endeavours which supposes the Fall and Mans frail sinfull weak condition § 22. Now of keeping of the Law according to exact unsinning obedience a loving God to this perfect height a loving him according to the Abilities God gave and Adam forfeited and here irrecoverably lost it is that our Divines Bishop White against Fisher Ames against Bellarmine Bishop Davenant de Justitiâ Habituali Actuali Bishop Morton de merito Bishop Andrews in his Sermon of Justification Chamier against Bellarmine Hooker against Travers and Generally the Protestants in their discourses of Justification by works and Merit ex condigno supererogation and Fullfilling of the law and the states of Perfection speak when they say God must be thus Loved And the Romish doctrines in many Branches enforce it Of this it is Saint Paul speaks in his Epistles to the Romanes and Galathians when he disputes with the Jew that expected Justification without Faith Justification by their own works according to the tenor of that Part of Moses Law that exemplified the Condition of the first Covenant and affixed the Curse to every one that continued not in every thing that was written in the book of the law to do them And according to this Tenor this Condition of the law the Apostle demonstratively proves against the Jew from the law that no flesh living can be justified because that law expresly testifies that all men have sinned and fell short of the glory of God According to this Condition expressed in Moses law the Jew must acknowledge that if he expects to be Justified his righteousness must be so exact that he must not transgress in any least branch of any the least commandment If he does as his own Conscience and the law tels him plainly that he does he must of necessity acknowledge that by this law nor he nor any man else can be Justified much less supererogate and do more then that law requires And therefore of necessity he must acknowledge himself in a damnable state if he will stand to be Justified by that law and his own righteousness No hope there can be for him unless he look for another righteousness another Covenant a Righteousness without him and a Covenant of Faith This is it that the Apostle so demonstratively proves against the Jew and clearly evidences that as no man can be Justified by that first Covenant so Abraham the Father of the Faithfull and all that ever were Justified were Justified by faith in the Righteousness of the Messiah and the second Covenant made and confirmed in his blood § 23. And this is the Righteousness we preach the righteousness Rom. 10. 6 7 8. of Faith in Christs blood the Condition of which righteousness or Justification and acquitting us at Gods bar is Repentance from dead works and Faith in our Saviours blood the Mediator of the new Covenant and a sincere endeavour to keep all the Commandments of God that Christ has imposed upon us And this the Apostle also as demonstratively proves in his Epistles to the Romans Galathians and Hebrews to have been also contained in Moses law the Ceremoniall part whereof was but the type and shadow of Gospel-Promises and Blessings and Purity and holiness § 24. But then not this but the former Legall Perfection of Charity is the Love that Chamier speaks of in his dispute with Bellarmine when he sayes we must love God according to the Tenor and Prescript of this Law totis viribus Naturae non totis viribus corruptionis And of such a sinless Perfection of love it is also that Master Cawdrey speaks and Doctor Hammond denyes to be obligatory to the Christians Justification that is not cannot be Justified by the works of the law but is therefore by Gods Mercy and Christs Merit and Purchase under the Covenant of Grace And of a love according to this sinless height it is that our Refuter speaks and would make good against the Doctor But bate him his Argument called Petitio Principii and he has not proved it Nay I tell him and shall by and by make it good that it is impossible for him to prove it by any other demonstration then what the Philosopher in his Elench's calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 25. For it is one thing to say that the Law or Covenant of works that required unsinning obedience as the condition of Justification and righteousness by that Law requires us to love God to that height and another thing to say that the Christian is obliged so to love God to Justification For that infers that believers are yet under the law when they are not but under grace which is contrary to the Tenor of the Gospel and yet for all that it may be true as the Apostle demonstrates that the Covenant of works the Law as he calls it did require such obedience and therefore no man can be Justified by that covenant or Law but by such obedience and such a height of Love § 26. If then secondly Man be confidered in regard of those Abilities he has now in the Present state of Grace and under the Gospell dispensation I say that Man according to the Gospell obligation of this Law and the Tenor of the new covenant is bound to love God to the utmost of those Abilities of Grace and the assistance of Gods spirit that God gives and shall bestow upon him bound he is so to love God that he may go on more and more to love him so to make use of the present Talent of Grace that God according to his promise in the Gospell may give more Grace and more Abilities to love him For as the Gospell commands us to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and 2 Pet. 3. 18. 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7. that giving all diligence we should adde to our faith virtue and to virtue knowledge and to knowledge temperance and to temperance patience and to patience godliness and to godliness brotherly kindness and to brotherly kindness charity for if these things be in us and abound they make us that we shall neither be barren nor unfruitfull in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ So God has promised in the Gospell Mat. 13. 11. and 25. 29 Luk. 8. 18. and 19. 26. that whosoever hath and makes use and improves it that hath it not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in possession but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the use and exercise to him shall be given and he shall have more abundance And our Saviour expresly tells us Joh. 10. 10. that he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly And thus man by the Law as understood and expounded according to the tenor and gratious moderation of the Gospel covenant is bound to love God with all the strength he either has or shall have and thus as S. Bernard excellently modus amandi Deum est amare sine modo We can never love enough because our love alwayes
against the Popish Doctrine of Merit ex condigno Justification by works and supererogation and the fulfilling of the Law according to this perfect rule of Righteousness and the Covenant of works they are unanswerable and I must also say with Chamier Magnum hoc inevitabile telum est senserunt adversarii momentum Itaque omnem movent lapidem ut eludant Chamier tom 3. l. 11. c. 14. § 1 2 3 4. § 48. But then I must adde that this nothing concerns the Doctors opinion and as little the Schoolmen and that there is little or no difference between theirs and Saint Austins and Bernards opinions as the Reader will soon perceive if he be pleased to compare them § 49. All that is said in those passages or that as I conceive can be rationally inferred from them I shall briefly summ up in these Theoremes 1. That the Law of God is the perfect Rule of Righteousness 2. That Perfection of Righteousness consists in an exact and sinless obedience and conformity to this Rule 3. That no man can be Justified by this Law according to the Covenant of works that does not thus perfectly observe it 4. That our Saviour has briefly summed up this Perfection of Righteousness and the whole drift of the Law in these two precepts Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. and our neighbours as our selves 5. That he that perfectly keeps these has fulfilled all Righteousness 6. That in our lapsed