his love of his neighbour This is so plain in Suarez out of whom the Dâ—fendant borroweth the distinction as that one would think it impossible for the Gentlâ—man to oversee it But this oversight renders it very probable that he never read Suarez himself but had the distinction sent him from some friend who knew not the consistency of it with his other distinctions Unto this we may adde that those that stickle for this twofold actual love of God in Christ as terminated unto God himself have not so much as one word or syllable for the indifferency of his love as Viator touching the degrees whereof all the indifferency that they assert therein is Contradistionis quoad exercitium actus So much is affirmed by Gregory De Valentia tom 4. disp 1. q. 19. punct 2. Hunc actum charitatis aiunt in Christo fuisse aliquo modo liberum ita scilicet ut posset ab eo certe aliquando desistere c. quam libertatem modo diceudi in Scholis usitato vocamus libertatem quoad actus excreitium tantum c. But our Defendant himself will not deny that all the inward acts of the love of God in Christ that were terminated immediately on God himself were alwayes at the highest equally intense And therefore this distinction being meant of the acts of Christs love of God as terminated unto God himself can do Dr. Hammond no service at all in this Controversie Having beaten the Râ—fater from all his Evasions I shall next examine what he saith unto my three Arguments The first is drawn from the all fulnâ—ss and perfection of Christs habitual grace The habits of all graces and vertues in Christ were alwayes fulâ— and perfect most intense and not capable of further or higher degrees and therefore so are the inward acts or actions of those graces and vertues too Now what is said in general of the habits of all graces may in particular be averred of the habitual grace of divine charity That in Christ was alwayes full and perfect most intense and not capable of further or higher degrees and therefore so were the inward acts that is actions thereof too Here are two Enthymems implyed the latter subordinate unto the former For habitual grace is the genus of divine charity and not the equivalent thereof as the Defendant fondly thinks That I make it p. 330. B. the Consequence of the latter Enthymem I proved p. 3 4 12. from which the confirmation of the former may easily be collected The said proof of the Consequence I shall briefly repeat and somewhat re-inforce And 't is that there can no other ground be assigned for the intension of the action of loving of God in Christ but the intension of the habit of love which Dr. Hammond and his Defendant both affirm in Christ to be alwayes so full and intense as that it was not capable of further or higher degrees For an action is not capable of degrees of intension and remission but sâ—condarily mediante qualitate which it produceth or from which it proceedeth vatione termini or vatione principij it cannot be ratione termini any quality that was the effective term the product of the inward action of love for that there is no such term or product of the action of love hath now been largely confirmed And if it be said that it was ratione principij then it must be in regard of the habitual grace of divine love for there are but two qualities that are the principles of the action of loving God in Christ the power or faculty of the will and the habitual grace of love Now the power or faculty of willing cannot be intended in any man and the habitual grace of love in Christ was alwayes so intense as that in him 't was uncapable of further intension and consequently all the inward actions flowing therefrom were of an equal intension Here your Answer unto which you referre is that I ignorantly or wilfully confound the immanent acts of love with the action of loying c. And that the Doctor speaks of the immanent acts of love and not at all of the actions p. 21 22. But first I have proved that there are no such things in rerum naturá as the acts of love distinguished from their actions as their termes Secondly Suppose that there were such termes yet that the Doctor cannot reasonably be understood of them hath been sufficiently demonstrated Unto this I adde ex abundanti the testimonies of some few Schoolmen from which may be gathered that the habit and the act are alwayes equal in gradual perfection and from this it will follow that if the habit be alwayes equally â—ntense the act mâ—st be so too But now for preventing all future mistakes and to cut off the Defendants Objections I shall lay down of this a limitation which