love of concupiscence which goes before Amorem gratuitum free Love For as the Apostle saith that is not first which is spirituall but that which is naturall or carnall and then that which is spirituall so free Love of God for himself is not first but first we love him for his benefits and then for himself and this is true love c. That which is naturall will be first concupiscentia before Amicitia or benevolentia and this is the inchoation of the other Perfect love is not attained at first for nemo repente fit summus Now Saint Chrysostome wondreth how men can slip themselves out of this Love for if they will love any for his Benefits none bids fairer for this Amor mercenarius then God for he offereth for it the kingdome of heaven c. And therefore it is lawfull to Love God for his benefits for God uses them as motives to stir us up to love him and the best of Gods servants have so practised Moses looked at the recompense Heb. 11. but we must not rest there nor love him onely or chiefly for them but for himself c. I love the Lord saith the Psalmist and why He is my defence Psal 18. 1. And in another place Because he heard my voyce yet seeing David did not Love God onely or chiefly for his benefits his love was not properly mercenary but true though not Perfect Thus far this most excellent Bishop whose words I have made use of as Jewels and ornaments to this discourse and because I think it impossible to me I am sure to express it better § 23. Now Christ being made like to us in all things sin onely excepted he must also have in him this naturall love of God for his benefits and protection and assistance that he had and might have from him and the Schools do resolve so For it was in its self naturall and therefore not sinfull and his present slate of a viator in the dayes of his flesh required it For though the Foxes have holes and the birds of the Air have nests yet the son of man had not where to lay his head He was truly vir desideriorum a man of desires as well as a man of sorrows This as it was naturall to the flesh and proper to him in the state of a viator so it agreed to him in respect of the Inferiour part of the Will and the sensitive Appetite which desired things naturall and necessary for it self but yet onely those things that were lawfull and fit And therefore the Schools though they resolve that there was not that hope Vid. Estium l. 3. sent d. 26. §. 8. alibi Aquin 3 part q. 7. art 4. Et Cajetan Suaresium alios in Loc. in Christ which is virtus Theologica Deum ipsum ut principale Objectum spectans yet there was in him another lower kind of hope bona quidem vera good and lawfull and true in it self which respected those things he had not yet obtained in the dayes of his flesh as his Resurrection the Glorification of himself in the humane Nature at the right hand of God and the honour of his Name and Enlargement of his kingdome In which respect saith the Psalmist in the Person of Christ in the Passion-Psalm 22. 10. I was cast upon thee from the womb thou art my God from my mothers Belly So again in the eighth and ninth verses He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him But thou art he that took me out of the womb thou didst make me hope when I was upon my Mothers breasts there are many other places in Scripture to this purpose but these are sufficient to our business This hope as it was the ground of his Love of God for the benefits he did expect and the assistance he stood in need of in the dayes of his flesh so it was the foundation of all his prayers either in regard of his present pressures and wants and reliefs he stood in need of or else in respect of the future blessings he expected after his resurrection As then as Aquinas tells us Christus habuit spem respectu aliquorum quae nondum erat adeptus so he did Aquin. 3. part q. 7. art 4. in corp truly in this respect divinum auxilium expectare In the midst of his afflictions and in the height of his Passion he trusted in God and he was heard in that he feared or delivered from it And as he trusted in God hoped in him and expected aid and assistance from him so he truly had a naturall love of God a love of desire and concupiscence towards God for the benefits and assistance he daily received and hoped from him And out of the abundance of this Love he cryes out upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me § 24. But then though this Love of concupiscence be ordinarily first in men and then afterwards the Love of Complacency though we love God first for his benefits and goodness to us and afterwards for himself yet it was not so in Christ For first as Comprehensor in his mind he loved God naturally and necessarily with the highest degree of complacency benevolence and friendship And this from the first moment of the souls union with the body And secondly as viator by reason of the fullness of the habit of Divine Grace he loved him alwayes as high with this love as the present state was capable of Though he loved God alwayes for his owne sake yet this supernaturall divine Love was not the fruit of his love of concupiscence and because he was sensible of Gods blessings and favours but it was the effect of the Beatificall vision and the fullness of divine Grace supernaturally infused from the first moment of his conception and de congruo both flowed from the Hypostaticall union § 25. But then as the Schools distinguish of a threefold knowledge in