condition we do not we cannot so observe it because experience and Scripture teach us that in many things we offend all 7. That though we do not we cannot now observe it yet by Faith and Repentance promised in the Gospel according to the tenor of the second Covenant we shall find mercy and grace 8. That even Adam in innocence though he had persevered in that state could not have arrived to the utmost perfection of Love that is contained in those precepts because 9. This utmost perfection of love depends upon a clear intuitive knowledge of God 10. That here we walk by Faith and hereafter only in heaven we shall walk by fight where onely we shall know as we are known 11. That since our Love depends upon our knowledge of God and the more that increases the more will our Love then so much must be wanting to the perfection of our Love as is wanting to this knowledge 12. That though the utmost perfection of Love that a Saint now in viâ and in his Pilgrimage to heaven can arrive at consists as our Saviour himself testifies in laying down our lives for the faith and the Brethren yet that perfection of love that the Saints now injoy in heaven and we hope and patiently look for far exceeds this and all else that we can pray for or understand And yet 13. This love of the Saints now made perfect in heaven is no more then what is contained in this Precept it is no more then a love of God with all the heart c. Because nothing can be added to that which is perfectly the whole and if any thing might be added as yet it were not the whole And therefore 14. This of loving God with all the heart is the first great precept of that all full all perfect righteousness and the second it like unto it and they shall both then be perfectly fullfilled by us when we come to heaven where we shall see God face to face 15. That this perfect Rule of righteousness and love though it cannot be fullfilled in our lapsed estate according to the perfection of innocence much less according to the perfection of glory yet it was imposed upon us for this end that we might know what to aim at and hope for and endeavour after as much as we can and forgetting what is behind we might earnestly press toward the mark set before us 16. That this love in this utmost height and perfection which the Saints now enjoy belongs not to sinners but Saints not to this frail mortall life but that other which is immortall 17. That the righteousness and Perfection of Charity that belongs to believers in this life is that we strive against sin and suffer not sin to reign in our mortall bodies that we should obey it in the lusts thereof And therefore 18. Since this sinless perfection of Charity much less that Perfection of glory is not possible to be attained by us in this our lapsed estate God imposed this impossible command on us who well knew our frailty and the moment and weight of this Law not to judge us by it as transgressors at the last day but onely to humble us and that every mouth might be stopped and the world be convinced that by the works of the Law no flesh can be justified but that reading our own weakness and frailties and miseries and sins and wants in this perfect Law we might come to the throne of Grace to find Grace to help in time of need from him in that day who then not by works of righteousness which we have wrought but according to his mercy must and will save us 19. That God saw it reasonable even in this lapsed estate to prescribe us this rule of Perfection though no man can attain unto it that we might know the end of our race and the crown and reward of our endeavours which awaits us at the end of the Goale and to what perfection of righteousness and holyness we should aim at and endeavour and labour after and consider not what we yet have attained and then lazily sit down as if we had done sufficiently but still look forward and consider what yet we want 20. That he is the greatest proficient in this School of Perfection and has arrived highest to it that considering the excellency of the mark set before us does humbly acknowledge how much he is short of it and still labours to go higher so long as he continues in the race and way to it so long as he is a stranger and Pilgrim on earth and a traveller toward heaven § 50. This is the utmost those two Fathers drive at and I desire our Refuter to sit down and consider whether he can possibly make more of them then here I have done And if this will content him I shall here subscribe to the truth of every Theoreme and so will the Doctor Indeed there is nothing here but what is fully contained in the Doctors writings especially in the Practicall Catechism as the Reader will soon perceive if he be pleased onely to review the places already quoted And if Bellarmine or any Papist else deny the truth of any one of these or maintain any thing contrary to them I shall lend our Refuter my helping hand if he will accept of such poor assistance to oppose him in his errours § 51. But then for all that I must tell him that he will never be able to prove that S. Austin or
bounds and limits For we must love them as our selves and some more some less according to their nearness of allyance and kindred and Countrey and the grace of God shining in them and the like And therefore it is resolved in the Schools that datur ordo in charitate And then for the other virtues and graces they have all except the three Theologicall Graces of Faith Hope and Charity that have an infinite Object God and therefore can have no limits their excesses as well as defects they have their set periods and bounds they consist as Aquinas resolves in a middle point between two extreams But then this middle point also is not like the Eclipticke but the Zodiack and consists in a Latitude And therefore Seventhly in these last the Law requires not at all times the most intense degree of the Act but onely such a degree as befits the Object at this time and with relation to all other Circumstances § 41. And hence it is that the Doctor speaking onely of some of these Acts in particular affirms them to consist in a latitude and that in respect of the particular Law obliging all men to the performance of them there may be degrees above that particular command that God leaves to our Liberty freely to exercise that so we may have something to offer to him freely out of those very graces which himself has freely bestowed upon us And consequently that Christ in the Acts and Exercise of these in particular the Ardency of Prayer was not alwayes obliged to one equall uniform highest degree of intensness And therefore the first part of his Assumption as confronted to D. Hammonds Assertion is unsound § 42. All these in their severall orders have been largely prosecuted and confirmed and therefore nothing now remains but that we proceed to the second part or Proposition contained in the Assumption § 43. And it is this But Christ was not alwayes obliged unto the most intense expressions of these inward Acts of his Love § 44. To which I answer that if by the Expression of these inward Acts he means the outward sensible expressions of the inward acts it is thus far granted that nor Christ nor any man else is obliged to any one particular act or kind of outward expression suppose in prayer to use any one particular gesture or language or form and the like but by Gods law is left indifferent to use any that is quoad specificationem decent and fitting § 45. But then I must add that Aquinas his authority comes not up to this purpose nor am I moved to this concession for any reason that I or any man else can gather from the passage cited to confirm it For Aquinas here means not by the exteriour acts of charity the outward sensible expressions of it but onely the performances of those duties and graces of the first and second table quae sunt in ordine ad finem which God requires us to perform in order to our last end and happiness our eternall union and sight and love and enjoyment of God in heaven The exteriour acts of charity he there means are I say no other then the acts and performance of all virtues and graces whatsoever as no man that is any way versed in that Author can be ignorant § 46. But because our Refuter is a Schoolman and a Souldier and resolves to dispute every inch of ground with us I shall for a full displaying of his Ignorance proceed to make it good § 47. Thus then I lay down the full sense of the place By this interior actus charitatis the inward act of divine love the Schoolman means the immanent and elicite act of that love that is immediately fixed on God in which love mans last happiness consists This other where he calls finis praecepti from S. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy the end of the commandment because all the commandments onely drive at this and aim to bring us unto God And in the place here urged he sayes it has rationem finis because mans last happiness consists in this love and this union of the soul with God in heaven By the exteriour acts of charity he means not the materiall sensible expressions as for instance the more abundance of tears deeper sighs more patheticall phrases and forms and expressions more humble gestures of the body in prayer which is all the heightening and advancement our Refuter will allow to our Saviours ardency in prayer in the garden not the outward acts but morall duties and gratious works and performances of any virtue or grace that the law of God prescribes § 48. The first are elicite acts of divine love and therefore immanent and interiour to it But these latter morall duties are imperate acts of that love And therefore though they are or may be intrinsecall to the will wherein they are subjected yet are they extrinsecal to charity belong not to the formall essence and nature of it but are outward fruits and effects and symptomes of it because the more the man loves God the more he will labour to keep his commandments and the more sincere and cordiall he is in the exercise of any duty or grace the more it appears that he truly loves God that has commanded it But then though these be exteriour because imperate acts of divine love yet in their formall nature and essence they are immanent acts of the will because they are the elicite acts of the virtuous habits there seated and consequently they are not as our Refuter very ignorantly outward corporeall sensible tokens and expressions For the exteriour Acts of Charity he speaks of he sayes are siout ad finem such which God has commanded us to perform as the way and means that we may be perfectly united to him and see and enjoy his goodness in the land of the living and love him eternally ideo sunt commensur andi secundum charitatem secundum rationem and therefore are to be measured and proportioned according to charity and reason which words cannot possibly have any sense after the meaning of our Refuter § 49. Now that this and no other is the meaning of Aquinas will appear from the very question it self the answer in corpore and the beginning of this answer ad tertium which our Refuter warily omitted The question is utrum charitas habeat modum whether charity has any set bounds or limits any gradus ad octo as M. Cawdrey and our Refuter sayes it has He resolves it in the Negative from the authority of S. Bernard Causa diligendi Deum est Deus ipse modus sine modo His answer in corpore is this Dicendum quod modus importat quandam mensurae determinationem In omnibus appetibilibus agilibus mensura est finis Et ideo finis secundum seipsum habet modum ea vero quae sunt ad finem habent modum ex eo quod sunt fini proportionata Finis
is an order in the acts and degrees of love Asserted by the Schools Of the order in the love of Christ The habit of love to God and our neighbours one and the same quality proved God and our neighbours not to be loved with the same equality and degree of affection Actus efficaces inefficaces what they are That they were in Christ Of the gradual difference between them Hence demonstratively proved that the first great law of charity Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart c. does not alwayes oblige us pro hic nunc to the highest degree and noblest act of Divine love Of the gradual difference between the free and necessary acts of Christs love Phrase actuall love distinguished The acts and operations of grace in Christ were neither intensively nor extensively still commensurate with the habit Proved In what sense Aquinas's rule urged by the Refuter holds 205 SECT XIV The Doctors discourse here onely ad hominem The Refuters reply grants all that the Doctors argument aims at Where the degrees of any Quality particularly the love of Christ are for number multiplyed in the same subject there the quality particularly the love is more intense Proved This inferrs not Intension to be a meer coacervation of homogeneous degrees The Refuter reaches not the Doctors meaning The Doctor argues from the effect to the cause The reasonableness of the proof The onely way to conclude the servour of the inward devotion by the outward performance Length and continuance in prayer an argument of high zeal Suarez and Hurtado's discourse concerns not the Doctor The Refuters ignorance notwithstanding his confidence Quantitas virtutis molis No absurdity in the Doctors discourse if as the Refuter falsly charges him he had concluded a greater ardency in Christs devotion from the multiplying of the severall acts of prayer Continuance in prayer a demonstration of fervour Frequent repetitions of the same words in prayer an argument of an heightened fervour of Spirit 251 SECT XV. The pertinency of the Doctors Argument and impertinence of the Refuters charge The Doctors argument à posteriori from the necessary relation between the work and the reward Not understood by the Refuter The outward work more valuable in Gods sight for the inward fervour and devotion The Refuters petitio principii Works in a Physicall sense what and what in a Moral The Refuters discourse of the infinite value of Christs merit arising from the dignity of his person Nothing to the purpose The dignity of a morall action according to the physicall entity of the act or according to the dignity of the person performing it The actions of Christ in regard of his person infinite in value Not so in regard of their substantial moral goodness Proved and acknowledged by our Refuters own Suarez Consequently in this regard they might exceed one another in moral perfection The Doctors argument that it was so in Christ The appositeness of the proof The Scriptures say the same 265 SECT XVI The second part of the Refuters second answer The distinct confession of all the Doctor pretends to The English translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more earnestly justified The Refuter's nonsense What ardency in Christ it was that was heightned Luk 22. 43. Comprehensor Viator what In what state whether of Comprehensor or Viator Christ was in a capacity to pray as that signifies either petition deprecation or thanksgiving and this whether onely for others or also for himself Of prayer and the severall kinds Whether though Christ were in a capacity thus to pray yet being God that was able of himself to accomplish whatsoever he might desire as man it was expedient for him to do so and whether God had so determined What things Christ might and did pray for both for himself and others M. Hooker commended Whether Christ did in truth and reality or onely in shew pray for a removal of that cup which he came on purpose to drink Whether these prayers and desires were not repugnant to Gods decree and the end of his coming into the world and his own peremptory resolution to drink it How those desires for a removall of this Cup might be advanced notwithstanding his readiness and resolution to drink it How Christs ardency in prayer for a removal of this cup might be increased above what it either was or there was occasion for at other times Of the greatness of his agony and bloody sweat How his zeal in prayer at this time might be advanced without derogation from the fulness of his habitual grace the impeccability of his soul and the uninterrupted happiness of it and perfect love as