might easily have been foreseen and is usually in things of this and the lâ—ke nature It is to be understood caeteris paribus provided that all other caâ—sâ—s concurre equally and uniformly unto the act so that the habit be not hindred by them but left to its natural way of working Now in Christ caetera erant paria there was no disâ—arity but a most absolute and perfect equality and uniformity in the influence of other causes viz. The will of Christ and Gods assisting grace in the production of his actual love of God hâ—s will never willed any abatement of the act and God never withdrew his assisting grace in the least degree or measure and therefore his habitual love of God wrought in him alwayes equally and uniformly as to the inward acts thereof Having premised this limitation which I shall intreat the Reader to carry along with him in his mind in that which followeth Let us come unto what you say unto the testimonies themselves First you quarrel me for that I cite not Aquiâ—as from his own writings But quote him twice from Caprcolus but I had very good reason for this for the passages that I quote are not in Aquinas his Sâ—mâ—nes or in his book Contra gentes which is all that I have of Aquinas The first passage he quotes out of Aquinas De Vertutibus q. 1. a. 11. and the second is out of the same work questio de charitate art 10. I believe that if you had read Caprcolus you would have been as much to seek to sind these places in Aquinas as I was If you can direct me to them I shall thank you but I suppose 't is a book not commonly to be had The first testimony you do not answer but outface From iâ— I truly as you grant concluded that a greater vehemency in the operation of love argued a greater participation in the subject of the habit of love Now from this it undeniably followeth that if the operation of love be more vehement at one time than another then the subject doth more participate of the habit of love at one time than another and
hâ—rent in the actions of Christ in respect of their reâ—l enâ—â—y and good aâ—â—se is nothing at all to the purpose for it is a thing quite different from their meritorious vâ—lue as Suarez faith in the very Words that you your seâ—fe quote out of him What hath been said is enough to convince the Defendantâ— greateft friends that I Was not a jot deceived in Suarez But yet for both his and their further and fuller conviction I shal compare the passaâ—e that he quote out of Suartz with the Words fore going and following A little before he propounds a second Objection against the insinite value and efficacy of Christs Wâ—â—ks to satâ—sle and merlt Secundâ— Objectio est â—b inconveni mi nam si satisfactio Chrâ—sti infinita esâ— seâ—uâ—tur unum vel â—â—fiâ—itum esse majus ulio in geâ—eâ—eâ— in quo â—nfirituâ—â—st quod est contra Nationem infiniti vel unum opus Christi noâ— esse majorts vâ—lorâ—â— quà aliud nec duo quam unum quod videtur ubsurdum â—â—m quia totum est majus sua parte tum eâ—â—am quia unum opus Christ erat mellus alio unus dolâ—r major quà m alius quod muliùm resert and quantitatem satisfactionis â—um deniqâ— quiainde fieret non magis redemisse nos Christum per passionem mortem quâ—m per alios actus vitae suae quod est contra scripturam quae passioni semper tribuit redemptionem nostram ad Rom. 3.4 and 5. 〈◊〉 Oâ—l 3. ad Hebr. 2.9 and 11. In AnsWer First he propounds a Concession the very passage quoted by the Defendant and therein he grants that Christs woâ—ks Were unequal in regard of that moral goodnesse Which Was intrinsecal and essential to them really inherent in them and in regard hereof one Work might be better then another Respondeâ—ur priâ—â—ùm omnium fatendum esse opera Christi fuisse inaequalia in propâ—ia bonâ—tate intrinseca essentialâ— veâ— realiter inhaerente ipsi actui quia ut dictum est tota hâ—c boniâ—as erat finita poterat ergo esse major minor aliunde unâ—m opus Christi erat melioris objâ—cti quâ—m aliud unum iâ—tensius alio sic de aliis cercumstantiis ergò erant vel poterant esse inaequelia in hâ—c bonâ—â—aâ—e But then in the next place he sheweth at large quomedo stâ—t aequalitas meriâ—i cum inaequali bonitate as 't is summed up in the margent how an equality of merit or meritorious value is consistent wâ—th the unequal goodnesse that is really inherent in the actions themâ—elves Nihilominâ—â— addendum secundo est quod'ib topus Christi ex parte personae operantis fuisse infiniti valoris quia licèt â—onitas aliae conditiones actus câ—nferâ—t interdum ad hunc valorem tamen quia haec dignitas infinits personae extollit hune valorem ad