is the condemnation the aggravation and heightening of it that light is come into the world but men loved darkness more then light because their deeds were evill For every one that doth evill hateth the light neither commeth to the light least his deeds by the light of the Gospel should be reproved or as our margin has it be discovered For as when the Law was added because of transgressions sin that it might appear exceeding sinfull * Rom. 7. 8. 13. took occasion by the †And the Serpent said unto the woman yea hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden Gen. 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6. nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata Law to work in us all manner of concupiscence So was the second Covenant of Life and Mercy no sooner promised and promulgated but sin that it might become exceeding sinfull took occasion to aggravate our damnation by multiplying our guilt in turning this grace of God into wantonness and making that which was intended for our wellfare a Trap and our very Reprieve and new Capacity of Salvation an Instrument of more sin and consequently more death And though this for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is and in Justice ought to be so seems to me very plain yet for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ground and reason of it the contemp of Gospell-light which never shined on the people that as God knoweth yet sit in darkness and the shadow of death is not so easie to discern And though it be a high and noble disquisition whether Christ and the Gospell-Covenant in all Ages of the world have been so sufficiently published that none can justly plead Ignorance in excuse for their Contempt and well worthy our enquiry yet because it requires some time to discuss and is not necessary to our present purpose I shall least we lose our selves in a digression for the present wave it and return § 29. Since therefore by Gods fatall but just and penall decree Man is now since the fall born sinfull as well as mortall and by reason of this his Originall Corruption it is now impossible at least by the ordinary Power of Grace for any man to arrive at Legall absolute Perfection and since it is Christs sole Prerogative to be holy harmless undesiled seperate from sinners God now under the Gospell-dispensation and the New Covenant made with Man in his fallen Condition is pleased gratiously to require no more to Life and Justification then what by the assistance of Grace which the Gospel holds forth he is able to attain namely true Faith and Repentance from dead works and sincere and holy endeavours after Righteousness as much as ordinarily he can in this his lapsed condition And if man shall make use of that Grace that God bestows upon him and labour to grow in Grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ God shall then give †Mat. 13. 12. 25. 29. Luk. 8. 18. 19. 26. Revel 21. 3 4. more Grace and greater assistances towards Perfection in this life and that full and absolute Crown of Righteousness in the next and as well wipe all stains and pollution of sin from the soul as all tears from the eyes and all sorrows from the heart § 30. * Rom. 3 31. Do we then make void the Law through Faith God forbid yea we establish it rather For the Law as it is the a Psal 19. 7. Rule of Righteousness and the Measure and standard of all just and holy Actions is still b Rom. 7. 12. holy just and good and being the Transcript and Copy of Gods eternall Purity and goodness it must therefore still continue unchangeable as God is Since then that c 1 Joh. 3. 8. Christ came for no other end but to destroy the works of the Divell and d T it 2. 11 12 the Grace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared unto all men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live godly righteously and soberly in this present world it must necessarily follow that believers though not under the Law as a Covenant of works yet are obliged by it as a Rule of holiness and purity and so shall continue to all eternity The same * spirituall Law as the Apostle in this sense calls it is as Rom. 7. 14. well the subject matter of the second Covenant as it was of the first But then though the Obligation in this sense be equall and our conformity to it as a Rule is and must be still the same yet in respect of the Performance there is a vast distance For the first Covenant required an absolute perfect and exact Performance of it as the Condition of mans salvation In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely Gen. 2. 17. Levit. 18. 5. Ezech. 20. 11. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10 11. Deut. 27. 26. Luk. 2. 74 75. dye Fac hoc vives Do this and thou shalt live Cursed is every one that continues not in every thing that is written in the book of the Law to do it And consequently allowed of no Mercy no Pardone no after-amendment But then the Gospel though it also requires That we being delivered out of the hands of our Enemies might serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of our life yet by the tenor of it it supposes Mans Fall and the Merit of a Mediator and high Priest and Faith in his blood and though it require the very Perfection of holiness and conformity to it as a Rule yet it admits of Repentance from dead works and amendment and growth in Grace and pardon of sin And therefore though the one part of the Condition of the New Covenant be as the Apostle observes out of Jeremy that God will put his Laws into our minds Heb. 8. 