he was Comprehensor Strictures on the former part of the Refuters second answer 276 SECT XVII The Refuters three arguments to prove the act of Christ's love alwayes equally intense impertinent to the present question His confident proposal of them to be examined as rigidly as the Doctor pleases and his vain ostentation in placing them in his Title-page censured The ambiguity of the phrase Christs love of God distinguished from Crellius Estius Aquinas and others In what sense still used by the Doctor 333 SECT XVIII The Refuters first argument contradicts his second and proves not his conclusion Reduced to form The Sequele denyed The reason His authorities concern not the question His citing Aquinas from Capreolus censured The conclusion to be proved Hurtado's and Aquinas first saying from Capreolus true with the reason of it from Suarez but not pertinent A view of the place in Aquinas He speaks of the habit c. not the act The different workings of necessary and voluntary causes The Refuters argument guilty of a double fallacy His next place of Aquinas from Capreolus impertinent His gross ignorance or prevaricating in his third place of Aquinas Scotus testimony impertinent Aquinas and Scotus maintain that proposition which he would confute in the Doctor by their testimonies 337 SECT XIX The Refuters second argument Christ on earth Comprehensor true but Viator also Proved from Scripture Aquinas Scotus in the places referred to by the Refuter From Suarez also None but the Socinians deny Christ to be thus Comprehensor His beatifick love as Comprehensor an uniform because necessary act Fruitless here to enquire wherein the essence of happiness consists according to the Thomists or Scotists It follows not because Christs love as Viator was more intense at one time in some acts then at another in other acts that therefore his happiness as Comprehensor was at that time diminished Proved The Doctor never denies the fulness of Christs happiness as Comprehensor The Refuters grave propositio malè sonans His argument a fallacy à dicto secundum quid Christs twofold state Though the infused habit of grace in him alwayes full yet not so the acts The reason M. Jeanes and others guilty of this propositio malè sonans as well as the Doctor The piouâ—â—y credible proposition of the Schoolmen
to demonstrate and was sufficient to secure him from your Vse of Confutation that spake clearly of another thing then he meant § 15. But for the present be it granted that the Doctor meant to make advantage by this latter Passage of Aquinas and thence had concluded that as Aquinas denied all increase in the habitual Grace of Christ so he no waies denied but asserted a Capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Christs Love of God and the Expressions of it as appears from this place of Aquinas by him cited in his answer ad 3 m. For does not Aquinas say there expresly that as Christ increased in Age so he did in Wisedom and Grace because according to the process of his Age he did more perfect more wise and vertuous works and that both in things belonging to God and Men also And have we not already cleared it from Aquinas that such as the outward Expressions of Grace are such are also the inward Acts from whence they flow and that the Schoolmen in particular Aquinas do generally maintain from Saint Gregory that Probatio dilectionis is Exhibitio operis If this be clear as indeed it is why then might not the Doctor say truly that the Consent of the Schoolmen was no way denying as most plain it is to any man that will read the places by you cited because they speak not a word expresly of the inward Acts but rather asserting for the Doctor though he positively there speaks must be comparatively understood a Capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Christ's Love of God and the Expressions For that Aquinas speaks plainly of a gradual difference in the Expressions of Christs Love your self do maintain and that this by consequence implies a gradual difference in the inward Acts themselves whereof they were Expressions we have also declared to be the opinion of Aquinas and other of the Schoolmen § 16. But how plain is it I pray Sir that in that place of Aquinas by the Effects of Wisedom Grace are meant such as are only outward Is it because these are most properly termed works § 17. But now suppose Sir this reason be invalid For what I pray Sir do you think of a Mathematical Demonstration Arist l. 2. Eth. c. 6. §. 3. Our Refuters Master Scheibler also calls a mental Syllogisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a work Vid. Scheibler Metaph. l. 2. c. 10. n. 29. p. 703. already quoted Is it not truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 opus a work why else does Aristotle say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet I hope you will not say that it is external as it is an intellectual work and purely formed in the brain and there subjected For no necessity lies upon the Mathematician to express by words or writing the Demonstration he has framed But perhaps you heard of the difference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that in artificial productions such as properly are Poietical the works as they are permanent and lasting so they are commonly external But does not Aquinas expresly say that alio modo proficere quis potest secundum effectus in quantum sc aliquis sapientiora virtuosiora opera facit et sic Christus proficiebat sapientiâ gratiâ sicut aetate And are not the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace as truly nay more properly the Effects of the infused Habit of Wisedom and Grace then any outward Expressions of them For the inward Acts that flow from this Habit as the Effect from the Cause are the proper natural elicite Acts of the Will but the other are imperate transient Acts. Besides I would desire our Refuter to tell me how it is possible for any man to do sapientiora virtuosiora opera or perfectiora opera sapientiae virtutis where the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace are supposed to be the same For I must here remember him of his own distinction and tell him that the * Suppono ex prima 2 da q. 20 21. proprium formale meritum esse in actu elicito Voluntatis actus vero externos per se non addere me ritum actui Voluntatis neque esse formaliter intrinsece meritorios sed solum per extrinsecam denominationem ab actu meritorio voluntatis à quo imperantur extrinsece seu moraliter informantur sicut etiam ab illo denominantur liberi studio si Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 39. sect 1. p. 540. col 1. C. D. Vide Aquin. 1. 2. q. 20. art 1. in corp Cajetan alios in loc outward works are not properly called works of Wisedom and Grace but only by a Metonymy of the Effect and by extrinsecal denomination it is the very same with the outward Expressions of Wisedom and Grace as he saies of the outward Expressions of Love that are Love only by extrinsecal Denomination and the Metonymy of the Effect And therefore †Suarez in tert part Thom. q. 7. p. 315. col 2. E. F. in Comment ad loc infra citat Suarez who without doubt as well understood Aquinas as our Refuter or any man else expounds him in his Commentary on this very place of an intensive growth of the inward Acts themselves of Wisedom and Grace as shall in this Section be manifested in due place § 18. The truth is Aquinas is no otherwise to be understood and though the word Opus a work sometimes signifies that which is external yet it is generally received in the Schooles that a Moral work or Action such as these without doubt are of which Aquinas speakes in this place consists both of the inward Act of the Will and the outward Performance as the two essential Parts that concur to the being and constitution of a Moral Action For this let Suarez speak * Suarez tom 1. in 1. part Thom. disp 38. sect 4. p. 519. col 2. A B. Illud praeceptum saies he directè cadit in ipsum Actum exteriorem qui est objectum interioris Actus Voluntatis qui etiam consequenter praecipitur quatenus cum exteriori componit unum Actum moralem liberum But to make it more authentick let us hear Aquinas himself †Aquinas 1. 2. q. 20. art 3. in corp respons ad 1m. Vide Cajetan in loc Dicendum saies he quod sicut supra dictum est Actus interior Voluntatis Actus exterior prout considerantur in genere moris sunt unus Actus In Corp. And then in his Answer ad primum Dicendum saies he quod ratio illa probat quod Actus interior exterior sunt aiversi secundum genus naturae sed tamen ex sic diversis constituitur unum in genere moris ut supra dictum est The place he refers to is in the 17th Question art 4. in corp Thus Sicut autem in genere rerum naturalium aliquod totum componitur ex materia forma ut homo ex
