aliis hujusmodi Ratio verò reddi potest quia in his Qualitatibus inveniuntur omnia quae ad hanc Latitudinem intensivam sufficerè possunt Nam omnes illae fiunt per proprias actiones absque diminutione naturali vel si aliquae earum manent naturaliter ab aliquibus formis ut calor à forma ignis frigus à forma aquae habent tamen contrarium à quo impediri possunt minui per se etiam seu per propriam actionem fieri possunt Rursus hae qualitates ex vi suarum rationum essentialium includunt indivisibilitatem repugnantem huic Latitudini intensivae alioqui habent proprias Entitates accidentales in quibus possunt esse capaces hujus Latitudinis Qui discursus probat optimè si in aliquo genere dantur qualitates intensibiles ut revera dantur in his maximè dari Suarez ibid. sect 2. § 13. p. 490. But more particularly to the present purpose thus Et in qualitatibus subjectis spiritualibus in quibus non est extensio partium est id evidentius quia etiam in illis qualitas recipit hoc augmentum intensivum ut amor vel voluptas circa idem Objectum unde etiam ex Principiis fidei certa redditur haec veritas nam Gratia Charitas Fides augeri perfici possunt in eodem subjecto indivisibili etiam absque aliqua extensione ex parte objecti illud ergo augmentum non potest esse nisi intensivum Suarez ibid. sect 1. § 1. pa. 380. With Suarez agrees your own Scheibler l. 2. Metap c. 8. art 2. punct 1 2 3 4. Vid. § 208. § 13. 1. If you say as formerly that these immanent Acts are not Qualities but Actions to this I must reply That as I have formerly demonstrated the falshood of this your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so were it granted unto you it would not profit in the present case For suscipere magis minus non convenit actioni passioni nisi ratione suitermini quatenus in illo est latitudo intensionis So Suarez ibid. sect 2. § 2. and your own Scheibler saies that in Relatione Actione Passione datur intensio remissio secundariò mediante qualitate ut docet Arist l. Categ c. 9. And that there might be no doubt what Quality Vid. Burgersdic Log. lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 36. Theor. 23. §. 1. he means he addes Idem est in actionibus passionibus Ita frigefactio calefactio dicuntur intensiores vel remissiores ratione Terminorum quos producunt Caloris sc vel Frigoris sic in aliis Scheibler ibid. c. 8. art 2. punct 4. § 209. Since therefore Actions and Passions are intended only by reason of their Termes suppose the Acts of Christ's Love were Actions not Qualities they must be intended secundariò only ratione Terminorum and not in regard of the Habit of Love from whence they flow as the Effect from the Cause and Principle § 14. 2. If you say that though the Acts of Grace in all other men are per se capable of intension and remission but it is otherwise in Christ in whom by virtue of the hypostatical union and the good pleasure of God both the Habits and all the Acts of Grace were in summo in that absolute and indivisible height that they could be neither encreased nor diminished I answer that although this were all granted yet it does no whit help you here For the Habits and Acts of Divine Charity in Christ were not specifically different in him from those in all other men but gradually only And therefore since magis and minus non variant speciem quod convenit speciei convenit omni individuo sub specie contento it necessarily followes that as the Habits and Acts of Divine Charity in all other men are essentially per se capable of Intension and Remission it must be so also in Christ since in him they are not specifically but only gradually different from the rest and that it is by accident only I speak in respect of the infused Graces and Acts themselves that they be not capable of being gradually more or less perfect And then further let me tell you that though the Schoolmen do all generally hold that the habitual Grace of Christ in particular the infused Habit of Charity though it were as high as possibly it could be even in the person of Christ quoad potentiam ordinariam yet being but a created because an infused Grace and consequently in its own nature sinite therefore virtus divina potest facere per potentiam scil extraordinariâ—m aliquid Aquin p. 3. q. q. n. 12. ad 2. majus melius quam sit habitualis Gratia Christi You know it is Aquinas in this he is generally approved and followed by the Schoolmen Dicendum est igitur saies Suarez as Quanta sit haec perfectio in Anima Christi eodem modo judicandum est sicut supra in simili dubio de perfectione Gratiae