11 12. Jer. 31. 33. and write them in our hearts and he will be to us a God and we shall be to him a people for that all shall know him from the greatest to the least yet the reason of this abundance of purity and holinesse now under the Gospell dispensation is built upon his Mercy For as it follows saies God I will be mercifull to their unrighteousness and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more And it is observable to this purpose that the Scripture never speaks of the Abrogation of the Law but onely with respect to the Condition and fatall Curse annexed and as a Covenant and Testament and not as a Rule § 31. In short though Man by the Legall Covenant were bound to absolute sin-less perfection yet †Rom. 6. 34. believers being not under the Law but under Grace by the tenor of the Gospell-Covenant they are bound not to Legall but Evangelicall perfection to faith and repentance and sincere endeavours after holiness as absolute as their present state will admit of
the Crimination otherwise I assure you the Boldness will be unpardonable although as you somewhat insolently say you shall assume the liberty to fix it on him and the shame must light on you since you cannot make good your Charge § 24. It is true indeed the Doctor saies that Christs Love was more intense at one time then at another viz. in his Agony and dying for us more intense then in his suffering Nakedness and Hunger for us § 25. And does not the Apostle tell us the same when he saies (a) Phil. 2. 6 7 8 9. That he being in the form of God though he thought it no robbery to be equall with God yet made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man and being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross wherefore God also hath highly exalted him His birth his life his death were all Acts you see of Divine Love or holy Charity but the greater the lower still the Humiliation the more intense the more high the more noble Act of Divine Charity both in respect of God and us And therefore God also has proportioned his exaltation in the humane Nature to his a basement and sufferings given him the (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 6. 20. 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. People he had so dearly purchased and advanced his Name to that height that it should transcend every name besides and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father § 26. But then the Habit of Divine Love or holy Charity in Christ as of all other graces else was alwayes (b) There is no doubt but the Deitie of Christ hath enabled the nature which it took of man to do more then man in this world hath power to comprehend forasmuch as the bare essential Properties excepted he hath imparted to it all things he hath replenished it with all such Perfections as the same is any waies apt to receive at least according to the exigence of that oeconomy or service for which it pleased him in love to be made Man Luk. 2. 47. For as the parts degrees and Offices of that mysterial administration did require which he voluntarily undertook the Beames of Deity did in operatione alwaies accordingly either restrain or enlarge themselves vid. Theodoret. Iren. l. 3. advers haeres From whence we may somewhat conjecture how the Powers of the Soul are illuminated which being so inward unto God cannot chuse but be privy unto all things which God worketh and must therefore of necessity be indued with knowledge so far forth universal vid. Col. 2. 3. though not with infinite knowledge peculiar to Deity it self The Soul of Christ that saw in this life the face of God was here through so visible presence of Deitie filled with all manner of Graces and Vertues in that immatchable perfection for which of him we read it written that God with the oyle of gladness anointed him above his fellowes Vid. Esai 1. 2. Luc. 4. 18. Act. 4. 27. Heb. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 1. 21. Ioh. 2. 20 27. Hookers Eccles Policie lib. 5. §. 54. p. 298. Vid. Field of the Church l. 5. cap. 15. who from the Schoolmen has most judiciously and profoundly stated this question of the fulness of all Habitual Grace in Christ full and perfect so full and so perfect that it was not in him capable of any further addition without any possibility of want or encrease And so it must be acknowledged by all Christians when the Apostle tells us Coloss 2. 9. that in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell Col. 1. 19. So acknowledged it must be by all Christians when the Evangelist Jo. 1. 14. expresly asserts that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father full of grace and truth and that of his fulness we have all received and that Grace for Grace Vers 16. Habitually so full he was that as the same Saint John assures us c. 3. 