the devotions sake from whence they spring and where they are not hypocritical and counterfeit And hence it was that the Primitive Christians called their * Vide Tertul. l. de Orat. c. 14. p. 155. A ex edit Rigalt Confer l de Jejuniis c. 1 pag 701. C c 2. p. 702. A. c. 10. p. 708. A. D. c. 13. p. 7 11. Wednesdaies and Fridaies Fasts and Humiliations Dies stationarii and their Devotions stationes because not only they continued in them till * three in the afternoon but performed them constantly also †Vide H Grotium in Annotat ad Matth. 6. 5. verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 140 Confer quae vir doctissimus annotavit ad cap. 18. Luca vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut quae habet ad cap. 3. Act. Apost vers 1. And therefore the Judicious Hooker renders the place in Tertullians second book ad uxorem c. 4. p. 189. C. Si statio facienda est Maritus de die condicat ad Balneas thus If her presence be required at the time of Station or standing Prayer he chargeth her at no time but that to be present with him in his Baths Hooker Ecclesias Pol. l. 5. §. 41. p. 264. standing Their giving no ease to the body in their publick prayers and their perseverance and continuing in it were fruits and effects and arguments of the Primitive Devotion And is it not usual with us upon publick daies of Humiliation to have 3 or 4 Preachers and as many to pray for the service And are not we willing by these multiplied Acts of Devotion and our whole daies continuance in them to testifie the deep sense of our humiliation and the sincerity of our Repentance and the utmost height of our Devotion We truly guess at the strength and quickness of the Bow and the vigor of the Arm that draws it by the further flight of the Arrow § 13. But then as in those who are truly pious the multiplying of the Acts of Prayer and a longer continuance in the performing that duty does argue a greater Ardency of Devotion so 2ly the frequent repetition of the same words does much more express the inward fervour of the Spirit As the multiplying of Circles in a Pond or River or the continued revolutions in a Wheel or Top do argue the more violent descent of the Stone into the water and the strenger violence and force impressed into the Wheel or Top. And therefore we read that our Saviour in his bloody Agony did not only pray thrice and so prolixius but also the same words and therefore in respect of them both intensius also When Beggers would express their utmost earnestness and the violence of their desires of a relief of their wants they redouble their Petitions in the same language and it had not been taken up for a Custome among the men of that trade if there had not been an argument and evidence of truth it it all the world over When blind Bartimaeus and his fellow-begger understood that Jesus passed by they lift up their voices and cried still Mark 10. 46. Luc. 18. 35. Matth 20. 30. Quo magis turba obstrepebat tanto vehementius caecus clamabat eadem iterans sanctâ improbitate declarans hac ratione ardens desiderium invictum fidei robur c. Jansen Concord Evangel cap. 105. p. 741. col 2. C. D. Vide Luc. Brugens in Matt. c. 20. ver 1. 2. H. Grot. ibid. redoubling the same words Jesus thou son of David have mercy on us And when the Company reproved this practise of the Begger in them the Text saies they cried the more earnestly saying the same words And our Saviour that as well knew the fervour of the heart as the noise and language of the tongue did rightly measure the inward Devotion of the Spirit by their out-cries and redoubling of their Prayers Even he himself to express his inward grief and earnest longings after the comfortable influence of the Godhead now restrained cries out upon the Cross My God my Matt. 27. 46. God why hast thou forsaken me § 14. As then the Doctor did truly and most demonstratively conclude and argue an increase of the inward fervour and ardency of our Saviours Devotion from the multiplying of the exterior Acts of Prayer and so from a greater length in them did infer by way of Proportion a greater intension in the inward Acts of his Love and Zeal and Devotion So shall I also as firmly and as evidently conclude this aggrandation and more then ordinary intenseness in the inward Acts of his Devotion by his more then ordinary use and repetition and redoubling of the same Prayer § 15. Our Refuter then did either ignorantly or wilfully mistake the Doctors meaning For he never took a number for a single Quality nor argued the gradual increase of Christ's ardency from the multiplying of so many several Acts of Prayer of the same gradual perfection all numerically distinct For though Children and Fooles mistake a Posy for a single flower yet Wise men know it is a bundle And so I proceed to the next Section wherein the Doctor further evidences his Assertion upon that supposal that the vulgar reading of place were to be approved as our Refuter would have it SECTION 15. The pertinency of the Doctors Argument and impertinence of the Refuters Charge The Doctors Argument à Posteriori from the necessary relation between the work and the reward Not understood by the Refuter The outward work more valuable in Gods sight for the inward Fervour and Devotion The Refuters Petitio principii Works in a Physical sense what and what in a Moral The Refuters discourse of the infinite value of Christs merit arising from the dignity of his person Nothing to the purpose The dignity of a moral Action according to the Physical Entity of the Act or according to the dignity of the Person performing it The Actions of Christ in regard of his Person infinite in value Not so in regard of their substantial Moral goodness Proved and acknowledged by our Refuter's own Suarez Consequently in this regard they might exceed one another in Moral Perfection The Doctors Argument that it was so in Christ The appositeness of the Proof The Scriptures say the same Doctor HAMMOND § 34. THis is clear and I need not adde what else I might the very multiplication of more Acts of any Vertue supposing it equally sincere in the Habit and such is the length of Prayer when it is in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God that argues it more excellent then the smaller number of those Acts would be and proportionably more abundantly rewarded by him who rewardeth every man not only according to the sincerity of his heart but also secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or works the more abundant labour proceeding from this sincerity And so that will suffice for his first