Christ the one which they call beata the other infusa and the third Experimentalis and Acquisita so there is also observed by them a threefold love of complacency in Christ The first is the beatifick Love proper to him as Comprehensor the second the Acts of the infused habit of divine Love And the third a Love of Complacency flowing from the frequent experiences of Gods goodness to him in the dayes of his flesh For he also did taste and see how good and gratious to him the Lord was in that state when he was truly that man of sorrows This was Acquisite and experimentall and this we may without any dishonour to Christ or the least disparagement to divine truth say was the issue of that other Love a Love of God for his blessings and gratious assistance This was a ravishing contentment arising in the Inferiour part of his soul a sweet delight and complacency in God from the experience of his goodness answering and satisfying those desires
the Doctor to be understood The Doctors censure of the Refuters additions just 42 SECT VI. The Refuter acknowledges his own ignorance of a generally received opinion Love a genus to the habit and the act Proved for the Refuters instruction His charging his ignorance on Aristotle Aristotle his Master why vainly quoted He speaks not to the present controversie The assumption onely denyed 72 SECT VII The Refuters reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of love into the habit and the act found in the tract of Will-worship and the answer to M. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions referr first and immediately to the inward acts of love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doctor never asserts that love was univocally predicated of the habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a clear truth His third most false In univocal productions the cause and effect still comprehended under the same genus sometimes also in equivocall His assumption of his first reason infirm His second and fourth reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally predicated of the habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor 78 SECT VIII The Refuters tongue-combat He a man of business The pertinency of the Doctors first papers to explain the meaning of the latter Unjustly censured for speaking cautelously The Refuters understanding the Doctor for a critick and a dunce Erasmus's sate the same with the Doctors Critick an honourable title The best Scholars criticks and who The true critick an universall Scholar Sextus Empericus and Crates character of a critick Quintilianus character of the true Grammarian Aristotle the first author of criticisme and grammar Necessary to compleat the Divine The best way to advance learning to unite criticisme and school-learning Pity the Refuter had not been a critick His mistake of the word Salvo what it signifies The method of the Schools in polemicall discourses observed by the Doctor The Refuter saying and unsaying 91 SECT IX The Refuters impertinent referring to former performances His vain pretences of proof The Refuters reasonings with himself inconsequent proved The intention of the act proportioned to the intension of the habit so as not to exceed it unless by accident but not alwayes to equall it Proved by instance of the Lutenist and Painter and Preacher Habits not necessary but voluntary causes unless ab extrinseco determined 104 SECT X. The Refuters saying is the onely proof that actuall love is in the predicament of action The contrary proved by Suarez Smiglecius Scheibler In actuall love the action and the terminus of it considerable The Refuters remarques in Scheibler impertinent His oracles nothing to the purpose The propositions to be proved Immanent acts in what sense qualities Scheibler not slighted Aristotle his character of Eudoxus agreeable to the Refuter His words not home to the Refuters purpose proved from reason and Suarez Habitual and actuall love both qualities and species of the same genus proved from sundry places in Suarez The Refuters further impertinencies Immanent acts of love in what sense dispositions in what not from Smiglecius Aquinas Acts of two sorts 112 SECT XI The Doctors explication from the Refuters concessions The Refuters reply and valiant resolution His first charge answered His second charge answered in three distinct propositions 1. Expressions gradually different may and in Christ alwayes did flow from a love equally intense in the habit This not the question 2. Nothing naturally hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from acts of love gradually the same Proved Gods outward favours and expressions different The inward act of his love still one and invariable Proved against the Socinian Gods love one infinite and substantiall act against Crellius In what sense God in Scripture said to love some more some less The doctrine of the Schools safer then that of the Socinian God by one immutable act dispenses all the variety of his favours Illustrated The variety in Gods outward favours whence it arises Confirmed from Lombard Aquinas Scotus Applyed to the Refuter 3. In men the outward expressions ordinarily vary according to the graduall difference in the inward acts of love Proved by reason and the authority of Gregory Durand Aquinas Estius The Doctors assertion hence proved as fully as the thing requires The Doctor not ingaged to prove that expressions