perfectissimum ordinem usque ad infinâ—tum gradum ideò tollitur omnis alia proportie illa enim personâ— cùm in omni gâ—nere infiniâ—â— fit eminentér continet omnia alia bena idè◠consert actui quidquid valoris omnes aliae circumstantiae conferrae pâ—ssent Quo circa totum id quoderat in opere Christi ex pâ—â—te ipsâ—â—s actûs intelligendum est quasi materialitèr se hâ—bere personam verò esse quasi formem conferentem valorem quae omnes illos actus aequaliter informat ideò omnibus consert infinitum áique adâ—â— equelem velorem Exemplo explicari potest fi pecunia tali regio signo figurata tantum valeâ—eâ— cujuscunq esset materiae ration figurae And hereupon in the third place he inferres that which I cited out of him Hinc terâ—io fit plura opera Christi esse quidem extensivè plura merita intensivè tamen non esse plus valoris in muâ—tis quam in uno ut si essent plures calores infinitè intensi essent quidem plures non tamen efficerent unum intensiorem pari ratione si in uno opere Christi quod successive peâ— partes fiâ—bat partes cum totâ— comparemus intensivè tanâ—us valor erat in qualibet parta sicùt in â—â—to opere in uno momento sicùt in longâ— tempere quia forma â— quid erat vâ—lor tote erat in toto tota in singulis partibus And now â—â—t the most partial Reader review this discourse of Suarez and then let them sit down and sadly consider whether the Defendâ—nt doth understand Suarez or if he does understand him whether his conscience informe him not that I was not a jot mistaken in mine allegation of him and if it doth then what conscience is there in hâ—i affirming that I was Eleventhly p 330. the Defendant pretends a grant of mâ—ne that I never made Howsoever saith he I observe that in your first Argument you rightly understand the Doctors notion of the love of God and take it here as he still does in the large sense as it is all one with holy charity as containing in its general â—otion the acts of all graces and verâ—ues whatsoever and therefore because now hâ—be mus confitentem reum I am resolved to hold you to your concession You are Sir very quick sighted to observe that which never dropt from my Pen nor was ever in my thoughts Pray Si reflect once more upon my words put them upon the Rack and try your utmost skill in Logick nay call in what assistance you please and if you an from them prove this pretended concession then trample upon me with a much scotne as you please and until this be done I shall assume the boldnesse to tell you that your pretence is a shamelesse untruth Twelfthly p. 370. the Defendant hath two strange sequels from my worâ—s which until he can justifie I shall look upon as slanders If in the slate of Christs humiliation there vvas by special dispensation as our Resuter grants a restraint of his happinesse or beatifical vision he could not then see God so perfectly and so perfectly enjoy him as after his Glorification vvhen there vvas no restraint and consequently his love could not be so ardent so highly intense and perfect as aftervvards vvhen novv he fits at the right hand of God Let the Reader but view the place quoted by the Defendant p. 261. and adde unto it another p. 346. vvherein I moâ—e fully explicate my selfe and then if he vvill judge impartiaâ—ly he cannot but conclude the Defendant to be a most unvvorthy Calumniator My vvords p. 261. are at large as follovveth It is not to be denied but that by special dispensation there vvas some restraint of the influence of his happinesse or beatifical vision in the vvhole course of his humiliation and particularly in the time of his doleful passion Unto this joyne page 346. vvhere the point is farther explicated Of this Heaven happinesse in the soul of Christ from the beatifical vision there vvould alvvays vvithout Gods miraculous restraint and prevention have been tvvo as it
That Christ's love which Dr. Hammond saith is capable of degrees c. is that very love which is commanded Deut. 6.5 a love of God with all the soul heart might and strength c. and that is a love proper and peculiar unto God and not to be communicated unto any creature And pray Sir is not this that high and transcendent act of Divine love you speak of pag. 5. whereby the soul is immediately fixed and knit to God as the onely good and then with what face can you deny it to be the love of God properly and formally taken But however the poor Refuter must be condemned lege falsarii pag. 5. right or wrong For whereas Doctor Hammond spake expresly of Christ's love of God the Refuter is so dull and simple an Animal as to understand him of his love of the Creator