueru animalibus caeteris nobis commune Adhuc tertio dicitur voluntas naturalis ut
alteration been to our Refuters Advantage § 7. But then if the Doctors Position had been faithfully represented and the Question laid down in these precise Terms wherein he had so warily stated it not one of a thousand Readers could have found any fault with it And if so great a School-man as Mr. Henry Jeanes of Chedzey pretends himself to be could with all his skill and advantage in that curious and subtile learning have discovered in it a mistake the Error would in the Judgement of the most have been accounted venial and such which the most profound and knowing might be subject to For even Saint * Luke 22. 44. Luke himself does positively declare that our Saviour being in an Agony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prayed more earnestly which is the very thing that the Doctor asserts in his Title Page and all the business of his reply is to prove how this plain Assertion of the Evangelist may be reconciled with his fulness of habitual grace And therefore when our great Schoolman had done the utmost here he could the sum totall of his performance would in most mens opinion have been only this That he had shewed a better way of reconciling this Text of Saint Luke with the fulness of Habitual Grace in Christ than Doctor Hammond had yet met with § 8. If now our Refuter shall here return that he undertook not to oppose Doctor Hammonds Title but his Book and that in divers places of his Reply he positively maintains that the Acts of Christs love of God were capable of degrees more Ardent at some time than others which was the dangerous Error he was willing to Reprieve and secure the Reader from and therefore he hath done the Doctor no wrong if in those terms he proposed to Refute it in the Frontispiece of his Rejoynder which being his own Child he might name as he pleased without any mans just offence § 9. To this I Answer That true it is that this Phrase The Love of God is variously taken in Scripture as shall in due place be largely demonstrated First generally for the habit or any Act or Acts of holy Charity as it conteins the whole duty of man towards God and our Neighbours Secondly in a more restrained sense for the Habit or any Acts of Piety or Holiness or devotion towards God Thirdly most strictly and properly for that high and transcendent Act of divine love whereby the soul is immediately fixed and knit to God as the only Good In the two first acceptations the Denomination is only Figurative and Causal because the Acts so called are the Effects and issues of the love of God In the third and last the Denomination is Formal and Proper and signifies nothing else but that Love from whence those other Acts do flow § 10. If therefore Doctor Hammond speaking of the degrees of Ardency in Christ's Prayer and the gradual heightning of other Acts of like nature in him according to the variety of times and occasions doe's sometimes by a Metonymy of the effect or Synecdoche generis say that these Acts of Christs love of God or holy Charity are capable of degrees and sometimes more heightned more ardent and intense than at other times or in other Acts this will therefore be no excuse to our Refuter for charging Doctor Hammond in his Frontispiece for asserting a greater Ardency in Christs Love of God properly and formally taken at one time than another and notwithstanding any such plea or defence he must * Vid. Digest l. 48. tit 10. De lege Cornel. de falsis de Senatus-consulto Liboniano Tria in Falso jura requirunt primo dolum l. 1. in princ ff ad legem Corncl de Fal. § Item lex Cornel. inst de publi judic gl in c. ad falsariorum de cri fal c. homines seq 22. q. 2. Secundò mutationem veritatis text in auth de instr cautela fide in prin l. quid si falsum ff de fal Tertiò requirunt ut falsum alteri noceat gl sing in l. damus ibi addidi C. de le Cornel. de fal decis Neopolit q. ult Lanfranc in rep c. quoniam in verb. testium depositiones Col. 6. in magno vol. de prob sic patet quid sit falsum nam est immutatio veritatis dolo facta c. Rebuff prax beneficiorum in Bull. Coenae Dom art 4. mihi p. 311 Falsum est quod animo corrumpendae veritatis in alterius fraudem dolo malo fit l. nec exemplum 20. C. eod l. quid sit falsum 23. ubi Bartol ff eod materia sunt falsa testamenta l. 1. 6. l. divus 15. l. uxori 18. ff eod l. Paulus 221. ff de Verborum significat Instrumenta l. instrumentorum 16. ff eod Scripturae publicae d. l. 16. l. siquis instrumentorum 21. verb. publicis C. eod c. Denique quaevis res in qua veritas depravari falsum insinuari cum alterius injuria potest d l. 1. Ioh. Schneidewin Commentar in lib. institut lib. 4 to tit 18. §. Item lex Cornelia de falsis §. 2. 6. c. p. 2141 2142 c. Lege falsarii be condemned § 11. The truth is (a) Oratio est actus inferioris deprecantis superiorem ut se adjuvet unde est actus indigentis ope alterius cui cultum reverentiam exhibet ideo ad religionem pertinet Suarez in tert part Thom. q. 21. art 1. in Commentar tom 1. p. 588. Dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est q. 81. art 2. 4. ad religionem proprie pertinet reverentiam honorem Deo exhibere ideo omnia illa per quae Deo reverentia exhibetur pertinent ad Religionem Per Orationem autem homo Deo reverentiam exhibet in quantum sc ei subjicit profitetur orando se eo indigere sicut authore suorum bonorum unde manifestum est quod oratio est propriè Religionis actus Aquin. 2. 2. q. 83. art 3. in corp Vide Cajetan alios in loc Vide infra de hoc latius suo loco Prayer is properly an Act of Religion and devotion towards God and improperly and figuratively only an Act of holy Charity or divine love And therefore though our blessed Saviours love of God properly and formally taken be supposed to be alwayes uniform alwayes the same still advanced to the utmost height of Ardency and fervour that the humane nature in the dayes of his flesh was possibly capable of yet this nothing hinders but his devotion in some Acts of Prayer at some times might be more advanced his zeal here might be more fervent and intense than at other times according to the variety of occasions and the difference of the blessing or favour prayed for or evill and danger deprecated § 12. And as this was all that Doctor Hammond undertook to maintain in his Reply as appears from his very Title Page so it is so
the Crimination otherwise I assure you the Boldness will be unpardonable although as you somewhat insolently say you shall assume the liberty to fix it on him and the shame must light on you since you cannot make good your Charge § 24. It is true indeed the Doctor saies that Christs Love was more intense at one time then at another viz. in his Agony and dying for us more intense then in his suffering Nakedness and Hunger for us § 25. And does not the Apostle tell us the same when he saies (a) Phil. 2. 6 7 8 9. That he being in the form of God though he thought it no robbery to be equall with God yet made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man and being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross wherefore God also hath highly exalted him His birth his life his death were all Acts you see of Divine Love or holy Charity but the greater the lower still the Humiliation the more intense the more high the more noble Act of Divine Charity both in respect of God and us And therefore God also has proportioned his exaltation in the humane Nature to his a basement and sufferings given him the (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 6. 20. 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. People he had so dearly purchased and advanced his Name to that height that it should transcend every name besides and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father § 26. But then the Habit of Divine Love or holy Charity in Christ as of all other graces else was alwayes (b) There is no doubt but the Deitie of Christ hath enabled the nature which it took of man to do more then man in this world hath power to comprehend forasmuch as the bare essential Properties excepted he hath imparted to it all things he hath replenished it with all such Perfections as the same is any waies apt to receive at least according to the exigence of that oeconomy or service for which it pleased him in love to be made Man Luk. 2. 47. For as the parts degrees and Offices of that mysterial administration did require which he voluntarily undertook the Beames of Deity did in operatione alwaies accordingly either restrain or enlarge themselves vid. Theodoret. Iren. l. 3. advers haeres From whence we may somewhat conjecture how the Powers of the Soul are illuminated which being so inward unto God cannot chuse but be privy unto all things which God worketh and must therefore of necessity be indued with knowledge so far forth universal vid. Col. 2. 3. though not with infinite knowledge peculiar to Deity it self The Soul of Christ that saw in this life the face of God was here through so visible presence of Deitie filled with all manner of Graces and Vertues in that immatchable perfection for which of him we read it written that God with the oyle of gladness anointed him above his fellowes Vid. Esai 1. 2. Luc. 4. 18. Act. 4. 27. Heb. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 1. 21. Ioh. 2. 20 27. Hookers Eccles Policie lib. 5. §. 54. p. 298. Vid. Field of the Church l. 5. cap. 15. who from the Schoolmen has most judiciously and profoundly stated this question of the fulness of all Habitual Grace in Christ full and perfect so full and so perfect that it was not in him capable of any further addition without any possibility of want or encrease And so it must be acknowledged by all Christians when the Apostle tells us Coloss 2. 9. that in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell Col. 1. 19. So acknowledged it must be by all Christians when the Evangelist Jo. 1. 14. expresly asserts that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father full of grace and truth and that of his fulness we have all received and that Grace for Grace Vers 16. Habitually so full he was that as the same Saint John assures us c. 3. 