gradually different could not proceed from a love equally intense The third charge answered No mystery in the word proportionably The correspondence between the inward acts of love and the outward expressions to be understood not according to Arithmetical but Geometrical proportion 131 SECT XII The Doctors proof of the vanity of the Refuters use of confutation made good from the Refuters mixture The Refuters reply and endeavour to make good his charge by consequences impertinent The Refuters momentous objection strikes as well against himself and other his friends as the Doctor The weakness of it The intention of Christs actual grace so proportioned to that of his habituall grace as not to exceed it but not so still as to equall it Illustrated by a clear instance The Schoolmen no where say that the Intension of Christs actuall grace is exactly equal to that of his habituall Aquinas of the Refuters not the Doctors ciration He speaks fully to the Doctors purpose What meant by works and the effects of wisdome and grace in Aquinas An intensive growth in the inward acts of wisdome and grace argues not an intensive increase in the habits Asserted also by the Refuter Cleared by a distinction The Chedzoy challenge The vanity of it Christ did gradually increase in the acts of wisdome and grace as he did in stature Proved from the Refuters mixture from Ames Vorstius Grotius Hooker Field Suarez Estius others both Fathers and Schoolmen and reformed Divines The Defenders advice to the Refuter to be more wary in his challenges 171 SECT XIII The Refuters melancholy phansie his acknowledging the Doctors innocence The Doctor constantly speaks of the gradual difference in some acts of charity never of the habit The Refuters consequence hereupon His monstrous Syllogism examined The acts of Christs love were primariò perse and not onely secundariò and per accidens capable of degrees demonstrated Actions and passions intended and remitted onely in regard of their termes The habits and acts of charity in Christ gradually onely and not specifically different from those in all other men God in his extraordinary power may create something greater and better then the habituall grace of Christ Asserted by Aquinas Suarez and many other Schoolmen and the Refuter himself The acts of the habit of grace in Christ de facto gradually diflerent in themselves and from the habit The phrase The love of God variously taken in Scripture proved In what sense the Doctor constantly takes it Demonstrated The greater good to be more intensely beloved There
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
great a Master Go on and prosper in your study of him so long till you rightly understand him and know how better to apply his Maximes to your advantage then you have done in the present Controversie § 9. For what I pray Sir saies Aristotle to misguide you in the case Is this it you mean in the place quoted from his Topicks 1. Top. c. 15. n. 11 Is it this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas alas Sir why should you conjure up Aristotles Ghost to speak an Oracle and Truth that never was yet questioned You might have saved the Printer the labour of troubling his Greek Characters Smiths Elements of Logick had been sufficient to prove that which every Fresh-man in Logick knows to be an undoubted Axiome But you were willing to let us know you had Aristotles Organon in your study and that you could quote him in Greek § 10. But good Sir I pray tell me how could your great Master Aristotle misguide you in the point depending betwixt you and the Doctor Was it ever denied by your Adversary that Entia primo diversa cannot be put in the same Praedicament or has he any where asserted that a word is not ambiguous that is attributed to things that are put in divers Praedicaments To this only speaks Aristotle But by the way give me leave to tell you that either the Printer or your Amanuensis were mistaken in this Quotation For it is not to be found in the 15th but in the 13th Chapter at least in my Edition wherein there are but fourteen Chapters in that Book Howsoever the words I acknowledge and pass by the Lapse as veniall and if you can now prove that Love which the Doctor makes the Genus of the Habit the Act is a transcendental thing and found in several Praedicaments like the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he in that place instances in I shall then acknowledge the force of this Quotation from Aristotle but till you can make this appear and make good your Assumption I cannot take it for an Oracle that the Habit and the Act of Love are Entia primo diversa things put in several Praedicaments because that you have asserted it You may spare your pains Sir in proving Axiomes and your Major should have been granted you for asking without Aristotles authority Till the Minor which is only the matter in debate betwixt you and the Doctor be made good and you can prove that Actual Love is not a Quality but a simple Praedicamental Action I must say that since Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem you have concluded nothing against the Doctor And so I take my leave of this Section with a Nego Minorem SECT 7. The Refuters Reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act found in the Tract of Will-worship and the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions refer first and immediatly to the inward Acts of