whereas alas Doctor Hammond had a profounder conceit which is highly rational in it self and is to be interpreted concerning his love of the Creature And this is enough to clear me from the crime of Forgery with which this shamelesse Defendant asperseth me But his Calumny will be the more apparent if we insist upon those two Tropes One of which he sayes the Doctor makes use of The first is the Metonymie of the effect and that is when the effect is put for the efficient Now do not you by your Discourse plainly insinuate that the efficient is here taken for the effect the love of God for the issues and effects of the love of God If there were then a Metonymie in Doctor Hammond's words it was by you a Metonymie of the efficient and not of the effect And indeed you tell us pag. 217. that all the acts of piety and mercy and charity and vertue are called the love of God by a Metonymie of the efficient because they flow from it And either this is a flat contradiction to what you here say or else the Metonymie of the efficient and of the effect must be confounded and be all one But secondly Dr. Hammond doth not make use of any Metonymie at all either of the efficient or of the effect For that which is termed the love of God only Metonymically is so called only equivâ—cally and that the love of God is here taken by the Doctor for that which is so stiled only equivocally you dare not aver for that which is predicated of a thing equivocally may in propriety of speech be denyed of it that which is the love of God only equivocally may be said not to be the love of God But you may perhaps say that he speaks if not by a Metonymy of the effect yet by a Synecdoche generis But Synecdoche generis as Vossius Alsted and other Rhetoricians have taught me is when the genus is put for the species as creature for man Mark 16.15 But how the love of God is here by Dr. H. taken for any of its species passeth my dull imagination I shall not therefore adventure so much as to guess at your meaning but patiently wait for your own Learned Explication of it And thus the Reader sees how this first Evasion that Dr. Hammond speaks of the love of God only as 't is taken tropically by a Metonymy of the Effect or by a Synecdoche generis fails against both Logick and Rhetâ—rick But it may be objected from pag. 6. That Christs love of God which Dr. Hammond speaks of is his prayer unto God now prayer is properly an act of Religion and Devotion towards God and improperly and figuratively an act of holy Charity or divine Love For answer 1 Though Prayer considered formally in it self be an act of divine Love only improperly and figuratively yet it implieth the love of God properly and formally taken and 't is undeniable that Dr. H. speaketh of Prayer under this consideration as implying the love of God properly and formally such for he bringeth Christs praying more earnestly as a proof to make good his exposition of those words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul heart might and strength where the love of God is taken properly and formally Now of this exposition it can be no confirmation if the Doctor do not consider Christs prayer as implying his love of God properly and formally taken Though Prayer considered formally in it self be not properly an act of divine love but only implyedly viz. preposiâ—ivè and concomitantèr yet the reason which the Defendant brings for the confirmation of this because 't is properly and formally an act of Religion is very questionable For 2 According to the language of Protestant Divines one and the same Act may properly be an act of both Religion and holy charity too for they take Religion in so large a sense as that it comprehends all duties of he first Table Thus Ames makes all parts of Gods Worship both natural and instituted to be parts of Religion Now if this acception of Religion be proper it will not be material though it be somewhat different from that of the Schoolmen 2 But proceed we unto his Second Evasion which differs little from the former if at all but in termes and 't is concerning the acts of Christs love of God These saith the Defendant are of two sorts 1 Those that are immediately terminated on God the only good 2 Those that are immediately terminated on us men for Gods sake in whose love as the prime act they are all radicated and founded the one the Schooles call charitas ut finis the other they call charitas propter finem Though then the acts of Christs love as immediately terminated on God were always at the height and one equal perfection as was never yet questioned or