34. God giveth not the Spirit by measure to him § 27. Most certain it is say the (a) Quod qudem elogium ipse Christus ante suum in Coelos ascensu◠sibi tribuit nor quod rem encomio isto notatam tunc reverâ possidebat cum nondum in Regni sui gloriam ingressus esset sed quia certò idque mox futurum erat ut in Imperii istius possessionem constitue retur c. Volkel de vera Relig. l. 3. c. 21. ubi late illud prosequitur Quemadmodum ad ipsius Regnum viam quandam ei mors ejus aperiebat ideoque nondum plane regnare tunc cum mortem pateretur dici potuit ita cum illius Sacerdotium idem fere reipsa sit quod ejusdem Regnum eandem mortem principium seu praeparationem quandam istius Sacerdotii in coelo demum administrandi extitisse c. Vid. Volkel de vera Relig. li. 3. c. 37. pag. 145. ubi late illud prosequitur Socinian what he will to the contrary and it might be very largely demonstrated were it not eccentrical to the present Dispute that Christ was alwaies Christ as well so in the womb as at the right hand of God For otherwise Elizabeth had never called Mary the (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 1. 43. Mother of her Lord before he was yet born Nor had the Angels said unto the Shepherds at his birth Behold I bring you tidings of great joy which shall be to all people for unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour which is not as the (c) Quae verò ipsius Regni ratio est Ea quòd Deus eum suscitatum à mortuis in coelos assumptum à dextris suis collocavit ei potestate in coelis in terrâ omni datâ omnibus ipsius pedibus se excepto subjectis ut fideles suos gubernare tueri aeternùm servare posset Catechis Racoviens de offic Christ Reg. pag. 275. Quid an non erat sacerdos antequam in coelos ascenderet praesertim crucifixus penderet Non erat c. Ibid. de offic Christ Sacerdot pag. 291. Socinian perversely which shall be after his ascension and session at the right hand of God but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Christ the Lord. Impossible it is he should be otherwise since he was God as well as Man from the first moment of Conception And therefore it was resolved justly against the Heretick Nestorius that his Blessed Virgin-Mother was truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God § 28. Whosoever then he be that against Arrius Photinus and Socinus acknowledges the Divinity of our Saviour
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
another and a greater intension presupposeth remission and imperfection for intensio est eductio rei intensae de imperfecto ad perfectum as Aquinas very often Ergo. § 77. Before I come to consider the strength of this Assumption it will not be amiss to mind the Reader of a known distinction to avoid all Cavils for the future by reason of a Term therein that may be ambiguously construed and it is the Term Actual Love For sometimes it is taken for that which is opposed to Habitual Love and then it denotes the Operation and the Acts of Love and is no other then that which they call Actus secundus in the Schools or that Love which is in Actu secundo And then secondly it is sometimes taken for that which is opposed to potential Love to that which is yet incausis and in fieri as they speak and not in esse and then it denotes only the existence of Love and it is the same with the Habit of Love and that which they call Actus primus § 78. If now the term Actual Love be taken for that Love which is only in Actu primo and has a being in the Soul it is granted that such an all absolute fulness of Love was actually still in the Soul of Christ because this is no other then the actual abode of the habitual fulness of holy Charity and Grace in Christ But then this is nothing to the purpose it having never been brought into Controversie by the Doctor but alwaies granted and allowed § 79. But if it be taken in the first sense as our Refuters words import as it denotes the inward Acts of Christ's Love most certain it is that there was not in him a perpetual All-fulness and perfection of his actual Love so as the Acts and Operations of Grace were either intensively or extensively still commensurate to his habitual Love § 80. This is it which our Refuter asserts in opposition to Doctor Hammond And now that he is most grosly mistaken in it will appear First if we shall consider the Subjectum quod as they call it of this Habit and the Operations of holy Charity the Subject wherein they are seated Christ For though the Habit of holy Charity was alwaies in him in its height and perfection from the first moment of Conception as congruous to the hypostatical union and flowing from it yet there must be an intermission and cessation in the Subject at least of some Operations and Acts of this Grace For we read that Jesus slept and his humane nature did require it as a necessary support of Matth. 8. 24. it And therefore since some Acts of Vertues and Graces can be onely performed by us when awake there must be an intermission and a cessation of them at least when he slept which cannot possibly be said of the Habit of holy Charity which was in him in full perfectness whether sleeping or waking § 81. Secondly if we shall consider the Object of divine Charity there was alwaies an habitual application or inclination in Christ our Blessed Saviour to all the Objects of divine Charity and that according to that order and degree of goodness to be found in them but there could not be an actual application of the Will alwaies to all the several Objects of divine Charity because being finite in his humane nature by that finite humane Will howsoever perfected and advanced by the infused perfection of habitual grace he could not possibly apply himself to an actual embrace of so many and different Objects at one and the same moment and instant of time § 82. Thirdly if we shall consider the several Acts themselves they were so many and infinite for number so different for variety we shall find it impossible that they should be all performed at once though there was alwaies and in every instant of time an habitual disposition and aptitude to the performance of any or of all of them successively as himself should best think fit § 83. If it be here replyed that though the actual Love of Christ could not be in him in its utmost extent and latitude though he could not perform all the Acts of divine Charity at one and the same moment to which he had alwaies an habitual inclination yet this nothing hinders but that whensoever he did perform any Act of holy Charity that Act of holy Charity must be as intensively perfect as the Habit from whence it issues and this was all that you intended in this Objection § 84. To this I answer That as we have already demonstrated the falshood of this Assertion so were it now granted yet this would not serve the turn at present For since by this answer it is granted that all the Acts of this Habit in their utmost latitude and extent cannot be performed at once it necessarily follows that those Acts that may pro tempore be suspended and not have a being without a derogation from the all-fulness of his habitual Love may also have a being less intensively perfect then the Habit or then other Acts of the same Love without any derogation from the perpetual fulness of this habitual Grace For plain it is that these Acts and Operations of divine Grace and holy Charity are not all in individuo the necessary issues of the Habit as those Properties and Accidents are that flow from their Causes by way of emanation and necessity of nature as the light from the Sun but are the free effects of the Will and Habit of Grace from whence they flow and therefore are extrinsecal and contingent to the nature and being and gradual Perfection of the Habit. For since as Porphyry tells us Accidens commune est quod potest adesse abesse sine subjecti interitu if any one Act may be totally and in respect of all Degrees absent and not have a being without derogation from the Perfection of the Habit the same may in 2 or 3 or 5 Degrees of Perfection be also absent since if the whole be accidental to the Habit much more must every part and degree be accidental to it also § 85. And therefore I see not what disadvantage can accrew to the Doctor if this your Assertion be granted as you have laid it down in Terminis For we have already demonstrated that some Acts of Christs Love were not so gradually intense as others were we have also seen it proved by Scripture and Reason and the Authority of Fathers and Schoolmen and Mr. Jeanes and his own Ames among the rest that Christ did truly and really increase and not only in the opinion of men as well in actual Knowledge and Grace as he did in Stature though the Habit was alwaies at the height and perfection Indeed I see not how a true and real increase in the gradual Perfection of the Acts and inward Operations of Wisdome and Grace can any more derogate from the all-ful perfection of the Habit of Grace then a true
the dictates of Reason and Grace as oftentimes they do even in the very best of men by reason of our inbred corruption then there had been truly an opposition in his desires the Repugnance had been in the same respect and the same thing § 48. We see here then Nature and Sense Reason and Grace in Christ all innocently imployed about one and the same Object and in all amicably working without any opposition according to their proper Motions and Inclinations Sense and Nature innocently express what they might as innocently embrace if God had been so pleased and Grace and Reason had not proposed a farr more noble end then self preservation now simply and absolutely to be prosecuted though with the dolorous sufferings of Sense and the present ruine of Nature We see also Grace and Reason induce the will of Christ freely and cheerfully to conform it self to the will of God in making use of those means which were grievous to Sense and destructive of Nature for the attaining that end which was of so high concernment as the salvation of the world which now ex hypothesi and upon supposal of Gods Decree could not otherwise be accomplished § 49. And therefore if secondly we shall compare the will of God or the divine and humane will of Christ we shall find no opposition in them neither For two may have contrary desires in different respects without any repugnance or thwarting in either of their Wills unless the desires of the one go so far as to endevour or actually cross the accomplishment of the inclinations of the other and then the Contrariety lies in respect of the same volition We read that Saul in regard of his oath condemned 1 Sam. 14. 