34. God giveth not the Spirit by measure to him § 27. Most certain it is say the (a) Quod qudem elogium ipse Christus ante suum in Coelos ascensu◠sibi tribuit nor quod rem encomio isto notatam tunc reverâ possidebat cum nondum in Regni sui gloriam ingressus esset sed quia certò idque mox futurum erat ut in Imperii istius possessionem constitue retur c. Volkel de vera Relig. l. 3. c. 21. ubi late illud prosequitur Quemadmodum ad ipsius Regnum viam quandam ei mors ejus aperiebat ideoque nondum plane regnare tunc cum mortem pateretur dici potuit ita cum illius Sacerdotium idem fere reipsa sit quod ejusdem Regnum eandem mortem principium seu praeparationem quandam istius Sacerdotii in coelo demum administrandi extitisse c. Vid. Volkel de vera Relig. li. 3. c. 37. pag. 145. ubi late illud prosequitur Socinian what he will to the contrary and it might be very largely demonstrated were it not eccentrical to the present Dispute that Christ was alwaies Christ as well so in the womb as at the right hand of God For otherwise Elizabeth had never called Mary the (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 1. 43. Mother of her Lord before he was yet born Nor had the Angels said unto the Shepherds at his birth Behold I bring you tidings of great joy which shall be to all people for unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour which is not as the (c) Quae verò ipsius Regni ratio est Ea quòd Deus eum suscitatum à mortuis in coelos assumptum à dextris suis collocavit ei potestate in coelis in terrâ omni datâ omnibus ipsius pedibus se excepto subjectis ut fideles suos gubernare tueri aeternùm servare posset Catechis Racoviens de offic Christ Reg. pag. 275. Quid an non erat sacerdos antequam in coelos ascenderet praesertim crucifixus penderet Non erat c. Ibid. de offic Christ Sacerdot pag. 291. Socinian perversely which shall be after his ascension and session at the right hand of God but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Christ the Lord. Impossible it is he should be otherwise since he was God as well as Man from the first moment of Conception And therefore it was resolved justly against the Heretick Nestorius that his Blessed Virgin-Mother was truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God § 28. Whosoever then he be that against Arrius Photinus and Socinus acknowledges the Divinity of our Saviour
Confutation That sincere Love was capable of Degrees was first shewed in several men at several times in the several rankes of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another But if the words of themselves were not so clear and plain yet the whole subject matter of the Treatise of Will-worship and the Account to Mr. Cawdrey would abundantly declare it For is not the whole business and design of those Discourses to shew that there be some Acts and Degrees of Piety and Devotion that are not commanded by any particular Law which yet are acceptable to God when performed and that Love which is sincere in the Habit is capable of Degrees in the several Acts and exercise And is it not for this among other Instances that this example of Christs ardency in Prayer is produced by him How then was it possible that you should be so strangely mistaken And what Temptation could you have to charge the Doctor with the denial of the habitual fulness of Christ's Grace from a Passage that speaks expresly of the Act a thing specifically distinct from it However you are a courteous man to take the Doctors word at last for his own meaning that best knew it of any man in the world But proceed in your new-begun ingenuity and take your pen and write a Deleatur also to your Vse of Confutation For to what purpose serves that against Doctor Hammond that never denied or so much as questioned your Doctrine of the Fulness of habitual Grace If you believe as you profess the world will count you unjust unless you write an Index expurgatorius unto your former Treatise For the Schoolmen will tell you non tollitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum and you cannot otherwise restore the Doctor his good Name of which you have by your confession so unjustly so unworthily robbed him § 4. But hold we are too quick and nimble For saies he not he will make the Charge good by Consequence although the Doctor never meant it Sure the man was born under a Mood-and-Figure-Planet and Ferio was the Lord of his Ascendent he is altogether for Consequences But what 's the Consequence It is this to a word and syllable JEANES THat Objection which is urged against the perpetual all-fulness and perfection of Christs actual Love the inward Acts of his Love of God strikes against the perpetual all-fulness and perfection of his habitual Love because the degrees of the inward Acts of his Love of God are commensurate unto the degrees of his habitual Love For they have no degrees at all but secundariò in regard of the Habit of his Love but now this Objection is urged by you against the perpetual all-fulness and perfection of his actual Love the inward Acts of his Love for it is brought to prove that the inward Acts of Christs Love were more intense at one time then another and a greater intension presupposeth a remission and imperfection for intensio est eductio rei intensae de imperfecto ad perfectum as Aquinas very often Therefore this Objection strikes against the perpetual fulness and perfection of Christs actual Love of God and so consequently against the perpetual fulness and perfection of his habitual Love § 5. What a