answer § 1. To this our Refuter returns JEANES FIrst this is an utter Impertinency unto that which is in debate between us c. § 2. Grande crimen Caie Caesar si probetur But what if it appear in the issue most evidently to prove the Doctors Position will not then our Refuter betray as great Ignorance as Impertinence in this Rejoynder And now to shew the Appositeness of the Proof I must tell him what either he knows not or will not observe That the Doctor again argues à posteriori from the Effect to the Cause and the necessary relation between the work and the reward His argument is founded upon a maxime of distributive Justice not expressed but supposed and intimated Vide Suarez 3. p. Thom. tom 1. disp 39. sect 1. p. 537. col 1. and it is this Where the reward does proceed of debt as in Christ certainly it did and is properly wages there must be a proportionable encrease of the reward and the work And therefore * 1 Tim. 5. 18. since the labourer is worthy of his hire and †Gen. 18. 25. God the Judge of all the world must needs do right we may most evidently and demonstratively prove the gradual increase in the perfection of any Act of vertue from a proportionable encrease in the reward that he gives because as the Scripture testifies he rewards every man not only according to the sincerity of his Matth. 16. 27. 2 Cor. 5 10. heart but also secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or works the more abundant labour as the Doctor saies truly proceeding from this sincerity For it is this inward heart-devotion that God alone regards this this is the thing that gives life and vigour to the outward work and makes it acceptable in Gods sight and if this go not alwaies with the outward Act or work God looks upon it as the sacrificing and cutting off the neck of a dogge and pouring the blood of a man upon his Altar But then because the outward works are the fruits and effects of the inward Devotion and ordinarily as these are more noble so also is the Love and sincerity more strongly encreased God for the inward Fervours sake does reward men secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or outward works § 3. Well then if the very multiplication of more outward Acts and works for such only the Doctor means of any vertue be more valuable in the sight of God as without doubt they are who rewards every man according to his works and this because the more abundant labour in the outward Act proceeds from the greater fervour and intenseness of the inward Act which alone gives life to it it will evidently follow that the length of Prayer the outward Oraizon he meanes in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God as the work is in it self considered and without relation to the Person that does it for of the work in it's own nature considered the Doctor speaks as appears by the whole current of his discourse and that must needs argue it more excellent in regard of the intensive Perfection of the inward Act which is that alone which God values then the smaller number of those Acts would be And this as it clearly proves the Doctors Assertion so it was the whole he aimed at in this argument § 4. But our Refuter will give us his reason why he does charge it with impertinency JEANES FOr suppose that the very multiplication of more inward Acts of any vertue in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God and so more excellent then the smaller number of those Acts would be yet this supposition will never bring you to this conclusion That one inward Act of Christs love of God may be more intense then another and 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 § 5. But why I pray Sir may or must there be no gradual difference of the inward Acts of Christs love of God or holy Charity and other inward Acts of other vertues and graces Good Sir give us a proof of this Is it therefore an irrefragable demonstration because you usher it in so gravely with a Because and this is my reason But good Sir know you not that this is still Petitio principii and the Controversie between you and the Doctor And do you not prove still idem per idem thus The inward Acts of Christs Love are not gradually different or which is all one they are gradually the same my reason is because in them there may be no gradual dissimilitude If this be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not what your great Master Aristotle means § 6. How the Doctors supposition has inferred his Conclusion has already appeared and the folly also of what you have urged against it But it is no wonder that you argue so absurdly when you understand not the Discourse you undertake to refute For Sir the Doctor does not argue from the multiplication of the inward Acts as you suppose him but from the multiplication of the outward Acts or works and from the greater reward that attends them he concludes the more noble and intensive Perfection of the inward Act from whence they flow as the more abundance of fruit argues the rich vigorousness and plenty of the vital sap of the Tree and the less argues either the unseasonableness of the year or the decay of the Stock For you your self have told us that works signifie those that are outward how properly has already been shewed in the sense you spake of it The truth is that works in a Physical consideration never signifie the Elicite Acts of the Will but the issues and Effects of them whether inward or outward whether immanent as in a Syllogism purely mental or trunsient as in the imperate Acts of the Will though certain it is as we have shewed that the inward and outward Act both concur to the essence and constitution of a Moral work or Action § 7. But he goes on as gravely as if his words were all Oracles JEANES A Great part of the Schoolmen will tell you that the moral vertue of one single Act of any vertue in Christ was infinite and in the multiplication of more Acts there is but an infinite value now one infinite cannot be greater then another infinite in the same kind wherein it is infinite and hereupon they conclude that the multiplication of Acts makes nothing in Christ unto an intensive addition of value The value of one Act is intensively as great as that of more Acts. The first Act of Christ saies Albertinus habet totam latitudinem intensivam valoris moralis etsi non adaequet totam latitudinem extensivam Corol. tom 1. 150. n. 61. And of this you have a reason p. 145. this Act is
humane Nature though performed by a Divine person being in their own Physical entity finite and consequently so also in respect of that moral goodness that is intrinsecally inhaerent in them nothing hinders but that one in this respect may be better and more intensely perfect then another as well as one grief and torment which he suffered was greater then another And therefore the same Suarez even in that very Page and Columne and in the § immediatly preceding that passage that our Refuter has quoted Suarez in 3 m p. Thom. tom 1. disp 4. sect 4. p. apud me 46. col 1. A. B. expresly saies to this purpose Primum omnium fatendum esse opera Christi fuisse inaequalia in propria bonitate intrinseca essentiali vel realiter inhaerente ipsi actui quia ut dictum est tota haec bonit as erat sinita poterat ergo esse major minor aliunde unum opus Christi erat melioris Objecti quam aliud unum intensius alio sic de aliis circumstantiis ergo erant vel poterant esse inaequalia in hac bonitate And will not every man think that our Refuter was a man of great Judgement and Parts and fit to quote Suarez against Doctor Hammond But I rather think he was misguided by some Notes and that he never consulted the Authors he quotes but took them upon trust otherwise methinks it is impossible he should be so strangely deceived § 13. Well then it being so clear and evident in it self and so acknowledged by our Refuters own Suarez for Albertinus I have not by me that though every Act of Christ in respect of the Person that performed it was of infinite and so of an equal intensive value yet in respect of the real entity and substance of the Act and the Moral goodness inhering in it it was sinite as the Humane nature it self wherein it was performed nothing hinders but they being finite might exceed one another in gradual perfection and intenseness in that moral goodness that was intrinsecally inherent in them § 14. Seeing then that nothing ab intrinseco hinders but that this might be so the Doctor now like a rational man and a Scholar here brings his Medium to prove that de facto it was so § 15. And as the subject matter of the present discourse was only the moral goodness and different gradual perfection in the Acts of this habitual Grace so he makes use of such Medium's that properly concern that Subject The Moral value arising from the Dignity of the Person that performed it would make nothing to the purpose And therefore though he knew it as well as our Refuter yet being loth contrary to the lawes of Art and Method transire à Genere