44 45. his son Jonathan to death for tasting a little hony contrary to his command and the People in regard of the great deliverance God had that day wrought by Jonathan were grieved that he should be put to death As yet there was no repugnance For Jonathan notwithstanding the peoples sorrow and unwillingness might have dyed But when they in prosecution of their desires go so far as to hinder the execution of Saul's purpose in the death of Jonathan here was now an opposition and contrariety about the same volition But now it was not so in Christ For the will of God was that Christ should suffer death not as destructive and grievous to Nature but as a means of the Redemption of the world and the will of Christ though death were repugnant to Nature patiently submits to death in order to that end Here then upon Christ's part there was no opposition to the will of God Nor was there on the other side any repugnance in respect of the Divine will to the Humane or of that with it self For the will of God and the superiour faculties of Christs Soul did not at all hinder or trash the desires and motions of Nature Highly pleased God was since Christ was truly Man endued with Sense as well as Reason that both Nature Vide Field Of the Church l. 5. c. 18. p. 452. infra citat Sense and Reason in him should all move in their proper spheres without any interruption according to their several propensions and inclinations And therefore though there may appear a difference in the material Object and one desired one thing and another desired another as appears by that of our Saviours prayer Non sicut ego volo sed sicut tu yet not as I will but as thou wilt yet in the formal Object there was never Dico secundo per Actum inefficacem interdum voluit humana Christi voluntas quod absolute simpliciter Deus nolebat semper tamen hujusmodi Actus erat conformis Divinae voluntati tanquam Principio Regulae ideo simpliciter illae voluntates nunquam fuerunt contrariae Tota haec conclusio est certa communis Theologorum in 3. distinct 17 ubi Ricardus Bonaventura art 1. q. 3. Alens 3. part q. 15. memb 1. art 2. colligitur ex omnibus Conciliis Sanctis citatis Et prima quidem pars conclusionis de diversitate in materiali Objecto satis constat ex illis verbis saepe citatis Non sicut ego volo sed sicut tu ex dictis supra de his Actibus inefficacibus Secunda vero pars de formali seu affectiva concordia facile etiam patet quia etiam isti Actus inefficaces erant in suo genere honesti boni unde Divina voluntas volebat ut humana illos efficeret ipsa humana voluntas ex perfecta ratione deliberatione illos in se admittebat ut in hoc etiam Divinae voluntati obsequeretur ita non solum in hoc erat conformitas inter Divinam humanam voluntatem sed etiam inter inferiorem superiorem partem ejusdem voluntatis Et hinc facile etiam ostenditur ultima pars exâ—ludâ—tur contrarietas inter voluntates Christi Nam haec esse non potest ubi ratione volendi est consensio voluntatum neque ubi una voluntas nihil vult nisi quod alia vult ipsam velle Ac denique quia Contrarietas saltem requirit ut quod alteri sub aliqua ratione placet sub eadem alteri displiceat vel illud idem quod una voluntas efficaciter vult altera absolutè nolit quia nisi adsit haec repugnantia voluntates non se impediunt neque una alteram excludit quod est de ratione Contrariorum Ostensum est autem non fuisse in Christo actus hoc modo oppositos seu repugnantes Suarez in 3. part Thom. disp 38. tom 1. sect 4. pag. 592. col 1. C. D. To this adde what Aquinas has delivered to this purpose in the place already cited in the close of his Answer in Corpore any difference but a most exact harmony and agreement For even these natural desires inclinations of Sense were still conformable to Gods will as their Principle Rule And though God had simply and absolutely decreed they should not take effect so as to hinder the motions of Grace and inclinations of Reason yet decreed he had they should express themselves in Christ in an inefficacious wish and desire to testifie Natures apprehensions and the frailty of flesh and blood even in the highest advancement of Grace that flesh and blood is possibly capable of and to leave us an example and instruction in such cases Though the hand shake and tremble when it takes the deadly Potion yet sinful we are not because we are frail If notwithstanding the dread and horrour at the apprehension of present Torments we patiently submit to Gods will and cheerfully drink the bitter â—otion that will as well testifie the enlarged greatness of our Faith and Patience and Charity as it will do Vide Estium l. 3. Sent. dist 17. §. 3. p. 50. col .. 1. A. B. C. D. our infirmities that
naturally and necessarily encompass Flesh and Blood These inefficacious desires and wishes of Nature so long as they continue such are in their own kind good and honest and the issues of Nature which is the good work of God And therefore God decreed that Christ should express them though still with a submission and conformity to his own will that had absolutely decreed against their fulfilling And the humane will of Christ upon just reason and deliberation did not hinder these inclinations of Nature but suffered them to express themselves in him in bedience to the will of God § 50. And therefore hitherto we find a most exact harmony and agreement between the will of God and the will of Christ even there where most they seemed to clash as also a perfect concord between the inferiour Sensitive part and the superiour Rational part of the same Will § 51. No contrariety then there can be in the Acts of Christs divine and humane will where there is a consent of them both in the ground and reason of willing and where the one does never desire any thing but what the other does approve of wills that it should desire And since the Nature of Opposition does require at least that 1. what in one respect is grateful and pleasing to one should in the same respect be also displeasing to the other or 2. that what one does simply and efficaciously desire the other should as absolutely and peremptorily oppose most evident it is that as the natural and rational will of Christ had no such repugnance and opposition in their several Acts among themselves nor they with the divine will nor the divine with them there could be no true opposition or repugnance between them Gods will was the soveraign Rule and Law for Reason here to sail by and that guided the inclinations of Sense and Nature still by that Chart and Compass That ruled and guided Sense and Nature still moving quietly and regularly in their own sphere and did so perfectly govern and direct all according to the will of God that neither was Reason at any time disturbed or thwarted in its motion nor did Sense and Nature move further or otherwise then as Gods law and Grace and Reason saw fit Ad dictorum intelligentiam adhiberi potest Similitudo de sphaera prima coelesti orbibus inferioribus qui quamvis motu suo tendant in oppositum non tamen Primi mobilis motum impediunt seu retardant sed potius ipsorum motus temperaniur motu primi quia similitudine adsimile propositum utitur Philosophus l. 3. de Anima Estius l. 3. Sent. dist 17. §. 3. pag. 50. col 1. E. F. § 52. We may make this plain by a familiar instance We are taught in Astronomy according to the Hypothesis of Aristotle and Ptâ—lemy that the inferior Orbes have a twofold motion the one Natural and Intrinsecal arising from their Formes or Intelligences which is from West to East which they call Periodical and is finished in that set period of time as Nature has appointed the other adventitious and Extrinsecal arising from the Rapture of the Primum mobile and tends to the direct contrary points from East to West and is called Diurnal Now as every Sphere according to its proper motion tends from West to East to the finishing of its course and Period and yet is carryed about by daily constant turnings of the Primum mobile from East to West so neither does that in its periodical motion though to opposite points hinder or retard the daily motion of the Primum mobile nor yet is hindred by the Primum mobile's motion in the prosecution and finishing of its own course and stage but one constantly over-rules and the other as constantly obeys and has its motion tempered and guided by the motion of the first This may also be explained upon the Hypothesis of Copernicus in the triple motion of the Earth But the most ingenious Galileus has helped us with an instance in Nature beyond all exception And it is in the Motion of a Ship or Gallion under sail where all the Motions of Bodies under deck are so attempered and governed by the general Motion of the Vessel that they move as regularly either upward or downward backward or forward as if the Ship lay fixed in the harbour or at Anchor § 53. And this will plainly appear in Christ if we consider the manner of his speech and prayer In S. John thus we read Joh. 12. 27. that he saies Now is my Soul troubled and what shall I say Father save me from this hour but for this cause came I unto this hour So again in the very midst of his bloody Agony O my Matt. 26. 39. Father if it be possible let this Cup pass from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt And again O my father if this Vers 42. Cup may not pass away from me except I drink it thy will be done Here indeed we have the inefficacious desires of Nature Vide Estium loc supra citat col 1 2. petitioning for a removal of that bitter Cup as so formidable to Flesh and Blood and yet Reason and Grace so over-ruling Nature that it is with a submission of it self and its desires to the will and pleasure of God And then we have the rational will and inclination absolutely and effectually decreeing and resolving to submit to the will of God whatsoever Terrors and Torments Vide H. Grot. in Mat. c. 26. v 39 p 459. Dices hi actus volo nollem quamvis non sint simpliciter contrarii tameu ut versantur circa idem Objectum materiale sunt aliquo modo repugnantes Et unus potest alium saltem ex parte impedire seu retardare c. Respondâ—tur propriè nullam fuisse repugnantiam hujusmodi enim actus tunc habent illum modum repugnantiae quando alter eorum est praeter rationem deliberati nem voluntatis quando verò ipsemet actus inefficax est ab ipsamet voluntate pâ—aeordinatus deliberatus non potest ipsammâ—t volùntatem retardare vel impedire ex cujus deliberato consensu oritur praesertim quia cum omnes isti actus essent ex divina ordinatione omnes honestissimi â—ulla inter eos poterat esse propria contrarietas aut repugnantia Suarez tom 1. tert part Thom disp 38. sect 4 p. 529. col 1. 2. death shall carry with it Christ then did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simpliciter as they speak simply and absolutely submit to death as he saw God had absolutely determined he should suffer it and as Reason did propose it as the only means to procure the salvation of the world and abhor Death he did not as God had decreed he should suffer it for the Redemption of the world but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and secundum quid as they speak as destructive to Nature and most grievous to flesh