denyed by the Doctor yet this nothing binders but that the other acts of this love of which alone the Doctor speaks regarding us for Gods sake might consist in a latitude and gradually differ from one another and fall short of the fervour of those acts that immediately respected God c. See pag. 3 5 22 70 71 216 c. usque ad 248 279. usque ad 291 328 329 335 336 338 343 361 372 373 516 c. Well then the great mistake of the Refuter is That whereas Dr. Hammond spake expresly of Christs actual love of God the Creator and yet meant thereby his actual love of man a creature the Refuter was such a dull Block-head as not to reach this hidden and invisible meaning of Dr. Hammond But first if this were a mistake it should not me thinks be so criminous and unpardonable For First The Refuter in his exposition of the actual love of God went by that common rule Analogum per se positum stat pro faviosiori analogato If a word hath two significations one proper another improper and â—â—opical it must be taken properly if it be put by it self and have nothing added to determine and carry it unto an improper and tropical sense Now the
because there is otherwise a very wide and spacious field for Christs merit in the acts of his love of man and in the â—cts of his other vertues Of this opinion Becaâ—us makes mention Sum. Theol. Scholast tom 5. c. 14. q. 3. Alij sic sâ—â—t unt Christiam suisse viatorens not solum ratione carnis animae passibilis sicut jam explâ—catum est sed etiam ratione animae quatenus amabat proximos Comprehensorem vero ratione animae quatenusamabat Deum clare visam Itaque meruisse per actium charitatis circa proximos non tamen per actum charitatis circa Deum This opinionhe thinks to be probable and Suarez in 3am part Thom. tom 1. disâ— 39. S. 2. saith that it may easily be defended The contrary opinion therefore at the most is but a Scholastical Probleme But Vasquez hath a full defence of this Opinion that Christs love of God was not meritorious and with it he joyneth a refutation of this distinction of Christslove given by Suarez and others the passige is somewhat large but because 't is home and accurate I hope I shall have the Readers patience for the inserting of it Mihi verò multò probabilius semper visum est Christum non meruisse per affectum ullum charitatis dilectionis erga Deum sed per opera aliarum virtutum tam circa se quam circa proximum c. Primum igitur Christum non meruisse per illum actum charitatis ortum ex scientia infusa in Doctrina S. Thomae manifestum est nam cum ille aperte dicat q. 11. a. 1. essentiam Dei ac proinde mysterium ipsum Trinitatis non cecidisse sub scientiam infusam id quod nos etiam supra disputatione 53. c. 11 satis saperque probavimus consequitur nullum potuisse in Chrislo esse affectum dilectionis erga Deum pâ—aeter illum quem vocant beatificum cumque ille non potuerit esse meritorius ut pâ—aecedenti capite monstravimus effieitur etiam per nullum actum dilectionis Dei Ghristum mereri potuisse quamvis enim diâ—amus in Christo mansisse scientiam naturalem unins Dei tamen illa non potuit esse principium dilectâ—onâ—s ipsius Dei ex charitate ut manifestum est Praeterea cum Christus non habuerit fidem sequitur ex nulla cognitione potuisse Deum dilâ—gere Age tamen concedamus Christo scientiam-infusam essentiae Dei distinctâ—m ab adquisita nihilomâ—nus frustra in eo concedemus daos affectus charitatis erga Deum alterum ortum ex visione clam Dei alterumâ—ex scientia infusa nam affectus dilectionis tendit in rem cognitam sicut in subjectum non autem in ipsam cognitionem ergo licet esset scientia infusa Dei in Christo quia tamen esset eadem bonitas ipsius Dei proposita voluntati per scientiam infusam per visionem idem-effectus esset dilectionis qua ratione ut communis fert opinio Theologorum eadem est dilectio Dei in via in patria quamvis visio Dei in patria essâ—t causa novi actus dilectionis Dei quia intensius eliceretur aut alio modo tamen non potest esse causa diversi actus secundum speciem uterque actus simul non posset manere in patria etiamsi in patria posset manere fides non quidem alia ratione nisi quia dum-voluntas movetur circa objectum duplici modo cognitum solum ab eo allicitur prout perfectiori modo cognito ipsum autem prout cognitum minus perfecto modo nihil mover voluntatem acâ—â— eo modo cognitum non esset hoc quisque quotidie in se ipso experitur nam cum quis diligit alium ex relatu atque ipsum ea quae de ipso audiverat postea vider jam non ex relatu sed ex clara visione experientia ipsum diligit aliorum testimonium nihil in ipso operatur ut eam diligat