Love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doct. never asserts that Love was univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four Reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a Clear Truth His third most false In univocal productions the Cause and Effect still comprehended under the same Genus sometimes also in aequivocal His Assumption of his First Reason infirm His second and fourth Reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor § 1. THe Doctor now having cleared the Ambiguity of the Phrase that gave the Captious advantage to the Vse of Confutation and shewed that he spake of another matter then the Author of the Mixture did comes now to shew that this was no new-coined distinction on purpose invented to decline the force of that Vse Doctor HAMMOND 15. THis Distinction I thought legible enough before both in the Tract of Will-worship and in the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey 16. In the former the Refuter confesseth to find it reciting these words of mine It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another Where the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love § 2. To this our Refuter makes a very large reply but nothing to the purpose thus JEANES THe distinction which you thought legible enough before in your Tract of Will-worship in which you say that I confess to find it is such a distinction between the Habits and Acts of Love as that Love equally comprehends them both as Species Now I utterly deny that there is any such distinction in those words of yours which I recite It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then another And the reason of this my denial is because love as a Genus doth not comprehend the expressions of Love equally with the Habit. 1. Nothing can as a Genus be equally praedicated of things put in several Praedicaments but the Habit of Love and expressions of Love are put in several Praedicaments therefore Love as a Genus doth not equally comprehend them both 2. The Habit of Love is formally and intrinsecally Love the expressions of Love that is as you expound your self § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination from the inward acts of Love and therefore Love doth not as a Genus equally comprehend the Habit and expressions of Love Raynaudus in Mo◠discip dist 3. n. 144. makes mention out of Gabriel Biel of a distinction of Love into affective and effective and what is this effective Love but the effects and expressions of Love But now that he doth not take this to be a proper distribution of a Genus into its Species appeareth by what he saith out of the same Author concerning the division Effectivum dicit ipsum illius Amoris eliciti effectum Translato quippe causae nomine ad effectum is dicitur amare effectivè qui non ostentat infertilem ac sterilem amorem sed cum se dat occasio erumpit in fructus dignes amoris Quam esse admodum impropriam amoris divisionem fatetur Gabriel quia amare propriè est in sola voluntate tanquam in subjecto ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur estque actus transiens non immanens voluntatis 3. No one word can as a Genus equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect The Habit of Love is the Efficient cause and the sincere and cordial expressions of Love are the Effect therefore Love is not predicated of them equally as a Genus 4. That which is predicated properly of one thing and tropically of another cannot equally comprehend them both
though in the words acknowledged and cavilled at by this Refuter he only mentioned the outward sensible expressions yet there the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love Which inward Acts alone and nothing else he makes to be specifically distinct from the Habit of Love § 8. But in a Parenthesis to his second Argument he tells us that by the expressions of Love the Doctor expounds himself to mean § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love which are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination § 9. True Sir But is it with exclusion of the inward Acts How then are they expressions of them But let us view the Doctors own words in the 21. § that our Refuters fair dealing may notoriously appear I must only say saies the Doctor there that is a mis-apprehension for that by loving with all the heart in the first place I certainly meant the sincere habit of Love by love in the latter place the inward Acts of Love and by the expressions of Love the outward expressions of those inward Acts and of these Acts only I speak and of these expressions when I say they are more intense at one time then another § 10. But now though it be so clearly evident that in the places already quoted the Doctor by the expressions of Love still refers to the inward Acts which only he makes specifically distinct from the Habit yet this was hint enough to give our Refuter advantage to make a noise and a Book He has now found new matter of Dispute and with might and main he labours to prove that which no man ever doubted and the Doctor never thought of We shall now have Reasons and Authority no less then a whole Page-full in this puisny Pamphlet to prove that which might have been granted for asking And O what pitty it is that our School-man should not have Truth more often on his side because he makes so much of it when he chanceth to meet it though it be out of his rode § 11. But in good sadness Sir why