and blood as precisely and by its self considered without relation to the end which God had appointed which Sense could not judge of § 54. And now if it here be said that these two Acts of the will volo nollem I will and I would not though they are not properly and simply contrary yet as they both respect the same material Object they are in some regard opposite and one may in part hinder and retard the motion of the other and therefore there may be some kind of reluctancy some kind of unwilling willingness in Christ and the Acts of his will § 55. To this I answer that though it may be and ordinarily it is to in all other men yet it was not so in Christ For those Acts of the Will are then only in this respect opposite and trasâ—â—ng one another when one of them proceeds as Suarez expresses it praeter rationem deliberationem voluntatis â—ut when the inefficacious Act and desire of Nature is ab ipsamet voluntate praeordinatus deliberatus is foreseen and preordained and still guided by the deliberation and counsel of the Rational Appetite it cannot at all hinder or retard in the least the rational desires of the Will because they proceed and spring up in Nature only by its good will and deliberate consent § 56 And therefore thirdly since there is found no contrariety and opposition between the natural and sensual and rational desires of Christs humane will and all are conformable to his divine will and since all were most just and honest in themselves and the issues of Nature and Reason and Grace which are the works of God no wonder it is that now God should preordain that all these should work according to their proper Motions and inclinations since hereby God is glorified and the truth of Christs humane Nature declared and his Patience and Meekness and Courage and Mercy and Piety and Love both to God and man so highly magnified § 57. And then fourthly Christ might as innocently express these natural desires in Prayer to God and petition for a removal of them so far forth as they were burdensome and dreadful to Nature with submission to Gods will and a resolution patiently and freely to submit to what God has otherwise resolved Vide Hookers Eccl. Pol. l. 5. §. 48. pag. 283 284. and appointed For what I may lawfully desire that I may as lawfully pray for with submission to Gods will so far and according to the respects as I may desire it As then these inclinations of Sense dreading death were the issues of nature so Reason might be the †Christus oravit secundum sensualitatem in quantum sci Oratio ejus exprimebat sensualitatis affectum tanquam sensualitatis advocata c. Aquin. 3. part q. 21. art 2 in corp Vide Cajetan ibid. in Comment ad art 3. Oratio potest esse alicujus dupliciter uno modo sicut proponentis alio modo sicut ejus pro quo proponitur Primo modo Oratio non potest esse nisi rationis nullo modo sensualitatis quia oratio proponitur Deo Illius est ergo orare ut proponentis orationem cujus est in Deum tendere istud autem non est sensualitatis quae non transcendit sensibilia sed rationis Secundo modo potest esse oratio seusualitatis tanquam ejus pro quo proponitur sic oravit Christus quando petivit calicem passionis hujus à se transferri Durand l 3. Sent. d. 17. q 2. B. Advocate of Sense and express these desires in a Prayer for the removal of them so long as Reason still so rules and governs Sense that it patiently submits to Gods pleasure and desires it only with condition that God so sees fit And this we find to have been the condition of our Saviours Prayer First the Condition is expressed and then the Will is resigned to Gods ordering and pleasure and finally resolved and shut up in that Father if it be possible let this Cup pass from me yet not my will but thine be done § 58. The only * Sed hinc quaeritur cum ratio sciret sensualitatem non exaudiendam quomodo hanc proposuit petitionem Nich. d' Orbellis l. 3. Sent. dist 17. q 2. difficulty that remains is to consider with what propriety and congruity Christ might thus pray Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me when he knew it was not possible it should be removed because God had from all eternity decreed and absolutely resolved he should drink it when he himself had contracted and covenanted with his Father and came into the world for no other end § 59. To this I answer first that since Christ de facto did thus pray without doubt most congruous it was that he should so pray though we knew not the reason of it For plain it is that thus he prayed for a removall of this bitter Cup since all the Evangelists do punctually record it and S. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews does further confirm it and as plain it is that he himself did know that it was impossible the hour should be removed from him because he himself does so declare his knowledge even when he prayes for a removal of it Now is my soul troubled saies he Joh. 12. 27. and what shall I say Father save me from this * Vbi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnino mortis tempus denotat Grot. Annot. in Matt. 26. vers 39. hour but for this cause came I unto this hour Nor can it here be said that any thing either now or in his bloody Agony did †Cum autem verba haec Christi quae sequuntur uno nexu cohaereaÌ„t non est putandum quicquam illi velut impraemeditatum excidisse quod prius dixerat vere proprie per id quod posterius est emendari cum multo rectius dicatur uno codemque tempore Christum exprimere voluisse tum quid vellet tum quid velit c. H. Grot. Matt. 26. vers 39. Vide Luc. Brugens ibid. Hooker's Eccles Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 282. fall from him without due pondering and regard or that his present Griefs had distracted his Thoughts and troubled his Reason or disturbed his Memory so that he should need to correct and amend what he before had spoken amiss As this were unworthy the Saviour of the world so more truly we must say that Christ did at one and the same time express the desires of Nature and Grace of Sense and Reason both his absolute and effectual Will and Resolution and his inefficacious desires and the present necessities of Nature § 60. For Prayer as Mr. Hooker has most excellently well Hookers Eccl. Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 284. observed has other lawful uses then only to serve for a chosen mean whereby the Will resolveth to seek that which the Vnderstanding certainly knoweth or is perswaded it
verò fuit hic metus quod veriti sunt Christum tanto dolori subjicere ne ejus gloriam minâ—erent c. Calvin in Commentar ad Psal 22. vers 2 3. p 9â— Quod si primo conflictu elicitae fuerunt sanguinis guttae ut opus fuerit Consolatore Angelo non mirum est si in ultimo Agone confessus est tantum dolorem c. Calvin ibid. were not only for a shew and to be taken notice of by men but they came from the heart the heightned outcries the streams and flouds of tears and strong clamors were true and real symptomes of a more then ordinary fervour a more intense ardency then formerly he had accasion for And therefore we may well conclude that as his now approaching torments made a stronger impression on his humane Nature then at other times so now on this occasion he prayed the more earnestly then at other times As the occasion was weighty for the inflaming of his zeal so it cannot be denyed but his fervency was advanced to a proportionable degree And so as the Doctor saies his bloody Agony may well testifie but it cannot prejudge the ardency that by this occasion was heightned § 73. And therefore †Non ergo sine causa ipse quoque Dominus quum precibus incumbere vehementius vellet in secessum procul hominum tumultu se conferebat c. Calvin Institut lib. 3. c. 20. §. 29. Mr. Calvin not only acknowledges that our Blessed Saviour did sometimes pray more ardently then at other times but also demonstrates that times of trouble distress are fit opportunities for the heightning of our fervour and ardency in Prayer and that then Vide Calvin in Matt. 26. 39. Institut lib. 2. c. 16. §. 11 12. more especially God calls upon us for it His words are these Si quis objiciat non semper aequali necessitate urgeri nos ad precandum fateor id quidem atque haec distinctio nobis à Jacobo utiliter traditur * Jac. 5. 13. Tristatur quis inter vos oret qui laetus est canat Ergo dictat ipse communis sensus quia nimium pigri sumus prout res exigit nos acrius à Deo pungi ad strenue orandum Psal 32. 6. Et hoc tempus opportunum nominat David quia sicuti pluribus aliis locis docet quo nos durius premunt molestiae incommoda timores aliaeque species tentationum ac si nos Deus ad se accerseret liberior patet accessus Calvin Institut l. 3. c. 20. § 7. So again to this purpose § 29. Sed enim istud nihil obstat quo minus unaquaeque Ecclesia cum subinde ad frequentiorem precationum usum se extimulare tum majore aliqua necessitate admonita acriore studio flagrare debeat § 74. And therefore since as Mr. Calvin most truly a time of great affliction is a fit season for the heightning our zeal and devotion and God then more signally calls upon us for it Our Saviour all whose actions especially of this nature were for 2 Pet. 2. 