monstrous Syllogism is here Like the Trojan horse it has Troops of Arguments and Proofes in the bowels of it and the Major Minor and Conclusion are not bare Propositions but Syllogismes themselves It is not a single Man of warr but a Spanish half-Moon an invincible Armado linck'd and coupled together O patria O Divûm domus Ilium inclyta bello Moenia Dardanidûm Now or never Troy is Virgil. taken and Doctor Hammond confuted § 6. But Sir there is nothing proved all this while but only by your own venerable authority For what if the whole be no other then a Sophisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Doctors Assertion will by no means inferr your Conclusion For proof of it I first deny your Major there is no consequence at all in it for we have already demonstrated that Acts which issue from Habits that are seated in the Will are free and not necessary effects of the Will from whence they flow and therefore may be gradually different in themselvs where the Habit continues gradually one and the same We have shewed you also from Reason and Scripture and Authority of Protestants and Papists as learned as any from Schoolmen and Fathers also that there was a gradual difference in some Acts of Christs Wisedom and Grace and that they did successively increase in Perfection as he himself did in Stature though the Infused Habit of Wisedom and Grace were in him alwaies at the utmost height both intensively and extensively § 7. But what are all the Fathers and Schoolmen that are to be had in Paul's Church-yard or in the Library at Oxford to the purpose if he can prove his Major which thus he does If the degrees of the inward Acts of Christs Love are commensurate unto the degrees of his habitual Love then whosoever saies the Acts are not alwaies intensively perfect saies also by consequence that the. Habit is not alwaies intensively perfect But the degrees c. Ergo. § 8. Here Sir you are in danger of a double Sophism For first you prove Ignotum per ignotius aut aliquid saltem aeque ignotum because it is as doubtful in the sense you should mean if you speak to the present purpose whether the degrees of the inward Acts of Christs Love are so commensurate unto the degrees of his habitual Love as still to equal them in intensive perfection and to assert it without Proof is Sophisma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly if you conclude that the Acts and Habits are commensurate in every thing because they are commensurate in this that the Act can never exceed in Perfection the Habit from whence it effectively flowes as you do all along in this Discourse but more particularly in your first Argument p. 25 26. you most sophistically argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For though the Acts of Christs Love may be full and perfect in suo genere yet they may not be all equal in themselves and with the Habit and though they may and must be commensurate with the Habit as not to exceed it in perfection because they are the effects of the Habit yet they may not for all that still equal the gradual perfection of the Habit because the Habit is not a necessary but a voluntary cause and the Acts that flow from it are all Acts of the Will And consequently this way of proof will be no other then a plain Sophism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus Because the Act Arist l. 1. Soph Elen. h. c. 4. is in some respect commensurate with the Habit Ergo it must alsolutely and in every respect be commensurate with it just as if I should argue Mr.
made of the Proposition by any man that understands the nature of Intension and Remission Nor is the Minor less evident to any that considers the nature of these efficacious and inefficacious Acts of Christ's Will holy Love De actibus efficacibus voluntatis Christi saies Suarez Suarez in 1. p. Thom. disp 38. sect 2. p. 524. c. 2. A. B. quod in illo fuerint perfectissimi nulla est difficultas aut dubitandi ratio constat enim per hos actus operatum esse omnia virtutis opera divinae voluntati ac jussioni obsecutum esse ac denique mortem ipsam suscepisse So again for those Acts which they call inefficaces Scio nonnullos authores non admittere hos actus imperfectos nisi in voluntate ut naturâ est c. Suarez ibid. p. 525. col 1. F. Voluntas seu desiderium inefficax Christi non semper habuit effectum seu impletum fuit Et ratio ex ipsis terminis constat quia si actus est inefficax non est cur semper habeat effectum imo tunc tantum per hujusmodi actum Christus aliquid volebat quando simpliciter nolebat illud fieri sed potius contrarium Suarez ibid. sect 4. pag. 530. col 1. D. § 68. Secondly I thus argue That Act of Christ's Will whereby he laid down his life for his sheep was more high and gradually intense then those other Acts of his Will when he prayed for a removal of the bitter cup of death if it had been possible or then the other Acts of his will and endeavour of the Jewes conversion by his three years preaching and miracles among them But these were Acts issuing from the Habit of Divine Charity and holy Love in Christ Therefore Some Acts that issue from the Habit of divine Charity were more high and gradually intense then other Acts of the same Habit. § 69. From whence further it seems to me at least most unavoidably to follow that