quae doctrina multo majori ratione in pâ—aesenti locum habet nam cum essentia divina per claram vifionem perfectissimo modo videatur ita ut necessariò ad se trahat voluntatem per affâ—ctum amoris ut supra diximus neque adeò rapiet ad se voluntatem ut ipsa deinceps moveri non possit ex alio genere cognitionis ad diligendum Deum alio affectu aut codem Quod verò dicitur Johannis 14. Sed ut cognoscat mundus quia dâ—ligo patrem sicut mandatum dedit mihi Pater sic facio surgite eamus hinc non probat Christum per dilectionem Dei nobis redemptionem meruisse quia eo loco solum commendatur charitas Christi erga Patrem obedientia de merito â—autem operatione meritoria non agitur Here Vasquez presupposeth two things already proved by him 1. That in Christ there was no infused knowledge of the essence of God and the mystery of the Trinâ—ty distinct from the beatifical Vâ—sion 2. That Christs beatifique love of God was not meritorious Having premised these tâ—o things he next proves that though there were in Christ an infused knowledge of the essence of God distinct from the beatâ—fical vision yet it would not hereupon follow that there should be in him a love of God distinguished from that which was the sequele of the beatisical vision and the reason is because there was one and the same goodness propounded unto his will by the infused knowledge and the beatâ—sique vision and therefore the same effect of love where the will is moved and stiâ—ed up about an object known after a twosold manner it is only allured and wrought upon as 't is known after the more perfect way and manne◠〈◊〉 when I come to see by experience those good things in a man which before I knew only by report I then love him only upon mine own experimental knowledge and no longer upon the relation of others Lastly Suppose this distinction of Christs love of God were true and sound yet 't is utterly unserviceable for the defence of Dâ— Hammond and that by the opinion of the Defendant himself For Dr. Hammond saith he is to be understood of the acts of Christs love terminated towards man for Gods sake Now the Authors and Fautoâ—s of this distinction understand it expressly concerning the act of Christs love * Dico ergo primo habuisse Christum actum amoris Dei liberum supernaturalem elicitum à charitate ab amore beatisico distinctum illo actu perfectissime meruisse Ita intelligo sententiam D. ' Tho. hic solutione ad primum dicentis meruisse Christum per charitatem non in quantum erat charitas comprehensoris sed in quantum crat viatoris ubi de charitate lequitur prost terminatur ad Deum Suarez in 3 part Thom. tom 1. disp 39. S. 2. p. 622. as terminated towards God himself and they do distinguish it from the acts of
p. 268 you accuse my Answer unto an Argument of Dr. Hammond's as guilty of that fallacy which is called petitio principii If this be not say you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not what your great Master Aristatle mednes But this is a most ridiculous and groundlesse crimination for this as every other fallacy is a sault or defect in arguing not in answering 't is saith my â—â—rtle Master Scheibler dâ—ceptâ—o in syllogizando De Sydogism cap. 17. n. 6. 't is saith my great Master Aristotle Elenchus Sophisticus It hath alwaies been observed for a rule in dâ—sputing that when the Respondent denyes a sequel and gives a reason for it it is the Opponents part to â—â—fute the reason and the Respondent is not obliged to confirm it It is then a grosse non-sequitur to conclude me gâ—â—ltie of this faâ—lacie of petitio principii because I do not confirm the reason for which I deny Dr. Hammonds consequence But Sir if you had not falsifted it by adding must to may be it is a Proposition so plain and evident as that it needs no confirmation and can be denied by no rational man Thus it stands my reason is because in all these inward acts of Christs love of God and we may say the same of the inward acts of other vertues and graces there may be no gradual dissimilitude Mark Sir the word may be and then tell us whether there be any contradiction in this Proposition in several inward acts of Châ—â—sts love of God there is no gradual dissimilitude it there be pray discover it if there be hot then give me leave to conclude that in the multiplied acts of christs love of God there may be no gradual dissimilitude You say this is the controversie betwixt me and the Doctor But your own conscience must needs convince you that this is a faishood for you your self state the controversie to be whether one act of châ—â—sts love of God were actually more