21. our example and instruction did now in this his Agony pray more earnestly to teach us what we should do in such cases and that we might learn from his practise that a Time of affliction is a season for the growth of our inward ardency and devotion and intenseness in Prayer as well as for the outward clamors and outcries Quoderat demonstrandum § 75. And therefore though it is evident that now it will be lost labour to make any reflections upon the former part of our Refuters second Answer yet to gratifie him in these his injunctions I shall cast some light strictures on it though the Doctor did not because it was needless § 76. Whereas then our Refuter saies in the application of the first branch of his second answer That if we consider Christs prayer in reference unto the Object unto whom it was made God the religion and inward worship of his Prayer was for degrees alwaies alike equal His trust and dependance upon God love of zeal and devotion towards God from which all his Prayers flowed were not at one time more intense then at another § 77. To this I answer First 1. That if these be considered in the Habit without doubt they were alwaies alike equal they were not at one time more intense then at another because habitually they were alwaies in him in the full height and Perfection But then this is not the question between him and the Doctor 2. But then secondly if these be considered in their several Acts and if we shall compare them one with another there must of necessity be a gradual difference in them according to the present exigence and occasion The reason is one and the same in these and all other Acts of vertue quod scilicet as Cajetan truly si homo exercet Cajetan in 2. 2. q. 38. art 12. in respons ad terlium eos tenetur eos exercere cum debitis circumstantiis A man is bound to perform them with all due and lawful circumstances And therefore though the Habit of divine Charity of Religion and Devotion c. be alwaies full yet the will of Christ did perform the several Acts of those graces according to those due measures and circumstances that Gods Law required His love to God in the Act I mean in that high that transcendent Act of divine Love immediately terminated on God was at the height his own glory and exaltation in the Humane Nature he loved in a proportionable degree next to that and then the Church and then his own life which yet he laid down for the redemption of the Faithful So also in the Acts of Prayer and Devotion they were alwaies performed with that fervency as the present occasion and the things that he prayed for did require This already has abundantly been demonstrated and therefore needs no further proof § 78. Secondly I answer That if we shall consider Christs actuall Love as immediatly terminated on God and the Acts of his trust and dependance upon him his Acts of Love and Zeal and Devotion towards him that immediatly flowed from his all-full and perfect knowledge of Gods absolute soveraignty and goodness which as Comprehensor and also by the Habit of infused knowledge of God he enjoyed those were alwaies one and the same he could not love him more then he did or reverence him more then he did or trust in him more then he did because it was impossible he should know or enjoy him more then he did But these being the spring and fountain from which all Christs Prayers flowed as our Refuter expresly acknowledges were not the Acts of that holy Love and Zeal and Devotion that are now in controversie between himself and the Doctor and therefore their constant fulness of intensive perfection makes nothing to this purpose § 79. But then there are other Acts of Love and Charity
the smallest misadventures our Refuter will appear guilty of and therefore I shall not fix upon it especially since it matters not much if the Doctor be proved obnoxious to the Error charged upon him what the Reason was that first did move him to confute it § 3. Yet for his comfort I must tell him that as his first undertaking was altogether groundless so this whole Process is ridiculous and only a great heap of Errors and mistakes § 4. For first he very ignorantly or wilfully confounds the Immanent Acts of Love with the Action of Loving things that are toto genere different For this is a Praedicamental Action and the other are Qualities specifically distinct from the habit of Love as shall in due place be demonstrated And he could not but know that the Doctor positively does maintain it in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore must not by the Rules of Art be supposed to be otherwise without a Pittiful begging of the Question till the contrary has been proved against him This Argument then of which he is so confident that he shall submit it to the Doctors most severe examination at the very first glance appears an empty Paralogism that cannot conclude any thing against the Doctor For the Syllogism let it be put into whatsoever form this Refuter can devise will consist of four terms the Doctor by the Acts of Love in the Conclusion to be brought against him meaning the Quality of Actual Love and the Refuter in one of the Premisses by the Acts of Love understanding the Predicamental Action of Loving and consequently there can be no opposition because it cannot be ad idem § 5. But then secondly suppose we his Discourse were artificial yet it will not at all concern the Assertion of the Doctor For Intension and Remission is properly a gradual heightning or abatement of the same Numerical Form as we shall hereafter prove But the Doctor never affirms as I can find that the self-same Numerical Act of Holy Love in Christ was more intense at one time than at another which this Argument supposes He only affirms that Christ in one Act of Divine Love or holy Charity for this alone the Doctor means as shall in due place be evidenced though this Refuter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes it for that high and most transcendent Act of Love that was immediately fixed on God as its proper Object was more ardent than in another as in his dying for us than in his suffering Hunger Poverty Nakedness for our sakes or that this inward Act of divine Charity in Christ was more ardent and intense than those other were Now this Assertion as it is a Truth clearly demonstrable and shall in due place be made good so it is not any wayes concerned in this Argument of the Refuter § 6. For though true it is that Actions are not intended but by reason of Qualities yet this nothing hinders but that one individual Action may Comparatively and Respectively be more intense than another even where the gradual height of both is supposed to be still Simply and Absolutely invariable still the same For instance Illumination is a proper Praedicamental Action and yet Sense and experience tells us that the illumination of the Sun and the illumination of any one of the fixed Stars are gradually different and yet the illumination of both is still the same in it self and never varies but by accident in respect of the variety of the Medium or distance because the Original light of the Sun and Stars is still invariable * Aristot li. 2. de Generat corrupt c. 10. text 56. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes the great Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Causa necessaria ad aliquod agendum determinata est agitque quando quantum potest Burgersdic Log. li. 1. c 17. theor 13. Vid. commentar Agentia pure naturalia recte se habentia ad unum natura sunt determinata ut sublatis impedimentis externis non possunt non id producere ut patet exemplo corporum coelestium c. Wendelin Contemp. Physic Sect. 1. Part. 1. c. 4. p. â—00 So also Scheibler Metaphys l. 1. c. 22. tit 8. art 2. n. 96. For all natural Causes continuing still the same do alwayes work alike because they work by a necessity of nature and to the utmost of their strength and might § 7. And therefore notwithstanding this Refuters Argument I see no reason why also it may not be so in respect of the several individual Acts of Christ's Love and that though they in themselves be supposed to continue still invariable of one equal intension in themselves they may not yet in comparison and respect of one another be said to be more or less ardent and intense § 8. For thirdly to shew this Refuters Discourse yet more impertinent though most certain it is as the Doctor clearly grants and maintains that the Habit of Divine Charity in Christ was de facto alwayes at the height and in its utmost fulness that a finite Nature was capable of yet it is not therefore necessary that every Act of holy Charity should be alwayes in its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and full height nor will it thence follow that every Act of this Habit should be equally intense with the Cause from whence it flowes but may differ in degrees not only from the Habit but also from all other Acts springing from it unless this Refuter can by other Arguments than this prove a necessity of the gradual determination and equality of intensness of the several Acts with the Habit. § 9. Now all things that are any wayes determined must of necessity be determined either ab intrinseco or ab extrinseco from some internal cause and necessity of nature or from some outward bounds and limitations § 10. Ab intra there can be imagined no determination possible as his Master Scheibler may teach him For the Habit or Principle of these Immanent Acts is not necessary and determined in its Operations but an absolute * Of the difference between Natural Voluntary Agents Vid. Scheibler Metaphys li. 1. c. 22. tit 8. art 2. n. 96. De actibus liberis censeo etiam certum nec de potentia absoluta posse liberos esse nisi effectivè fiant à potentia libera cujus sunt Actiones ut in superioribus tactum est Suarez Metaphys disp 47. Sect. 2. §. 9. p. 557. free Cause as the Will it self is wherein it is subjected with which it coeffectively still concurres to the Production of the Acts because as it is confessed by this Refuter in this very Argument it is a Moral Habit that is only seated in the Will § 11. Ab extra the Habit cannot be supposed to be determined in its Operations to one absolute height and degree of intensness without a manifest Petitio Principii till it be proved against the Doctor For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