ad Genus he would take no notice of it but keep close to the present argument § 16. And prov'd his assertion he has by a very clear and apposite medium his Argument rightly proceeding from the Reward to the Work For though all the Actions of Christ as weighed in the scale of Merit at the great Tribunal were valued actually valued I say according to the dignity of the Person and not the finite goodness really inherent in the Acts yet nothing hinders but even the gradual perfection in the Acts themselves their multiplied numbers and works as they may and were by God considered in themselves so a◠thus in and by themselves considered they may be more or less valuable so might be capable of a greater reward though de facto they were not so valued but according to the dignity of the Person And therefore nothing hinders but from this different valuableness of the goodness of the outward Acts the sincerity and intenseness of the inward Acts might be collected For most plain it is that the Scriptures tell us that God rewards every man according to his work And therefore if God de facto thus proceed in the rewarding of the Acts of all other men the Acts operations of the vertues of Christ as considered according to their own real and intrinsick goodness might be valuable also in his sight For why that Moral goodness intrinsecally inherent in the Act and à qua as Suarez tells us Actus dicitur bonus moraliter actus virtutis should not in the Actions of Christ be valuable in Gods sight I see no reason since it is so in respect of all other men besides And this was that which the Doctor alone aimed at For this is all that he saies The very multiplication of more Acts of any vertue supposing it equally sincere in the Habit and such is the length of Prayer when it is in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God that argues it more excellent then the smaller number of those Acts would be § 17. And if I be not very much deceived the Scripture speaks very agreeably to this purpose For it tells us expresly that | Rom. 5. 8. God commendeth his love toward us in that whilst we were yet sinners Christ died for us And is it not the commendation of Christ's Love that he * Gal. 2. 20. loved us and gave himself for us And if as our Saviour himself testifies †Joh. 15. 13. Vide Bernard in Serm. Feriae 4. hebdomadae ◠tae Joh. 10. 15. 17. Addo quarto si considerentur opera Christi ut erant sub divina ordinatione sub relatione illius operantis plus meruisse vel satisfecisse toto vitae suae tempore quam singulis operibus aliquid effecisse seu obtinuisse uno tempore non alio c. Ex hoc enim intelligitur quinto quamobrem redemptio nostra passioni morti Christi specialiter tribuatur cum non per solam illam sed per omnia opera quae in vita mortali Christus operatus est nobis meruerit pro nobis satisfecerit Ratio est c. Vide ampl Suarez in tert part Thom. tom 1. disp 1. sect 4. p. 50. col 1. F. col .... A. B. C. and immediately after it follow the words cited by the Refuter against the Doctor that greater love has no man then to lay down his life for his friend then it must be the most transcendent Act of love in Christ to die for his enemies And that so it was valuable and accounted in Gods sight seemes evident to me from that saying of our Saviour who tells us that therefore does his Father love him because he laid down his life for the sheep § 18. But the Doctor seems not much to insist upon this argument for in the Introduction to it he saies I need not adde what else I might and therefore I shall forbear the further prosecution of it and go on to the next Section SECT 16. The second part of the Refuters second answer The distinct Confession of all the Doctor pretends to The English translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
ad ostensionem etiam Divinae Naturae dici etiam posset profecisse quia verbi sapientia paulatim se prodebat per humanitatem illam tum etiam quia impropria est significatio verborum proficere id est videbatur proficere seu paulatim se ostendebat ad impropriam autem significationem verborum non est revertendum nisi impellente necessitate aut urgente ratione cum autem possimus interpretari verba accommodatissime servata proprietate non est cur improprietate utamur Idcirco aliter mihi accommodatius dicendum videtur sapientiam enim non ipsum habitum sapientiae appellat sed opera ista verba quae à sapientia procedunt In his autem verè Christus secundum aetatis incrementum proficiebat quia opera sapientiora edebat verba sapientiora loquebatur non enim omnia externa opera aequalem sapientiam habent contingit sapienter sapientius loqui Christus autem licet plenitudinem intus sapientiae haberet exterius tamen verba opera sapientiora proferebat c Dicta ergo facta sapientia procedentia nomine appellantur sapientiae in hac Christus ratione humanae naturae progressum verè fecit Atque haec explicatio mihi sanè accommodatior proprior videtur c. Et Gratia hic est tertius profectus nimirum Gratia qua Deo gratus erat illique acceptus sanctus non quod sanctior aut gratior habitu sc progressu temporis factus fuerit qui ab oxordio incarnationis plenus gratia erat sed quod per aetatis incrementa perfectioribus gratiae sanctitatis operibus incubuerit quamvis enim quodvis opus verbum Christi ratione personae operantis esset aequalis sanctitatis non tamen ratione ipsius operis verbi gratius enim opus fuit ratione operis Iejunium quadraginta dierum quam unius tantum c. And then in his Annotation on that Commentary he adds licet Catholici Doctores qui perfectum in ostensione sapientiae explicant idem dicunt de gratia Nos verò Gratiam opera ipsa gratiae explicamus c. In his ergo profectus fuit non autem in gratia secundum Habitum c. Apud Deum homines Haec verba ad praecedentia tria referuntur nimirum proficiebat sapientiâ aetate gratiâ apud Deum homines apud Deum quidem quia erat augmentum profectus non solum in apparentia respectu hominum sed re ipsa apud Deum erant enim sapientiora gratiora in se indies sicut aetas provectior And then in his Annotation on that Commentary it follows Titus Bostrensis hunc Profectum interpretatur secundum ostensionem demonstrationem c. Nos verò qui non solius Ostensionis sed re ipsa profectum hunc esse diximus scil operibus ipsis verbis quae nomine sapientiae Gratiae appellantur explicuimus istud Apud Deum pro eo quod dicitur verè saepe enim hominibus aliud videtur quam est at Deo ipsi nuda veritas adstat idcirco dicitur profecisse apud Deum quia vera opera sapientiae gratiae faciebat Additum est Apud homines quia saepe contingit quod verum est apud Deum non ut tale ab hominibus recipiatur Christus prosiciebat apud Deum apud homines magnificabatur enim ab iis à Deo Thus Tolet. § 63. The onely doubt that can be raised of the sense of the Cardinall must arise from the words Externa opera sapientiae gratiae The outward works of wisdome and Grace wherein he sayes Christ onely encreased § 64. But for the clearing of this Observe we must that here all along Tolet does carefully distinguish these three First habitum sapientiae gratiae wherein he allows no increase Secondly opera Sapientiae gratiae wherein he allows a true increase and Thirdly ostensionem sapientiae gratiae the outward sensible demonstration which he allows to be but an improper increase and no whit agreeable to the words of the Evangelist who speaks of a true and reall increase aswell in wisdome and Grace as in Stature and that in respect of God aswell as Man And consequently by the works of Wisdome and Grace he must of necessity mean the inward and the outward Acts both which the one as the Form and the other as the matter do concur as the Moralists and Schoolmen grant and acknowledge as we have formerly noted to the compleating of the morall Acts of wisdome and Grace as considered in genere moris And these he calls opera externa sapientiae gratiae in a double respect First because the inward Acts themselves that make up the Formall part of the Action or work in a morall sense are though immanent in respect of the will yet Extrinsecall to the Habit from whence they flow