though by that prime fundamental law of Divine Charity we are bound to love God with all our heart with all our soul and with all our mind yet this only obliges us to love him so as to prefer nothing before or above him so as in every Act we desire nothing but what is holy just and honest and quoad specificationem as they speak conformable to his holy Will as himself has revealed in his holy lawes and precepts and what also tends to his honour and glory and not in every Act pro hîc nunc quoad exercitium as they speak to the most high most noble and intense degree of holy Charity For otherwise I see not how these inefficacious conditionate desires of our Blessed Saviour can be excused from the breach of this Law because they had neither the most noble immediate material Objects nor were so gradually intense as other Acts of holy Charity were And yet most assured we are that all his desires and inclinations as well as his actions were holy just and good and conformable to Gods Will and were the true and genuine fruits of the Habit of Divine Grace But now most certain it is that though he came into the world for none other end then to reconcile the world unto his Father by his Death though he had received an express command from him and also voluntarily contracted and covenanted with him to perform it and though it was in it self the most high and transcendent Act of holy Charity to his neighbour imaginable yet for all that he truly and really and not in shew and complement only declined the bitter cup though still with submission to Gods will For first he prayed not only prolixius but intensius also as shall in due place be proved he prayed thrice and he prayed also more Ardently then at other times for the removal of this bitter Cup the apprehension of the approaching torment and the horror of his Fathers wrath made his soul sorrowful even to Death and it cast him into such an Agony that he sweat great drops of blood through his cloathes down to the ground so sad and so grieved he was that an Angel was sent to comfort and support him against the present conflict and approaching torments which he did by proposing the joyes set before Proprius ut ego existimo magis ad rem exponitur Angelum confortâsse Christum proponendo rationes quae possent ejus tristitiam lenire inferiorem partem confortare unde non fit Angelum docuisse Christum non enim propterea ad illum eum sermonem habuit quia Christus eas rationes ignoraret vel illas per se considerare non posset sed quia it a per rationem superiorem illas considerabat ut nullum inde solatium communicari permitteret inferiori parti ut magis constaret veritas Passionis ejus voluit Angelico ministerio rationes illas proponi quasi in memoriam revocari Et hoc modo dicitur Angelus quantum in se erat confortâsse Christum quanquam ipse neque illud consolationis genus acceptare visus sit statim enim factus in Agonia prolixius orabat Et hanc expositionem magis indicat D. Thomas hic quam ex Beda refert Luc. 22. sed etiam Hieronymi Dialogo 2do contra Pelagianos Hilarii lib. 10. de Trinitate Cyrilli Alexandrini Epist 9. Damasceni l. 3 de Fide c. 20. Bernardi sermone 1. de Sancto Andrea Suarez in 1. par Thom. q. 12. art 4. in Commentar p. 398. col 2. B. C. Vide Jansen Concord in loc H. Grot. in Annot in loc him the short and fading sharpness of those bitter torments Gods glory and the enlargement of his own Dominion over men and Angels and the freeing and the reconciling of a world of sinners unto God his Father Not that he himself was ignorant of them or did want a monitor now to mind him and bring them to his present consideration but only that his superiour intellectual part did so wholly now affix and dwell upon them that he would not suffer any comfort to be thence administred to the inferiour faculty that now did naturally therefore innocently abhor these cruel sufferings And hence it was that so the truth of his humane nature and sufferings might appear that he made use of an Angels ministry and support to strengthen him As therefore the inferiour sensual part in him did truly because naturally abhor and dread the approaching torments as destructive to it 's Being so our Blessed Saviour did innocently because naturally in compliance with these apprehensions desire and pray for a removal of them though still with a submission in the superiour part of these desires to his Fathers will Nor was there here as shall in due place more fully be declared any repugnance or contradiction of the inferiour faculties to the superiour or of his sensual will to God his Fathers * Vide Suarez in 3 p. Thom. infra