and he is no true Christian that does not must also ex consequenti acknowledge that the Manhood of our Saviour now anointed all over with the Godhead was by virtue of the Hypostatical Vnion full of grace and truth not as a Vessel but the Ocean and the fountain of living waters For as God gave not the Spirit by measure to him so when the Word was made flesh so full he was that as the Evangelist expresly of his fulness we have all received and that Grace for Grace All the Graces that we have either for kind or degrees do all flow from his Fulness as all Springs and Rivers take their beginnings from the Ocean And a perfection this is that (a) Vid. Aquin. 3. part q. 7. art 12 13. Suarez tom 1. in 3 am part Thom. disp 22. sect 1 2. per tot de congruo flowes from the Personal Vnion and assuming of the Manhood into God It was not fit that he who was all infinitely Perfect as God should have any thing of Perfection wanting in him as Man so far forth as a finite Nature was capable and the present state and condition of that Office he had undertaken to perform and execute in the dayes of his Flesh did admit § 29. But then let me adde for the further clearing of this debate that § 30. Though the Habit of Divine Charity in Christ concretively considered and as supernaturally subjected in the Will of that man who was truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was by reason of the Hypostatical Vnion though not infinite yet incapable of addition though from the first moment of Conception it was in him in all fulness so as to be incapable of increase yet precisely and abstractly considered this as all other Habits was capable of Intension and Remission as de facto we find it true in the same (b) Dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est art 3. hujus quando imperfectio alicujus rei non est de ratione speciei ipsius nihil prohibet idem Numero quod prius fuit imperfectum postea perfectum esse sicut homo per augmentum perficitur albedo per intensionem Charitas autem est amor de cujus ratione non est aliqua imperfectio potest enim esse habiti non habiti visi non visi Vnde Charitas non evacuatur per gloriae perfectionem sed Eadem numero manet Aquin. 1. 2. q. 67. art 6. in corp Charitas quidem ex parte est ut saepe Sancti docent quia ex parte diligimus nunc ideo ipsa evacuabitur in quantum ex parte est quia tolletur imperfectio addetur perfectio remanebitque ipsa aucta actus ejus modus diligendi P. Lombard 3. Sent. d. 31. lit C. Vid. Scot. ibid. q. 1. n. 7 8. Durand ibid. q. 60. in corp Aquin. alios ibid. numerical Habit of divine Charity in respect of the same Saint in patriâ (c) Deus quanto perfectius cognoscitur tanto perfectius amatur Aquin. 1. 2. q. 67. art 6. ad 3 am Ignotinulla cupido more intense then formerly in viâ where we can love but in part because we know but in part and our Love of necessity must bear proportion to our Knowledge And therefore it was wholly accidental to the Habit of Divine Grace in Christ that it should be thus in that superlative height conferred upon the Manhood of Christ in the first moment of Conception so that in that nature it was now incapable of increase even according to the ordinary power of God himself (a) Ad Secundum dicendum quod virtus Divina licet possit facere aliquid majus melius quam sit habitualis Gratia Christi non tamen posset facere quod ordinaretur ad aliquid majus quam sit Personalis Vnio ad Filium unigenitum cum Vnioni sufficienter correspondet talis mensura Gratiae secundum definitionem Divinae sapientiae Aquin. q. 7. art 12. ad 2 am Potuisset quidem D. Thomas clarius dicere argumentum concludere posse illi Gratiae fieri additionem in gradibus intensionis de potentiâ absolutâ non tamen de ordinariâ hoc tamen significavit illis verbis ut utriusque partis rationem attingeret Ideo enim de potentiâ absolutâ posset augeri seu intendi quia nullam involvit repugnantiam aut contradictionem magis quà m quod finita quantitas secundum se Mathematicè considerata augeatur tamen quia ex ordinatione Divina Gratia illa quasi coaptata est gratiae Vnionis non potest ad altiorem ordinari ad illum vero sufficit quantitas gratiae quae ex dispositione Divinae Sapientiae Christo data est ut in solutione ad secundum aperte dicit D. Thomas ideo sub hac consideratione haec Gratia habet rationem connaturalis formae ideo augeri non potest secundum potentiam ordinariam ut dictum est Suarez tom 1. in 3m. partem Thomae q. 7. art 3. in Commentar ad loc supracitat p. 315. B. C. This height and perfection sprang not at all from the nature of the Habit but only from Gods will and the congruity between the Person and that fulness of Grace on which it was bestowed God that has thus heaped it in all fulness on the Manhood of our Saviour might (b) Vid. Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1 disp 18 sect 4. p. 292. col 2. 293. col 1. Vid. ibid. in commentar ad q. 7. art 1. p. 284. col 2. b. ibid. sect 1. p. 287. col 1 2. Amesii Bellarm. Enervat l. 2. c. 1. thes 1. §. 6. Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 38. sect 4. p. 528. col 2. E. at least de potentiâ absolutâ by degrees have conferred it on the Manhood notwithstanding the Personal Vnion and the Godhead in the Person of Christ might gradually have communicated the sight and comfortable influence of the Divine Nature to the superiour faculties of the Soul wherein as shall be shewed in due place he was alwaies Comprehensor as it did de facto communicate it to the inferiour faculties in which regard in the daies of his flesh he was viator Now Suarez himself resolves that quanquam Christi Gratia fuerit tam intensa ut juxta ordinem Divinae Potentiae nulla intensior esse potuerit de Potentia tamen Dei absoluta potuisse fieri intensiorem tam in ipsâ animâ Christi quà m in Angelo vel in aliâ animâ And he has great Reason and Authority on his side Vid. Suarez in tert part Thom. tom 1. disp 22. sect 2. p. 322. col 1. F c. § 31. And this Habitual Grà ce of Divine Love is so often acknowledged by the Doctor to be all-full and perfect in Christ nay to be alwaies in Christ so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees nay so clearly
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
and Scotus and other of the old School-men say is required by this Law And is not this denyed by Bellarmine and is it not therefore justly charged upon him by Protestants And yet does not the Doctors exposition in this comply with Bellarmine § 30. To this I answer by degrees First that true it is that the learned Chamier does thus conclude against Bellarmine But then plain it is that these are none of that Veterum Sententia quam nos tenemus but only Inferences and Deductions from it And if our Refuter will allow me what he cannot reasonably deny that the Doctors exposition is exactly conformable to this of the Ancients which Chamier acknowledges that the Protestants maintain I shall not envy him those advantages he can make by these Corollaries § 31. Secondly though it were †Vide Davenant de Justit habit actual c. 46. p. 529 550 in sol ad 2. granted that these Inferences were good and forceable against Bellarmine that maintaines a man may not only keep the Law to that height that he may merit at Gods hands but also supererogate and be more holy and righteous then the Law does require yet they no waies concern the Doctor that speaks not of a sinlesse perfection but of the sincerity of this or that vertue in this or that Performance which though it exclude not all mixture of sin in the suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that Act. The truth of which assertion as it is acknowledged by Chamier in the Case of David and Josiah so is it so farre different from Bellarmine's assertion against which these Corollaries of Chamier were directed that it is even opposite and contrary to it § 32. Thirdly I acknowledge that Bellarmine grants that Saint Austin and Bernard and Aquinas and other of the old Schoolmen do speak of such a Perfection required by this Law that advances our Love to that height that we must do nothing else but think of God nothing else but love him and this not only in the Habit but in the Act. This Love he acknowledges does so wholly possess the soul that no idle vitious Thought can obtrude or press in upon it nothing either contrary or besides this holy love can have any the least admission into the heart but that of necessity God is and must be all in all But then he addes that this Love is proper only to the Saints in Bliss and that we whilst we are in the flesh as we are not capable of it so it is not it cannot be enjoyned us but it is only proposed that we may know what we are to aim at and hope for and desire in heaven and that this is the meaning of Saint Austin Bernard and Aquinas and the Schoolmen when they say this Perfection is not attainable in this life But of this more in due place and let Bellarmin stand and fall to his own Master § 33. But then Fourthly be it granted that those Corollaries of Chamier are rightly inferred against Bellarmine's doctrine of the several states of Perfection and works of supererogation and the possibility of fulfilling the Law yet neither of them will any whit advantage our Refuter in the present controversie depending between him and the Doctor For though God should require of us by that Law that we love him totis viribus naturae non tantum totis viribus corruptionis yet the †Vide Doctor Hammonds Account of Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe c. 6. sect 8. §. 6 7. p. 204. Doctor has most irrefragably demonstrated against Mr. Cawdrey that even the sinless Perfection of Adam in Innocence was a state of Proficiency and that he and all his posterity had even in that first Integrity and Holiness wherein they were first created been in statu merendi till the time of their translation and consequently had been obliged as well as we are now to grow at least in Actual Grace and the knowledge and the Love of God § 34. And Mr. Cawdrey in effect grants it For Christ being Heb 7. 26. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatrib p. 116. holy harmless undefiled and still perfectly continuing in that first innocent estate wherein Adam was created he saies did more then the Law required and did supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and so in the degree of affection in Prayer if not in the Prayer it self § 35. It is true that for a Salve he saies that Christ was above the Law § 36. But then this is nothing to the purpose For though 1 Tim. 6. 16. as he was God the King of Kings and Lord of Lords he were the supreme Lawgiver and the absolute Soveraign and so in this Philip. 2 7. Gal. 4. 4. sense was not under but above the Law yet as he took upon him the form of a servant as he was made of a woman so the Apostle expresly saies he was made under the Law and as he was born Gal. 3. 16. Gen. 17. 9 10 11 12 13 14. Gal. 5. 