respondimus est enim summa quae de potentia ordinaria esse potest quamvis de potentia absoluta possit esse major ut hîc etiam circa articulum quartum cum D. Thoma notatum est magis ex sequenti disputatione patebit Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disp 26. p. 360. col 3. C. Vide ibid. sect 2. p. 367. col 2. A. B. we have formerly noted quanquam Christi gratia fuerit tam intensa ut juxta ordinem divinae sapientiae nulla intensior esse potuerit de potentia tamen Dei absoluta potuisse fiâ—ri intensiorâ—m tam in ipsa anima Christi quam in Angelo vel in alia anima And for this he there cites Aquinas Lombard Gabriel Biel Capreolus Aureolus Gregor Ariminens and Ocham Suarez in 3. part Thom. q. 7. art 13. disp 22. sect 2 p. 322. col 1. C. 2. A. B. C. where he does not barely dictate but prove it Nay our Refuter himself acknowledges that there is more moderation in this opinion then in that of their Adversaries Mixture of Scholast and Pract. Divinity pag. 231 232. § 15. 3. But then as for the Acts of this Divine Grace it is so farr that they all should be in the same perfect height as the Habit was that we have seen it proved from the Schoolmen and others that Christ did gradually increase in the perfection of the Acts of Wisedom and Grace as he did in Stature and our Refuter is of the number § 16. But because he is still harping upon Consequences and that I may not only free the Doctor from guilt but from all suspition of it I shall now undertake to demonstrate That the Acts of the All-perfect Habit of Divine Grace in Christ or holy Charity were not only de facto gradually different in themselves and so not at all commensurate with the height and intensive perfection of the Habit but also that they must
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
Christ a fuller enjoyment of himself because of a larger measure of Grace then he ha's upon Angels For though the will of Angels be Naturally more perfect then the created Will of Christ yet by Grace it is capable to receive whatsoever is fit for it and God shall bestow upon it § 25. And is not our Refuter a very unsuccessful Man in all his Quotations How can this in any measure concern the present debate For does not here Scotus consider first what was possible for God to do or Christ to receive Does he not also here consider him in the state of Comprehensor and not of a Viator Is not the question moved concerning the possibility of Glory upon the supposal of an Habitual fulness of Grace and not at all of the Acts of Grace Does he not prove by the very words that our Refuter has quoted that since it was possible for Christ to have a fulness of Grace that therefore it was also possible for him to have a fulness of heaven-happiness and this because Glory is the necessary effect of Grace and Acts that necessarily flow and by way of emanation from their Forms and Causes must of necessity be equal in Perfection to the Forms from whence they issue If then our Refuter will say any thing to the purpose he must conclude that all the Inferiour Acts of Vertue and Grace in him did as Naturally flow from the Habits as Glory does from Grace and that Christ had no more proper Freedom to them then he had or has now to the Sight and enjoyment of God which Position as it expresly destroyes the Foundation of his Merit and the Redemption of the world by his death so it is expresly contrary to the Scriptures and all the Fathers and Schoolmen and Orthodox Divines in the world for ought I could ever learn § 26. And thus having shewed the absolute impertinency of his Testimonies to the matter in hand I come to prove that both Thomas and Scotus maintain that very Proposition which he would confute in Dr. Hammond by the Testimonies of Aquinas and Scotus § 27. I shall not trouble the Reader with what I have already observed to this purpose from Aquinas The Passage I insist on is taken from Lib. 3. Sent. d. 29. q. 1. Art 2. The question is Vtrum ordo Charitatis sit attendendus secundum affectum vel secundum effectum It is affirmed against this when it was objected thus 2. Actus mensuratur secundum rationem Objecti sed quamvis plura sint quae ex charitate diliguntur tamen in omnibus est una ratio dilectionis sc divina bonitas quae est Objectum charitatis Ergo ad omnia quae ex charitate diliguntur aequalis affectio est The Conclusion is the very same with our Refuters who affirms that the Inward Acts of Christs Love were all equal though the Outward Acts were not that his Love was the same quoad affectum but not quoad effectum To