the dictates of Reason and Grace as oftentimes they do even in the very best of men by reason of our inbred corruption then there had been truly an opposition in his desires the Repugnance had been in the same respect and the same thing § 48. We see here then Nature and Sense Reason and Grace in Christ all innocently imployed about one and the same Object and in all amicably working without any opposition according to their proper Motions and Inclinations Sense and Nature innocently express what they might as innocently embrace if God had been so pleased and Grace and Reason had not proposed a farr more noble end then self preservation now simply and absolutely to be prosecuted though with the dolorous sufferings of Sense and the present ruine of Nature We see also Grace and Reason induce the will of Christ freely and cheerfully to conform it self to the will of God in making use of those means which were grievous to Sense and destructive of Nature for the attaining that end which was of so high concernment as the salvation of the world which now ex hypothesi and upon supposal of Gods Decree could not otherwise be accomplished § 49. And therefore if secondly we shall compare the will of God or the divine and humane will of Christ we shall find no opposition in them neither For two may have contrary desires in different respects without any repugnance or thwarting in either of their Wills unless the desires of the one go so far as to endevour or actually cross the accomplishment of the inclinations of the other and then the Contrariety lies in respect of the same volition We read that Saul in regard of his oath condemned 1 Sam. 14. 44 45. his son Jonathan to death for tasting a little hony contrary to his command and the People in regard of the great deliverance God had that day wrought by Jonathan were grieved that he should be put to death As yet there was no repugnance For Jonathan notwithstanding the peoples sorrow and unwillingness might have dyed But when they in prosecution of their desires go so far as to hinder the execution of Saul's purpose in the death of Jonathan here was now an opposition and contrariety about the same volition But now it was not so in Christ For the will of God was that Christ should suffer death not as destructive and grievous to Nature but as a means of the Redemption of the world and the will of Christ though death were repugnant to Nature patiently submits to death in order to that end Here then upon Christ's part there was no opposition to the will of God Nor was there on the other side any repugnance in respect of the Divine will to the Humane or of that with it self For the will of God and the superiour faculties of Christs Soul did not at all hinder or trash the desires and motions of Nature Highly pleased God was since Christ was truly Man endued with Sense as well as Reason that both Nature Vide Field Of the Church l. 5. c. 18. p. 452. infra citat Sense and Reason in him should all move in their proper spheres without any interruption according to their several propensions and inclinations And therefore though there may appear a difference in the material Object and one desired one thing and another desired another as appears by that of our Saviours prayer Non sicut ego volo sed sicut tu yet not as I will but as thou wilt yet in the formal Object there was never Dico secundo per Actum inefficacem interdum voluit humana Christi voluntas quod absolute simpliciter Deus nolebat semper tamen hujusmodi Actus erat conformis Divinae voluntati tanquam Principio Regulae ideo simpliciter illae voluntates nunquam fuerunt contrariae Tota haec conclusio est certa communis Theologorum in 3. distinct 17 ubi Ricardus Bonaventura art 1. q. 3. Alens 3. part q. 15. memb 1. art 2. colligitur ex omnibus Conciliis Sanctis citatis Et prima quidem pars conclusionis de diversitate in materiali Objecto satis constat ex illis verbis saepe citatis Non sicut ego volo sed sicut tu ex dictis supra de his Actibus inefficacibus Secunda vero pars de formali seu affectiva concordia facile etiam patet quia etiam isti Actus inefficaces erant in suo genere honesti boni unde Divina voluntas volebat ut humana illos efficeret ipsa humana voluntas ex perfecta ratione deliberatione illos in se admittebat ut in hoc etiam Divinae voluntati obsequeretur ita non solum in hoc erat conformitas inter Divinam humanam voluntatem sed etiam inter inferiorem superiorem partem ejusdem voluntatis Et hinc facile etiam ostenditur ultima pars exâ—ludâ—tur contrarietas inter voluntates Christi Nam haec esse non potest ubi ratione volendi est consensio voluntatum neque ubi una voluntas nihil vult nisi quod alia vult ipsam velle Ac denique quia Contrarietas saltem requirit ut quod alteri sub aliqua ratione placet sub eadem alteri displiceat vel illud idem quod una voluntas efficaciter vult altera absolutè nolit quia nisi adsit haec repugnantia voluntates non se impediunt neque una alteram excludit quod est de ratione Contrariorum Ostensum est autem non fuisse in Christo actus hoc modo oppositos seu repugnantes Suarez in 3. part Thom. disp 38. tom 1. sect 4. pag. 592. col 1. C. D. To this adde what Aquinas has delivered to this purpose in the place already cited in the close of his Answer in Corpore any difference but a most exact harmony and agreement For even these natural desires inclinations of Sense were still conformable to Gods will as their Principle Rule And though God had simply and absolutely decreed they should not take effect so as to hinder the motions of Grace and inclinations of Reason yet decreed he had they should express themselves in Christ in an inefficacious wish and desire to testifie Natures apprehensions and the frailty of flesh and blood even in the highest advancement of Grace that flesh and blood is possibly capable of and to leave us an example and instruction in such cases Though the hand shake and tremble when it takes the deadly Potion yet sinful we are not because we are frail If notwithstanding the dread and horrour at the apprehension of present Torments we patiently submit to Gods will and cheerfully drink the bitter â—otion that will as well testifie the enlarged greatness of our Faith and Patience and Charity as it will do Vide Estium l. 3. Sent. dist 17. §. 3. p. 50. col .. 1. A. B. C. D. our infirmities that