2. the Son and Seed of Abraham so bound he was to be circumcised the eighth day and being thus circumcised the Apostle plainly testifies that as every man that is circumcised so he was a debter to do the whole Law and consequently in this sense he was not above it And therefore nothing hinders but that Adam if he had persevered in his first Innocence might notwithstanding the Obligation of that first great Law of Love to which Christ also was subject as Man supererogate also in some such like Actions and Passions so in the degree of Affection suppose in Prayer if not in the Prayer it self § 37. If here it be replyed that as Christ according to his Divine Nature was above the Law so by virtue of the Hypostatical Vnion as Man he had the fulness of Grace which Adam had not whereby he was enabled to such supererogating Performances § 38. For answer indeed I grant that he had the very †John 1. 16. c. 3. 34. Coloss 1. 19. Fulnesse of Grace But then this solves not the Doubt For the Question is not now concerning the Measure of Grace but the Extents and Obligation of the Law and whether that admits of any vertuous o◠holy or pious performances above what Man is in particular obliged to by it And in this respect the first and second Adam are equall because both as Men were equally made under the Law But then Adam though he were created in a mutable Condition as Christ was not though he had not a fulnesse of Grace as Christ had yet if he had not fallen from his first innocence he had such a Measure of Grace and Original Righteousnesse bestowed upon him that would not only have preserved him in his integrity but also enabled him to do whatsoever the Law required and whatsoever other vertuous holy pious performances could by Man
Christi indignitas nostra dignitas est non enim exinanivit semetipsum in sui sed in nâ—stri gratiam quemadmodum docet Paulus Christum non quaesivisse sua sed aliena Thus far the learned Cameron § 75. I shall conclude with Doctor Reynolds a very learned man it is in his Treatise of the life of Christ. Thus. Lastly our holiness must have a growth and proficiency with Ed. Reynolds life of Christ p. 423. edit 5. quarto Luc 2. 40 52. Heb. 5 8. it Grow in Grace Let these things be in you and abound as it is said of Christ that he encreased in wisdome and favour with God and men and that he learned obedience by the things that he suffered If it be here objected that Christ was ever full and had the spirit without measure even from the womb for in as much as his divine nature was in his infancy as fully united to his humane as ever after therefore the fullness of grace which was a consequence thereupon was as much as ever after To this I answer that certain it is that Christ was ever full of Grace and Spirit but that excludes not his growth in them proportionably to the ripeness and by consequence capacity of his humane nature Suppose we the Sun were vegetable and a subject of augmentation though it could be never true to say that it is fuller of light then it was yet it would be true to say that it hath more light now then it had when it was of a lesser capacity Even so Christ being in all things save sin like unto us and therefore like us in the degrees and progresses of naturall maturity though he were ever full of Grace may yet be said to grow in it and to learn because as the capacity of his nature was enlarged the spring of Grace within him did rise up and proportionably fill it Thus far D. Reynolds § 76. But because this impossible supposition of a vegetable Sun may seem too obscure an instance though borrowed from the fountain of light I shall presume by that learned mans leave otherwise to explain his meaning § 77. The soul of man we know and it is generally believed Vid. Scal exer 307. sect 29. mihi p. 941. Sennert Epit. Nat. Scien l 6 c. 1. p. 410. Ruvio de Anim. l. 2. q. 4. as it is spirituall in its nature so it is also indivisible whence the philosopher has left it for an undoubted Maxime that it is tota in toto tota in qualibet parte As then the soul of an Infant though in it self indivisible and Essentially perfect according to the first Act does yet successively though still indivisibly in it self as I may say coextend it self to all the really augmented dimensions of his Stature till he comes to a full age and growth and successively though still indivisibly according to the first Act grow in actuall perfections of Rationality so the infused Habit of wisdome and Grace in our blessed Saviour though it were indivisibly and in it self perfectly communicated to the humane nature according to the first Act yet successively though still indivisibly in it self did extend it self and really increase and grow in respect of the second Act or Actuall wisdom and grace Or if this be yet too short I shall borrow another playner because Ocular Demonstration from the Mathematicks Suppose we then a Centre fixed upon a Plain and from that Centre A a circumference B drawn and eight or nine circles successively also drawn from the same centre between A and B Then let an hundred severall Radii more or less be drawn through A. and every intermediate circle to both sides of the circumference B. plain it is that every Diameter that passes from one side of the circumference B to the other does also pass through every intermediate lesser circle and also through the centre A. And yet Reason and the Eye tells us that there is a greater and more perfect distance of the Rayes in B. then there is in any of the intermediate circles and none at all in the centre A. and yet for all that there are nor indeed can no more Diameters pass through B. then through A. nor can any Ray pass from B but it must also come from A So is it in respect of the Habituall perfection of Christs wisdome and Grace Whilst yet the Manhood was as I may so speak in the Embrio-centre at his first conception in the womb he was equally full in respect of the Habit of wisdom and Grace as he was when he first entred on his Prophetick office or indeed after his glorious exaltation yet as he grew in years and stature successively though still indivisibly he may be said to grow in wisdome and Grace according to the second Act and to learn actually what he knew not actually before in particular the day of Judgement because as the capacity of his nature was enlarged the spring of Grace within him did rise up and proportionably fill it as the Rayes passing through and arising from the centre A are proportionably as I may so speak enlarged according to the Proportion of every circle and do proportionably fill them It is with the Habit of divine Grace in Christ in respect of the successively more perfect Acts of Grace performed by him in a more perfect manner as it is with the centre A. in respect of all the Rayes that pass through it and all the intermediate circles to the Circumference B. It is potentially every Ray and all arise from it and as the capacity of the circles are enlarged so does that spring within them rise up and proportionably fill them § 78. If here our Refuter shall reply that these Instances do confirm his assertion against D. Hammond and that thence it evidently follows as he maintains that there was no reall augmentation in respect of the Acts of Christs wisdome and Grace no more then in respect of the Habit as there can be no more Rayes in the circumference B then what pass through A and all the intermediate circles and consequently it will follow that though he really encreased in the perfection of his stature yet he did not so increase in respect of the inward and elicite Acts of wisdome and Grace no more then in the Habit but onely in regard of outward appearance to men and in respect of the outward sensible imperate Acts of his wisdome and grace § 79. To this I answer that thus indeed Bellarmine and Maldonate and others of that party maintain in opposition to the Divines of the Reformation But then this cannot possibly agree with Doctor Reynolds his words And since that learned man is yet alive he may please to consult him and if he shall declare himself as I believe he will not to be of Bellarmines Judgement I shall then strike him out of my Catalogue as having no need of his Testimony since so many learned men both Protestants and
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
est nisi quaedam explicatio voluntatis apud Deum ut supplâ—at indigentiam quam per nos ipsos supplere non possumus Durand l. 3. Sent. dist 17. q. 2. art â— p. 185. 4. Oratio est Actus inferioris deprecantis superiorem ut se adjuvet unde est Actus indigentis ope alterius cui cultum reverentiam exhibet ideo ad religionem pertinet Suarez in 3. p. Tho. q. 21. art 1. in Commentar p. 588 col 2. E. Est oratio quaedam hominuÌ„ cum Deo communicatio quâ Sanctuarium coeli ingressi de suis promissis illum coram appellant ut quod verbo duntaxat annuenti crediderunt non esse vanum ubi necessitas ita postulat experiantur Calv. Institut lib. 3. c. 20. §. 2. Quando verò hunc esse orationis scopum ut erecti in Deum animi ferantur tum ad confessionem Laudis tum ad opem implorandam ex eo intelligere licet primas ejus partes in mente animo positas esse vel potius Orationem ipsam esse propriè interioris cordis affectum qui apud Deum cordium Scrutatorem effunditur exponitur Calv. ibid. §. 29. an Act of the Soul whereby we supplicate and beseech God whom we reverence and worship for a supply of our wants which we our selves are not able to attain to but only by his assistance and bounty in whom is all fulness § 22. But then though this be the proper genuine signification of Prayer yet * Etsi autem Oratio proprie ad vota preces restringitur tanta est tamen inter Petitionem Gratiarum actionem affinitas ut commodè sub nomine uno comprehendi queaÌ„t NaÌ„ quas Paulus enumerat species sub prius membrum hujus partitionis recidunt Calv. ibid. §. 28. Vide Aquin. 2 2. q. 83. art 17. Suarez in 3. p. Thom. q. 21. art 4. distinct 45. sect 1. such is the affinity between Prayer and Thanksgiving that as they usually and most decently go together so they are commonly comprehended under the same common name of Prayer Of Prayer in this notion the Apostle and the Schools from him reckon up four kinds 1 Tim. 2. 