this the answer is Dicendum quod quamvis sit eadem ratio communis diligendi in omnibus tamen illa ratio non aequaliter participatur in singulis ideo nec aequalis affectio eis debetur So again Art 3. of that question in his answer ad Quintum he saies Quod Deus ubique aequaliter diligitur tamen divinum bonum in isto esse non est tantum amabile sicut ipsum esse in Deo quia non aequè perfectè in omnibus est The sum of all those determinations in short is this That though the Habit of Divine Charity respecting God and our Neighbours be one and the same yet because of the different Participation of the divine goodness the formal Object of Charity which is infinitely perfect in God and but unequally communicated to the creature there must of necessity be a gradual difference in the Acts of divine Charity because every thing must be beloved according to the order of the divine goodness shining in it § 28. The place in Scotus which for the present I insist on is taken out of the 3. book of the Sentences dist 14. q. 3. The question is Vtrum anima Christi noverit omnia in genere proprio Now whereas to this it had been objected First Luc. 2. Jesus proficiebat aetate sapientia coram Deo hominibus Secondly Heb. 5. Didicit ex his quae passus est obedientiam Thirdly Fuit Viator igitur habuit cognitionem competentem Viatori § 29. To these he thus answers in order Patet ad primum per hoc quod Textus Evangelii non est exponendus ut tantum proficiehat secundum apparentiam quia secundum Augustinum 83. quaest q. 9. contra Apollinaristas Evangelistae narrant historias ideo verba eorum vera sunt ut exprimuntur non sic à aliis sermonibus tropic is scripturae sacrae Et hoc etiam declarat authoritas Ambrosii Apostoli ad Hebraeos quia vere in eo aliquis sensus profecit non quod aliquorum cognitionem abstractivam habitualem acquisivit sed intuitivam tam actualem quam habitualem And then to the third he answers quod illa cognitio quae est ex multis Actibus experientiis quoad cognitionem intuitivam semper est necessitatis quoad hoc competebat Christo quia fuit nobiscum Viator Scotus tom 2. lib. 3. sent dist 14. q. 3. § 8. p. 102. ex edit H. Cavelli § 30. The summe is that S. Luke is to be understood literally and that Christ did truly and not in outward appearance only grow and increase in the Perfection of Actual Knowledge and Grace and that this must agree to him as Viator But there is another passage in the same Author in due time to be cited where he proves that the Act of loving God as Viator cannot be so perfect as it is and must be in him as Comprehensor though the Habit of them both be one and the same It is lib. 3. sent dist 31. q. 1. § 9. p. 213. And so I come to our Refuters second Argument SECT 19. The Refuters second Argument Christ on Earth Comprehensor true but Viator also Proved from Scripture Aquinas Scotus in the places referred to by the Refuter From Suarez also None but the Socinians deny Christ to be thus Comprehensor His Beatisick Love as Comprehensor an uniform because necessary Act. Fruitless here to enquire wherein the essence of Happiness consists according to the Thomists or Scotists It follows not because Christs Love as Viator was more intense at one Time in some Acts then at another in other Acts that therefore his Happiness as Comprehensor was at that time diminished Proved The Doctor never denies the Fulness of Christs happiness as Comprehensor The Refuter's grave Propositio malè sonans His Argument a Fallacy à dicto secundum quid Christ's twofold state Though the infused Habit of Grace in him alwaies full yet not so the Acts. The Reason Mr.
tell us that for the joy that was set before him he endured the Heb. 12. 2. Crosse and despised the shame and is now set down on the right hand of God Does he not also say that when Christ had by Heb. 1. 3 4. himself purged our sins he sate down on the right hand of the Majesty on high being made so much better then the Angels as that he hath obtained a more excellent name then they what are these also Propositions harshly sounding in the ears of Christians that are jealous of their Masters honour Review your assertion Sir and confesse and acknowledge your own thoughts or will you write uses of Confutation against the pen-men of sacred writ as well as against Doctor Hammond For can a state of Sorrow and Grief and Misery and Want consist with an absolute and compleat uninterupted heaven happiness where the Scripture testifies there shall be no more death nor sorrow nor crying neither Revel 21. 