intense then another and yet if I had said that in the inward acts of Christs love of God there could be no gâ—adual dissimilitude this I have proved by three reasons unto which you have given but â—orrie answers and these reasons I am not bound to repeat at every turne for this would quicklie swell my book to such a Volume as yours is Tenthly he hath a passage page 272. for which he hath not in my words the least toundation And will not every man think that our Refuteâ— was a man of great judgment and parts and fit to quote Suarez against Dr. Hammond But I rather think he was misguided by some Notes and that he never consulted the Authors he quotâ—s but took them upon trust otherwise mâ—thinks it is impossible he should be so strangely deceived But pray Sir wherein wherein is the â—efuter so strangely deceived in Suarez why 't is clear and evident by Suarez though every act of Christ in respect of the person that performed it was of an infinite and so of an equal in ensive value yet in respect of the moral goodnesse that is intrinsecally inherent in Christs actions nothing hinders but that one in this respect may be better and more intensely persect then another as well as one grief and torment which he suffered was greater then another And therfore say you the same Suarez even in that very page and columne and in the section immediately preceding that passage that our Refuter has quoted expressely sayes to this purpose Primum omnium satendum esse opera Christi fuisse inequalia in prepâ—â—â bonitate intrinfecâ— essentiall vel â—â—â—ter inhaerente ipsi actai quia ut dictum est 〈◊〉 hee bonites 〈◊〉 finiâ—a poâ—â—rat ergo esse major 〈…〉 allunde unum â—pus Chrisâ—â— erut metioris objects quam aliud uâ—â—m inâ—thsâ—u's 〈◊〉 sic de 〈…〉 â—â—go 〈…〉 vol poterâ—nt esse inaequalta in hâ—c bonitate c. Why what of all this hâ—â—e I delivered aâ—y thing that contradicts this either expresly or implyedly or doth Suarez here oppose in the least degâ—ee any thing that I have said doth not †Sed haec sententia totâ— objectio procedunt ex falso principio singunt enim esse in eodem acta plures valores seu plura merita juxta varias ejus circumstâ—ntias quod patet esse falsum ex his quae paulò superiùs dicebamus de infinitate sacrisicii ex re oblaâ—a vel person a offerenâ—e sumpta Ostendimus enim reipsa non esse duas neque pertinere ad diversa merita vel satisâ— actiones quia ratio meritâ— vel satisfactionis sieut ratio bâ—nitatis non consu git ex singulis conditientbus actus pâ—rse sumpris sed ex colâ—ecâ—s ne omnâ—â—m Haec enim ratio ettam in praesente proâ—edit nam intensio octus vel obiectum out persona â—pâ—rons per se singâ—la non sâ—fficiâ—nt ad mernum ut ex singaliâ— distinctamerâ—ta in actu orientur sed omnia simuâ— necessaria â—el suâ—t vel suâ— modo concurrunt ad unum meritum quentitate â—eius Aâ—que ita cessat objectio nom stoneritum actus tantum est unum illud est infinitum aequâ—le â—â—hil est meâ—iti in que ceâ—ni possit inaequalitâ— In tertiam part Toom tom 1. disp 4. s â— 49. Suâ—rez all along assert that there is but one meâ—itotious value in one act of Christ and that in respect of meritorious value one act of Christ was not better and more intensively perfect then another Nay do not you your felâ—e p. 271. quote a place out of Suâ—rez where in he affirmuth that the moral goodnesse inherent in the actionâ— of Christ is a thing distinct from their meritorious value Therefore Suaâ—tz say you acknowledgeth in that very fection I quote Valorem hunt quem habet actus in ordine ad meritum esse quid distinctumâ—d realt boniâ—ate quae est dâ—ffe entin ipsius actû prout consâ—â—ituitur in esse viâ— tuâ—â—c â—el illi aâ—rquo 〈…〉 instâ—e inhâ—ret Now Dr. Hummond is to be understood only of a meritorious value for he is to be understood of a value that was to be rewarded and that out of debt and such a one is a meritorious value Nay do not you your selfe understand him to speak of a meritoâ—ious value p. 266. And now to shew the appâ—sirnesse of the Proof I must tell him what either he knowes not or will not observe That the Doctor â—gaine a gues à posterâ—ori from the effect to the cause and the necessary releâ—â—â—n betwâ—xt thâ— work and the reward His â—â—gument is funâ—ed upon a Maxune of dâ—sâ—ributive justice not expressed but suppesed and intâ—â—â—ted and it is thâ—â— where the reward does proceed of debt as in Christ certainly it did and is properly wages there must be a proportionable incre sâ— of thereward and the work c. By this then the Roader may sâ—e that all that you have concerning the moral goodnesse in