no less then four Reasons to prove that which was never denied you Has Doctor Hammond asserted any thing to the contrary Did he ever affirm that Love was univocally predicated of the Habit and the outward sensible expressions as its Species If he has pray quote us the place that we may also confess and acknowledge his mistake If he has not as without doubt he no where has then you only fight with a shadow of your own casting and much good do you with the Conquest If you set up a Shroveing-Cock from your own Dunghill I shall not any waies forbid you to throw as many Cudgels at him as you please § 12. But yet Sir I cannot chuse but take notice of your Craft you have cunningly raised a Cloud of Dust to amuse your unwary Readers who will think that all this while you fight with the Doctor because they see you so zealous in your Mood and Figure and have urged no less then four Reasons backed and confirmed with two venerable Authorities most demurely against No body § 13. And now I assure you Sir it is well that your Conclusion is a Truth sufficiently evident of it self For otherwise so profound a Disputant you are your Reasons would very very hardly enforce it § 14. Your Third to begin with that for I shall not tye my self to your Methode is most ridiculously false You say not to trouble our selves about the Mood and Figure 3 No one word can as a Genus equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect the Habit of Love is the Efficient cause and the sincere and cordial expressions of Love are the Effect therefore Love is not praedicated of them equally as a Genus § 15. Your Major Sir your Major by all means have a care of your Major For what think you Sir of all * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 2. Gener. Animal c. 4. in fine univocal productions When Fire produces Fire and Corn brings forth Corn when a Man begets a Man and one Heat makes another does not one and the same word as a Genus comprehend the Efficient and the Effect And is it not in these a certain Maxime that Qualis est causa talis est effectus such as the Cause is in nature such also is the Effect And I hope you will think it lawful for things of the same nature to be comprehended under the same Genus Nay are not these distinguished from (a) Quaedam est quae effici◠Effectum ejusdem rationis haec dicitur Vnivoca ut Ignis quum generat Ignem universaliter Causa quae operando per virtutem suae formae similem reddit Effectum est Causa univoca in suo ordine Principalis ut recte notat D. Thomas 3. p. q. 62. art 1. Alia vero est Causa producens Effectum alterius rationis quam oportet esse nobiliorem Effectu et haec appellatur Causa Aequivoca quia non convenit formaliter cum Effectu in eâdem formâ sed eminenter illam continet Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 17. sect 2. §. 21. Vid. cund disp 26. sect 1. §. 6. sect 5. §. 13 14 15 16 c. Aequivocal productions because in these Effectum est ejusdem rationis cum Efficiente but in the other Efficiens non convenit cum effectu in eâdem formâ sed eminenter illam continet Nay does not your own (b) Scheibler Metaph. l. 1. c. 22. tit 9. n. 116 117 c. Scheibler as well as Suarez both whom you so seriously commend to the Doctors perusal tell you that Causa univoca est quae producit effectum similem in specie But me thinks Sir if since your more noble more serious imployments in the study and writing of Scholastical and Practical Divinity you had thought fit to neglect such vulgar Authors and to forget the common Notions and Maximes delivered by them yet you should at least have observed this in your Reading of Aquinas that in his Summes (a) Vid. Aquin Sum. p. 1. q. 4. art 2. in corp Cajetan Javel alios in loc 3. part q. 62. art 1. in corp alibi saepissime does frequently deliver this Doctrine and makes very good use of it And now Sir I hope you will think it lawful for things of the same nature to be comprehended under the same Genus For where I pray will you rank the several Individuals of the self-same Species for such are all Vnivocal Causes and Effects as is plain from sense and experience if not under the same Genus § 16. I might prove the gross and palpable falshood of your Major Sir by divers instances drawn from Aequivocal Productions where the cause and effect must be placed in the same Praedicament and consequently under the same remote Genus at least which is sufficient to
intensive growth 26. But to this the Reply will be easily foreseen from the Premisses that as the point by him handled and confirmed was distinctly the all-fulness of habitual grace in Christ so his proof of it by the consent of Fathers and Schoolmen belongs still to that fulness of habitual Grace 27. Witness one for all Aquinas Par. 3. qu. 7. art 12. ad secundum Licet virtus Divina possit facere aliquid majus melius quam sit habitualis Gratia Christi non tamen though the Divine power may make somewhat greater and better then is the habitual Grace of Christ yet So 't is plain he speaks of the fulness of the habitual Grace And ad tertium In Sapientia Gratia aliquis proficere potest dupliciter uno modo secundum ip sos Habitus sapientiae Gratiae augmentatos sic Christus in eis non proficiebat alio modo secundum effectus in quantum aliquis sapientiora virtuosiora opera facit sic Christus proficiebat sapientiâ Gratiâ sicut aetate quia secundum processum aetatis perfectiora opera faciebat in his quae sunt ad Deum in his