4. shall there be any more pain for the former things are passed away If in the dayes of his flesh he were so absolutely and compleatly happy that this blessedness could in no respect be interrupted how then as the Apostle testifies did he offer up prayers supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to help him For how can he pray for assistance that is in an absolute incapacity of want that is alwayes as happy as God and heaven-happiness can make him If he were so absolutely and compleatly happy so that in no respect it could be interrupted why then for the joy set before him which sure was not therefore yet Heb. 12. 2. obtained did he endure the cross and despise the shame why prayed he so earnestly for his own after-glorification Why John 17. 1. 2. said he to his Disciples after his Resurrection Ought not Christ Luke 24. 16. to suffer these things and to enter into his glory § 10. If here now you say that Christ in the state of his humiliation may be considered 1. Either in respect of the present state of his soul in the soveraign part of it his Mind and understanding or else 2ly in respect of the present state of the Inferiour sensitive part of his soul and the frail mortal passible condition of his flesh In the first respect he was Perfectus Comprehensor and enjoyed the fulness of heaven-happiness and therefore alwaies did love God to the full height that he enjoyed him And of this only you now spake But then in the second respect he was in a state of frailty and misery and sorrow and want and because truly a Viator he was not yet possessed of heaven-happiness and of this speak the Scriptures I shall accept of your answer and acknowledge the truth of it But withall I shall desire you to apply this distinction to your own argument and the assertion of Dr. Hammond § 11. And now I pray deal ingeniously with the world and tell us whether ever Dr. Hammond did deny the fulness of Christs happiness in the soveraign Part of his Soul Does not he allow him to be truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God man from the first indued with the fulness of habitual grace And does not of congruity a fulness of happiness in Christs soul flow from this Vnion and fulness of grace And does not an absolute uninterrupted Act of divine Love in its utmost height and intenseness flow necessarily from this happiness shew us then whether ever this was brought into debate betwixt you and the Doctor Nay do not you your self acquit him of this charge in your first argument when you conclude that the Inward Acts of the habits of all virtues and graces were alwaies full in him because the habits themselves were so will you say that the habits of virtues and other graces were proper to him as Comprehensor and that he could watch pray Tast suffer be meek patient humble c. as now in the state of heaven-happiness And have we not most evidently proved that Doctor Hammond understands by The Love of God only that Love and that Charity which was proper to Christ as Viator in the daies of his flesh and not that other necessary Act of Divine love proper to him as Comprehensor § 11. And therefore I pray now what is become of your argument and your grave Propositio malè sonans do you not all this while build upon an empty Sophism argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and conclude because Christ was perfectly happy in his Soul as Comprehensor and did therefore necessarily love God at the height therefore he must be absolutely so too in every respect and happy equally happy he must be also as Viator and according to that respect and so must also all his other Acts of divine Charity towards God himself and his Neighbours be equal all in themselves and with that high transcendent Act of Love immediately seated on God And is not this now a weighty argument well deserving to be put in the Title page of the Book to tell all the world how Doctor Hammond is subdued by it But because I see you sufficiently ignorant in this point I shall adde something for your instruction § 12. Plain it is that there was a twofold state of Christ during his abode upon earth The one was status Comprehensoris in respect of the soveraign Part of his Soul the Mind The other Status Viatoris in respect of the Inferiour Faculties of his soul and his frail mortal passible condition in the Flesh In this he was in statu merendi in the other not And consequently the Schoolmen do distinguish and observe a twofold Act of Divine Charity or holy Love in him The one †Necessary Vide Suarez in 3 part Thom. tom 1. disp 39 Sect. 2. p. 