1. | Haec alia nomina quibus preces distinguantur reperies in libro de morte Mosis Vide H. Grot. Annot posthum in 1 Tim. c. 1. ver 1. First Supplications which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and are Deprecations or prayers for the removal of Evils whether corporal or spiritual Secondly Prayers which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and these are for the procurement of Good things for our selves Thirdly Intercessions which he there calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are either for the suspension of Judgements or obteining of Blessings for others Fourthly Giving of thanks which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that are in an humble acknowledgement and gratulation offered up to God for the Benefits we or others have received Of all these the Scriptures afford us frequent Instances § 23. Now if we take Prayer in the first sense according to Damascen for an assent of the Soul to God by Contemplation Meditation Devotion and the like there is no doubt but thus it was most super-excellently in Christ * Si hoc modo sumatur Oratio non est quod disputetur an in Christo fuerit cujus anima perfectissima contemplatione in Deum ferebatur non solum per beatam fruitionem sed per Scientiam etiam infusam liberum charitatis actum ut in superioribus tractatum est Suarez in 3. p. Thom. dist 45. sect 1. His Soul winged with Contemplation still constantly lodged it self in the bosome of God whom he so perfectly saw so perfectly enjoyed and so perfectly loved The only doubt is that since Christ was from the first moment of his Conception perfectus Comprehensor in full and perfect possession of heaven happiness and the clear sight and enjoyment of God whether he may with any congruity be said to pray as that properly signifies an Act of the Soul either requiring aid and asstance from God for the supply of those things we stand in need of or returning Thanks for that supply For Christ being truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect God as well as Man he could neither have a superiour to reverence nor have need of assistance because he was Almighty and the Soveraign Lord of all things And being also in the humane Nature perfectus Comprehensor he enjoyed the fulness of heaven happiness which excludes all wants and all sorrows And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes and there shall be no more death neither sorrow nor crying neither shall there be any more pain for the former things are passed away Rev. 21. 4. § 24. To this I answer from Aquinas that if Christ were only God or though he had two natures yet if he had but one Will which was divine as the Monothelites phansied then it neither Si in Christo esset una tantum voluntas scil divina nullo modo competeret sibi orare quia voluntas divina per seipsam est effectiva eorum quae vult secundum illud Psalmi 134. Omnia quaecunque voluit Dominus fecit Sed quia in Christo est alia voluntas divina alia humana voluntas humana non est per seipsam efficax ad implendum quae vult nisi per virtutem divinam inde est quod Christo secundum quod est homo humanam voluntatem habens competit orare Aquin. 3. part q. 21. art 1. in Corp. Vide Cajetan Suaresium commentator in loc alios Suarez ibid. disp 45. sect 1. Durand l. 3. Sent. d. 17. q. 2. art 1. could be needful nor proper and convenient for him to pray For as God has no superiour to reverence so has he no need of any helper or assistant His will is absolutely all-powerful and therefore saies David Psal 134. 6. Whatsoever the Lord pleased that did he in heaven and in earth in the sea and all deep places § 25. But then Christ being also perfect man as well as God and endued with a humane will and understanding essentially consequent to that Nature which of it self is not able without the assistance of God to perform what it may rationally desire and being as Man of a nature truly passible and mortal and whose Soul also in the inferiour part was subject to Passions and infirmities as well as his body before his Resurrection in which respect he was not yet possessed of heaven happinesse but a necessity there lay upon him first to suffer and then to enter into his glory in this state and condition he might with convenience and without any derogation from the Perfection of his divine
nature or the heaven happinesse of his Soul which he enjoyed as Comprehensor not only pray to God for his assistance but blesse and magnifie him for it As Comprehensor indeed and one already fully possessed of heaven happinesse and the sight of God there was no reason he should pray since in this he could not want but was already perfectly possessed of whatsoever he was capable of But then as he was yet in some respects truly in the state of a Viator one subject to miseries and infirmities and bodily wants and not yet possessed of that glory and those * Heb. 12. 2. joyes set before him and therefore being a frail man well as an all-powerful God that not only might but did truly stand in need of Gods aid and protection and having also a humane will that naturally and innocently prompted him on to desire those things he stood in need of and yet by that will of it self without Gods assistance was not able to accomplish his desires pray he might for Gods assistance as also praise him for it as well as he might also stand in need of Gods assistance § 26. But what though Christ as man were in capacity to petition at the Throne of grace for those things which as man he might need and was not able to perform will it therefore follow that as man being also God it was fit for him to pray For all things are lawful for me sayes the Apostle yet all things are not expedient § 27. To this I answer that whether we consider his transcendent love to God or his particular necessities in the humane nature or his Charity and Love to man for whose sake he became man there could nothing be more decent or that could better become him For first if we shall consider his present state and condition as now he was in the form of a servant obliged he was in duty to give God that Religious homage and Reverence which the Creature could pay to his Creator such worship and veneration that was due to the most high God that heareth prayer unto whom all flesh shall come Psalm 65. 2. Secondly If we consider his transcendent and superlative Love to God his Father that would still prompt him on by this best and noblest Act of worship to magnifie him since it is impossible but we should endeavour as much as in us lies the advancement of their honour whom we truly love and affect Thirdly If we shall consider the natural law of Charity that obliges us to endeavour by all lawful waies the relief of our wants the ease of our miseries and the advancement of our happiness that would also engage him to Prayer that is the best means to procure them at his hands that is the Father of lights from whom every good and perfect gift proceeds Fourthly If we shall consider the Religious Piety and transcendent goodness in the Act of Prayer it self that gives to God the honour due unto his name that magnifies him in his best and noblest attributes of Knowledge and Power and Mercy and Goodness and Justice and Faithfulness that owns him as the Author and fountain of all good the father of Mercies and the God of all consolation there could be no Act more becoming him that was so every way holy and so abundant and fruitful in every good work And therefore saies God in the Prophet Psal 50. 15. Call upon me in the day of trouble and I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorifie me Fifthly If we shall consider the great end of his coming into the world which was to work out our Salvation we shall find it fit and expedient he should accomplish it by all waies whatsoever not only by satisfying Gods Justice and meriting our Salvation but also by his Prayers and Intercession and leaving us an example in all the noblest Acts of Vertue and instructing us in the way and means how we should behave our selves in this part of divine worship and also how we might procure a supply of our wants from him who alone is able to relieve and help us § 28. And therefore no wonder since it was every way so fit and expedient for Christ to pray that God himself did also decree and ordain that he should use it not only for our example and an exercise of vertue but also as a necessary means for a procurement of those blessings which it was fit he should desire § 29. For though as God he was able to effect all things and therefore when Martha that esteemed him only as a man though a holy Prophet sent of God said unto him Lord if thou hadst been here my Brother had not dyed But I know that even now whatsoever thou wilt ask of God God will give it thee He to instruct her in the truth of his Godhead and that he had Vide Chrysost homil 61. in Joann no need to pray as Elijah and Elisha did for those they raised but could restore him by his own power saith unto her Thy Brother shall rise again And when she yet understood him not he said unto her I am the resurrection and the life c. and though as man being Comprehensor in the superiour part of his soul he saw all things in verbo by virtue of the hypostatical union that God had decreed should come to pass at least all things whatsoever that concern'd himself in the state of humiliation and the work of our Redemption And therefore he praies Father I thank thee that thou hast heard me and I knew thou hearest me Joh. 11. 41 42. alwaies But because of the people which stand by Chrysostomus homil 63. in Joan. Euthymius ibi Ambrosius lib. 4. de Fide c. 3. ita exponunt illa verba quae Christus subjunxit Ego autem sciebam quia semper me audis ut illa ad divinitatem Christi referant unde ita exponunt Gratias tibi ago non quia indigeam precibus coram te scio enim unam voluntatem me tecum habere ideoque semper velle quod ego volo sed propter Populum qui circumstat c. Et Theophylactus advertit Christum antequam orasset vel aliquid petiissâ—t dixisse Gratias tibi ago quia audisti me quia enim non opus habebat oratione non fuit Oratio audita sed voluntas iâ—pleta hoc fuit Christum exaudiri juxta Phrasin Scripturae juxâ—ae illud Desiderium paâ—â—â—um exaudisti Psal 6. et Deâ—â—â—â—â—ium meum audivit Omnipotent Suarez in 3. p. Thom. disp 4◠〈◊〉 1. p. â—93 col 1 2. Vi 〈…〉 3. part q. 21. art 3. in Corp. I said it that they may believe that thou hast sent me where we see as Theophylact well observes that he gives thanks before he prayes or asks any thing yet for all that God in his all-wise providence had decreed and ordered that as he should want somethings to testifie the truth and frailty of his humane nature