quae sunt ad homines One may increase in wisedom and Grace two waies One way according to the habits of them increased and so Christ increased not another way according to the effects when any doth more wise and vertuous works and so Christ increased in wisedom and Grace as he did in Age because according to the process of his Age he did more perfect works and that both in things belonging to God and men also 28. And thus are the Schoolmen understood by the Refuter himself in his producing their Testimonies as appears by the express words habitual Grace pag. 260. lin penult and holiness and the Image of God in him pag. 261. lin 13. And so 't is most clear their Consent belongs not even in his own opinion to the matter I had and have in hand no way denying but asserting a Capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Christs Love of God and the Expressions of it § 1. And now my good Refuter I pray deal ingenuously and speak plainly without any subterfuges and ambages Could any thing be said more fully for the proving the vanity of your Vse of Confutation For was not your Theme the All-fulness of habitual grace in Christ's Manhood Does not the Title of every Page from p. 229. to p. 297. speak as much Does not the whole carriage and Proof of your Doctrinal part evidence it Do you treat of any thing but that Nay do you not usher in your first Vse of Information from your former Doctrine thus From the dwelling of all-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ we may infer this Qualification and fitness for all his Offices c And then does it not follow in order after this Vse p. 258. thus Secondly this Point may serve for Confutation of a Passage in the learned Doctor Hammond against Mr. Cawdrey to wit that Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees I pray Sir what does this Ordinal Secondly mean Has it not relation to that which went before Or what is the Antecedent to this Relative This Is it not the Point of the All-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ Is it not from hence that you conclude Doctor Hammond guilty Did you from pag. 237. to pag. 258. where begins your Vse of Confutation speak of any thing else Nay do you not continue on this Argument to pag. 297 Nay do your Authorities from Aquinas 3. part q. 7. art 12. in 3. Sent. dist 13. say any thing else Nay do not your Thomists and Scotists that you say are unanimous in asserting that the grace of Christs Humanity was in regard of †Vide Davenant in Coloss c. 1. v 19. p. 99 100. Suarez tom 1. in 3. Part. Thom. disp 22. sect 2. p. 322. et disp 26. p. 306. col 1 C. ibid. sect 2 p. 367. col 2. A. B. Gods Power ever which yet would be considered of were this a place fit for it Summa both positive and negative speak the same Are not your two reasons which you fetcht from Aquinas which you say are dilated on by his Commentators brought in only to this purpose Do you not say expresly in your first Reason 1. Ex parte Formae ipsius Gratiae The habitual Grace of Christ was referred unto the grace of Vnion as a consequent Ornament of it and therefore in all congruence it was to be suited and proportioned to it Is not your second Reason taken ex parte Subjecti to this purpose also Say you not that Christ was not pure Viator but in his soul he was also Comprehensor and that from the first instant of his incarnation He alwaies therefore in his soul enjoyed heaven happiness the beatifical vision and therefore all his Graces and consequently his Love of God were in termino and therefore could not admit any further degrees And do you not therefore adde to shew you speak only of habitual Grace that it is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation there was some restraint of the influence of happiness or beatifical vision in the whole course of his Humiliation and particularly in the time of his doleful Passion But surely it seems very improbable and no waies sortable unto the state of Christs blessedness for his Grace and Holiness the Image of God in him his Love of God c. to be liable unto perpetual motion and augmentation Sir If these be your Vide Jeanes Mixture of Scholast and Pract. Divinity p. 260 261. words even in the midst of your Vse of Confutation as you know they are what could be said more to the purpose to acquit the Doctor from the dint and force of it then he has done Your Subject is as clear as the Sun the fulness of Christs habitual Grace and nothing else and from this Doctrine you inferr your second Use a Vse of Confutation of Doctor Hammond who never any where denyed this fulness of habitual Grace and in the Passage you undertake to refute spake only of a gradual difference in respect of some Acts and some Expressions of Christs Love If this be not clearly to acquit himself I know not what is And I shall sooner expect that Calvin and Luther shall receive absolution in the Conclave at Rome then the Doctor in the Judgement of our Refuter But if this plea be not admitted I shall never believe that any thing can be proved and shall instantly turn Sceptick and think that all the world will be Pyrrhonists as well as my self I remember that somewhere it is reported of Diogenes that when a bold simple animal would against all sense and reason undertake to maintain there was no Motion he did instantly refute him with a blow on the Pate Yet I would not be mistaken All I urge this story for is to shew that Diogenes with his