540. col 1. pag. 541. Col. 1. qui non potuit esse meritorius quia non erat liber sed necessariò consequebatur visionem beatam This they call Actus amoris Dei beatificus and Actus Comprehensoris and is the same with that of Christ and the Saints and Angels now in heaven who because they see and enjoy God face to face cannot chuse but perfectly love him The other * a Free Act and though it is Vid Suarez ibid. supernatural as flowing from the all perfect Habit of Divine Charity in Christ yet distinguished it is from the Beatifick Love that necessarily flowes from the Fulness of heaven-happiness this was proper to him as Viator § 13. Now though the habit of this Love was alwaies in Christ full and without any interruption even as he was Viator yet the Acts that flowed from this Habit were de facto some or other still interrupted because his present finite state and condition could not actually apply himself to the performance of all at once and the acts themselves were not all compossible in the same subject in one
of Zeal and Devotion which flow from these as the effects from their cause and of which only the Doctor spake as we have abundantly demonstrated that differed one from another in gradual Perfection We have already proved it of our Saviours Prayer in the Garden § 80. The Acts then of Love and Trust and dependance upon God and of Zeal and Devotion to him may be considered either precisely and abstractly in themselves and by themselves as flowing from peculiar Habits and Vertues of the same names which are the causes and fountains from whence all our Prayers flow for pray we do to God because we love and honour and reverence and trust and depend on him or else as they are the Acts issuing from Prayer as they are the consequents and â—manations Aquin. 2. 2. q. 83. art 3. in Corp. as I may so speak that visibly shine in it and per modum connotantiae result from it For as Aquinas truly 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 scil ei subjicit profitetur orando se Deo indigere sicut authore suorum bonorum unde manifestum est quod oratio est propriè religionis Actus As out of Religion we pray to God so in and by our Acts of Prayer we give him religious reverence and worship And therefore as Cajetan well observes there Cajetan in 2. 2. Thom q. 83. art 3. are three things considerable in Prayer First the thing prayed for the object of our desires and prayers and in this we acknowledge Gods fulness and superlative Goodness because we desire to have our wants supplied from his store and therefore we ask it of him Secondly the Petition it self and thus we honour God also because our very Petition and Act of Prayer is an Act of subjection and an acknowledgement of Gods power to help us for he that asks any thing of another does eo ipso acknowledge his own wants and by this very Act does submit himself to his will and power he does also in this his asking profess a Power in him to whom he prayes to relieve him a goodness and mercy that will encline him to make use of this his Power to his relief and a wisedome and gracious Providence to over rule and order all things that they may best serve for his relief Thirdly the Petitioner who by his mind and understanding does petition God for Prayer is an Act of the Vnderstanding the prime and most noble part of man and thus he also honours God in this in that he subjects the noblest part of his Soul to him makes use of that to express his desires and acknowledgement of his Power and Goodness § 81. And now as by all these we honour God in Prayer so our Religion and worship in the first and second respects are capable of augmentation and God may be more or less honoured by them Nay in the third also this is possible of increase when the Petitioner as we say in our Liturgie does offer up not only his mind but his whole soul and body and every part and faculty of it in Prayer the Mind to conceive the Will to censent the Tongue the Hand the Eye the Knee all to testifie and acknowledge our homage But in the first and second there can be no doubt When we petition God for spiritual and heavenly blessings we more honour him in this Act of Prayer then when we ask him only temporal because we hereby more acknowledge his transcendent Perfection Grace and Goodness Honoramus Cajetan in locum ut supra saies Cajetan Deum petendo tanto magis quanto vel ex modo petendi vel ex re petita profitemur ipsum esse supra omnia Creatorem provisorem c. So also when with greater longings of spirit stronger ardencies and desires we petition him