because the Habit is the cause and these the effects and secondly because the outward Acts and sensible demonstrations that are the Materiall part of the Morall work are truely extrinsecall and exposed to the view and apprehension and cognizance of the Exteriour senses And thus also the learned and very accurate Suarez understands his master Thomas who as Tolet here acknowledges though Christ increased not according to the Habit of wisdome and Grace yet secundum opera sapientiae gratiae according to the Morall Acts and works of wisdome and grace he did truly increase and not onely in shew and outward demonstration That the outward sensible expressions onely and with exclusion to the inward Acts themselves cannot here be understood is plain from the Authors own words and we need not further insist upon it Go we on then § 65. To Tolet I shall add the learned Professor of Doway Guil. Estii Annotat in praecip difficilior Scripturae loc ad Luc. 2. v. 42 52. Duaci fol. 1629. Estius Puer autem crescebat confortabatur plenus sapientiâ Et infra v. 52. Jesus proficiebat sapientià Resp Plenus sapientiâ quia perfecte sapiens nec quicquam sapientiae illi deerat Proficiebat autem sapientia quatenus majora indies opera sapientiae apud homines exercebat Proficiebat ergo quoad actum non quoad habitum actus enim erant paulatim majores habitu eodem immutabili manente And upon the 52. verse to which he here refers he adds Et Iesus proficiebat sapientiâ aetate gratiâ apud Deum apud homines Illud apud Deum homines ad solam gratiam videtur referendum Nam dicere non solemus quempiam proficere aetate apud Deum homines nec sapientiâ apud Deum sed Gratiâ apud Deum homines vide Iansenium nostra in 3. sent distinct 13. These words we have already cited at large and they are clear and express to our present purpose 66. And because he referrs to Iansenius that learned man
quidem verè sed humanâ non divinâ sapientiâ profecisse ut hominem non ut Deum a Athan. term quarto con Arrian Athanasius b In Anchorat Epiphanius c Lib. de incarnat Dom. Sacram c 7. Ambrosius d Lib. 10. The. c. 7. lib. derect sid ad Reginas Cyrillus e L. 1. ad Ther. Fulgentius f In locum Beda Euthymius libenter hanc sententiam Lutherani Calviniani amplexi sunt magis ferendi si eorum quos nominavimus Patrum authoritate commoti fecissent sed ut puto nesciebant eam aliquorum Patrum fuisse sententiam non secuturi fortasse si scivissent tantum contra illos bellum susceperunt nunc autem cum solà id impietate seducti fecerint quae non sanctis modo sed Christo etiam quantum possunt detrahunt ferendum profecto non est Thus Maldonate § 86. But our comfort is that we neither stand nor fall by the harsh censures of such Masters and it will appear at least at the last day who have most consulted the true honour of Christ and the Saints they or we In the mean while notwithstanding his soul language the Genuine sons of the Church of England are not ashamed of the Doctrine of the Fathers but make it their glory that they were born of that Mother whose doctrine and discipline comes up so high and so home to the platform of the first and purest Antiquity And then as to the errour by him charged upon the Lutherans and Calvinists at large I shall presume to say this in their defence that were it granted to be true as it is apparently false in respect of the greater part of them at least yet it can be a mistake of no great danger which by his own confession has so many of the Antient Fathers to back it and that they of that opinion will more easily reconcile themselves with the plain Narrations of S. Luke then he or Stapleton or Bellarmine shall their own that make Christ to increase in Grace in respect of outward sensible manifestation onely and in the opinion of men and when they have answered the reasons of Erasmus and their own Cardinall Tolet and Jansenius against Hoc loco sapientiâ gratiâ aetate Christus dicitur profecisse quamvis non eodem modo sapientiâ gratiâ quo aetate profecerit Nam aetate quidem verè sapientiâ gratiâ solâ hominum opinione profecit Maldonat Commentar in Luc. c. 2. v. 4. p. 994. C. To the same purpose Bellarmine tom 1 contro 2. l. 2. de Christi anima c. 5. p. 427. C. D. it I shall not envie their Triumph In the mean time I shall wish them first to agree among themselves before they quarrell with their neighbours § 87. Come we in the next place to our angry Countrey-man Tho. Stapleton Antidot Evangel in Luc. 2. v 52. mihi pag. 157. Stapleton Quod autem Lucas de Gratia dicit intelligendum est illam in Christo eandem invariabilem fuisse nec in eâ aliter profecisse quam quod eam magis ac magis per actus excellentiores demonstraret et explicaret ut docet D. Thom. 3. p. q. 7. ar 12. Quam etiam ob causam gratiam posuit Lucas ultimo loco post aetatem volens insinuare non juxta aetatem in eâ profecisse sed in externâ tantum demonstratione apud Deum homines faciens viz. opera Deo hominibus magis grata Erasmi explicationem de augmento donorum Spiritus Sancti in Christo absurdam temerariam sequitur Calvinus quam refutat Medina in 3. p. q. 12. ar 2. Nec pudet Calvinum ignorantiam positivam ponere in Christo quae accedente cum aetate sapientiâ informaretur quia etiam mortem subiit peccati poenam Atqui mors nec plenitudini gratiae nec plentitudini scientiae quae in Christo fuit opponitur sicut ignorantia vide Medinam 3. p. q. 15. ar 3. sed utinam sola rerum theologicarum ignorantiâ laborasset Calvinus ac non pleraque studio cauteriatâ conscientia depravasset § 88. Though this calumnie has in part been answered already yet I have somethings to add And first it were Christianly to be wished that Passion and virulence did not rage so much on both sides that holy Truth might appear unmasked and free from those clouds that anger and carnall zeal and worldly Interest have thrown about it and that himself and many of his party had not made it their business to rail at Calvin without cause and as I fear oftentimes even against their own light and conscience Secondly notwithstanding this course language I must say that if the opinion were Calvin's as it is most certainly the great Erasmus's yet it deserves not the harsh censure of temerarious and absurd that by his own brother Maldonates confession has its Originall and Authority from so many learned Fathers and in their disputes with the Arrians Thirdly though Calvin makes Christ to be truly ignorant of some things in particular of the day of Judgement yet he has the Letter of the Scripture for it and many of the antient Fathers as is acknowledged also by some of their own side interpret that text as Calvin does Fourthly since it appears to all the world that Calvin was a person so acute and Judicious notwithstanding Stapletons unworthy Censure I cannot be perswaded that he should ground his Assertion or confirm it by so weak and shallow a proof And therefore I shall suspend my Judgement till the place in Calvin be produced which I believe never will Fifthly that if Stapleton himself mean the same with Aquinas as he sayes he does we have already demonstrated that the Schoolman means by the works of wisdome and Grace the whole morall Act that consists of the inward elicite Acts of the will as the Form and the outward Imperate sensible works as the Matter of it as is acknowledged by his brother Suarez in his Commentary on that place and by Lucas Brugensis in his Commentary on S. Luke formerly cited And this is more then an increase in regard of Ostension and the opinion of men a reall increase in the inward and Elicite Acts themselves as is acknowledged expresly by many learned men of their own already quoted And if he and Bellarmine speak sense and Christ did grow in favour with God and man as he expresly and †Secundo peropera plena sapientiae gratiae quae edebat vere prosiciebat sapientiâ gratiâ apud Deum homines quia faciebat opera dignissima maxime meritoria tam Judicio Dei quam hominum Bellar. de Christ l. 4. c. 5. p. 428. A. Vide Durand l. 2. sent distinct 42. q. 2. per tot Aquin. 1. 2. q. 11. art 4. q. 18. ar 6. in Corp. q. 20. ar 3 4. Cajetan in loc Suarez in 3. p. Thom. tom disp 39.