hereby we acknowledge our greater trust and confidence in his Power to help us which more magnifies and honours him We should not come with so much eagerness unless we had the greater confidence in his Wisdome Power and Goodness § 82. And thus Prayer being an Act of Religion as Aquinas truly which in the Act of Prayer is capable of increase this may and ordinarily is gradually intended though the former were not And yet we have already seen that our Saviour did as well increase in the Perfection of the Acts of Wisdome and Grace as he did in Stature and this acknowledged by our Refuter himself § 83. In short then the Acts of Religion and Devotion and Love and Trust in Christ praying or these Acts from whence his Prayers did all issue as our Refuter has it might be still gradually the same and yet the Acts of Zeal and Devotion and religious worship of and in his Prayer might be and often was upon occasion augmented particularly in his prayer in the Garden And this was all that Doctor Hammond intended His words are plain The Ardency in Christ was sincere ardency accompanyed with Acts of Love and Trust of the same temper and the heightning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was an addition of Degrees to that Act of Ardency and so of Prayer and proportionably of Love and Trust in God above either what there was or what there was occasion for at other times And so at last I have gotten liberty to follow our Refuter's Motion SECT 17. The Refuters three Arguments to prove the Act of Christ's Love alwaies equally intense impertinent to the present Question His confident proposal of them to be examined as rigidly us the Doctors pleases and his vain Ostentation in placing them in his Title-page censured The Ambiguity of the Phrase Christ's Love of God distinguished from Crellius Estius Aquinas and others In what sense still used by the Doctor § 1. He goes on most magnificently and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with much pomp and ostentation he threatens to beat the Doctor with the very Muster-Roll of his Forces JEANES His Actual Love of God was in termino as they say was alwaies at the highest and most intense and this I shall not barely dictate but prove by three arguments which I present unto you to be examined as rigidly as you please 1. The all-fulness and perfection of Christs habitual Grace 2. His perpetual and uninterrupted happiness 3. His impeceability § 2. Well Sir if this be all you aime at you might have spared your pains in these three Arguments For this was never yet questioned as we have already demonstrated The Doubt only is whether those Acts of divine Charity or holy Love in Christ which belonged to him as Viator and by which he merited such as those of Prayer Mercy Charity and the like to which he had an absolute freedome were capable of intension and remission It concerns not that
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel expressius plenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant c. And therefore how shall we unfold this difficulty § 19. For the solution of it therefore he proposes diverse things and this onely tendandi gratià to draw S. Ierome to give him his opinion § 20. As first whether S. Iames refer not to the sins mentioned in the context vers 2 3. c. ut qui dixerit diviti sede hic pauperi sta illic huic non honorem quem illi deferens idololatra blasphemus adulter homicida ne quod longum est cuncta commemorem reus omnium criminum Ibid. p. 43. col 1. B. C. D. judicandus est offendens quippe in uno factus est omnium reus This he seeming to doubt of as appears by this Parent hesis nisi alio modo intelligendum ostendatur he proceeds to a second which is this § 21. Whether secondly the doubt may not be solved upon the opinion of the Peripateticks who maintained virtutes esse inter se connexas and consequently that he that wanted Ibid p. 43. col 1. D. col 2. A B C D. pag. 44. Col. 1. A B. the habit of any one virtue suppose of Iustice or Temperance had onely the vizor and shape of the rest and not the substance for no man will call Catiline virtuous because he was a traitour to his Countrey though frigus sitim famem ferre poterat eratque patiens inediae algoris vigiliae supra quam cuiquam credibile est ac per hoc sibi suis magnâ praeditus fortitudine videbatur This he positively resolves against Ibid. p. 44. col 1. B. Non enim ista divina sententia est quâ dicitur qui unam virtutem habuerit omnes habet eique nulla inest cui una defuerit sed hominibus hoc visum esi multum quidem ingeniosis studiosis sed tamen hominibus c. And therefore he goes on to another and enquires § 22. Whether thirdly it may not be solved upon the Ibid p 44. col 2. A B C. Opinion of the Stoicks that maintained all sins to be equall because as they instanced it was all one if a man were drowned whether he had a hundred fathome of water above his head or onely three inches since he could be but drowned and therefore it must be so in respect of sin which whosoever commits does but transilire lineas quas ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum and he that has gone beyond the line was as much out of the right way as he that wandred a thousand miles from it But this also he resolves against from Scripture Itaque non justificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis vivens Ibid. col 2. C. Psal 142. 2. Hab. 2. 4. tamen justus ex fide vivit Et induti sunt sancti justitiâ alius magis alius minus Et nemo hic vivit sine peccato hoc alius magis alius minus optimus autem est qui minimum And now here he takes occasion to proceed to give his own Judgement but modestly warily and rather by way of enquiry then determination for he well knew the temper of S. Ierome to whom he writes sed quid ego tanquam oblitus cui loquor Doctori similis factus sum cum proposuerim quid abs te discere velim sed quia de peccatorum parilitate unde in id quod agebam incidit quaestio examinandam tibi sententiam meam promere statueram jam eam tandem aliquando concludam § 23. And now having prepared the way and casually as it were and onely to confront the opinion of the Peripateticks and Stoicks proved from the Scripture that there was Ibid. p. 44. col 1. C. D. col 2. A. C. D. a twofold Righteousness one Legall the other Evangelicall and that believers though we all sin did truely worship God which they could not do without Charity and that in respect of this he was most perfect most holy and righteous that most mortified the deeds of the flesh and came nighest to a legall sinless perfection he comes to give his own Judgement but still by way of enquiry And it is this whether Ibid p. 45. col 2. part tot since the Scriptures mention a twofold righteousnese Legall and Evangelicall a justification by the works of the Law and another by Faith and the Grace and Righteousness of the Gospel this difficulty may not be solved and it may not be true according to the Covenant of works that he that offends in one as S. Iames speaks offends in all and as certainly by that Covenant of works does incur the curse annexed to the least transgression as well as if he had broken all and yet it may be true that the just shall live by Faith though the same S. Iames sayes in many things we offend all Ac per hoc qui totam legem servaverit si in uno offenderit fit omnium reus quia contra charitatem that universall virtue of goodness like the †Arist infracitat Philosophers universall justice that consists in an absolute sinless perfection that consists in keeping all Gods commandments briefly summed up by our Saviour in these two Thou shalt love the Lord c. and thy neighbour c. facit unde tota lex pendet § 24. From hence he proceeds to shew that in respect of Evangelicall righteousness and sanctification there might be a difference of holiness and a difference also of sins in opposition to the Peripatetick and Stoick according as they approached to the absolute sinless Perfection or compleat and Perfect Charity Quae si vera sint eo modo illud absolvitur quod ait homo etiam Apostolicae gratiae in multis offendimus omnes Omnes enim offendimus sed unus gravius alius Jac. 3. 2. levius Quanto quisque gravius leviusque peccaverit tanto in peccato committendo major quanto in diligendo Deo proximo minor Et rursus tanto minor in peccati perpetratione quanto major in Dei proximi dilectione Tanto itaque plenior iniquitatis quanto inanior charitatis Et tunc perfecti sumus in charitate quando nihil restat ex infirmitate c. This opinion he amplifies and prosecutes and labours to prove by diverse passages in S. James to be the true meaning of that difficult place and then concludes his Epistle § 25. And now from this Analysis and Scope of the Author in this Epistle it will be no hard matter to understand S. Austins mind in this text so often insisted on by us in our controversies with the Papists and to shew how much besides the purpose of Saint Austin and other Protestants both Master Cawdrey and our Refuter have urged it against the Doctor § 26. I shall with the Readers patience give the place a little larger then either our