Aquinas and Scotus maintain that Proposition which he would confute in the Doctor by their Testimonies JEANES The first Argument which hath been already so fully insisted on but yet with our Refuters leave never yet proved as we have cleerly demonstrated is the all-fulness and perfection of Christs habitual Gâ—â—â—e The habits of all Graces and vertues in Christ were alwaies full and perfect most intense and not capable of further or higher degrees and therefore so were the inward Acts of those Graces and vertues too and particularly the inward Acts of the habitual grace of divine Charity The Consequence of this c. § 1. Well Sir hold you there Are the Inward Acts of those Vertues and Graces and particularly the Inward Acts of the habitual Grace of divine Charity that very actual love of God that was in Termino as they say alwaies at the highest were they the Acts of Christ as he was perfectus Comprehensor as you intimate in your second Argument I desire your Reason for it and do not dictate but prove it I had thought that these had if not all yet the greatest part of them agreed to Christ only as Viator according to the frail mortal condition of his state of humiliation What need I pray had he of Trust and dependency on God for a supply of any want that now as Comprehensor was fully possessed of heaven happiness what need had he to pray or hope the heaven happiness of whose soul did now even during the whole time of his abode here on earth far surmount that of all the Saints and Angels in heaven as you assert in your second argument Have the Saints and Angels in heaven any need of Patience and Meekness and Fortitude and Temperance and Obedience and an humble submission to the Cross does not the Apostle tell us that high and most transcendent Act of Divine Charity shall remain where God is all in all do not the Schoolmen that write de merito Christi say that Christ did not merit but only as he was Viator Why then do you so ignorantly or negligently confound those Acts and Graces that are incompossible as they speak As Comprehensor he could not merit and as Viator he was not in possession of heaven happiness As Comprehensor his holy Love was alwaies in Termino and a necessary effect of the Beatifical vision As Viator it was not a necessary but a free Act of his will and the effect of the habit of divine Grace As Comprehensor he has no need of the Habits and Acts of Vertues but only as Viator in which state he was only in a Capacity to exercise them Either therefore Sir write more distinctly and to the purpose or else forbear troubling the world for the future with your Scholastical notions which are so crude and half codled § 2. Howsoever I observe that in your first Argument you rightly understand the Doctors Notion of The Love of God and take it here as he still does in the large sense as it is all one with holy Charity as containing in its general notion the Acts of all Graces and Vertues whatsoever And therefore because now habemus confitentem râ—um I am resolved to hold you to your Concession and so I come to examine it In short it is this § 3. If the habitual Grace and Habits of all Graces and Vertues were in Christ alwaies full and perfect then so were the inward Acts of those Vertues and Graces and particularly the inward Acts of Charity But the Antecedent is true Ergo also the Consequent § 4. To this Sir I answer by denying the sequele of your Major My Reason is Because all Habits whatsoever whether infused or acquisite that are seated in the Will are free and not necessary causes of the Acts that issue from them And therefore though all natural and necessary causes do work uniformly and equally and produce the same effects where the distance is the same and the Patient equally disposed yet in voluntary free causes it is far otherwise as we have shewed And therefore since the inward or immanent Acts of all Habits are elicite Acts of the Will and not necessary effects their gradual intension and remission in this sense depends not upon the Physical efficaciousness but the free and voluntary exercise of that intrinsick virtue as we have already demonstrated § 5. But he goes on and tells us that JEANES THe consequence of this Enthymeme hath been already sufficiently proved and therefore I shall add nothing for further confirmation of it but the testimonies of some few School-men Aquinas as Capreolus c. § 6. How is this Sir I beseech you make good your promise Did you not just now tell us that you would not barely dictate but prove what you undertook And have you not told the world so long since in your very Title-page And must we now be put off to look for a Proof I know not where I think I have given the world abundant satisfaction already that you have very little reason to refer us to your former Performances They say of the Chickens that are hatched in the furnaces of Aegypt that they all come from the egg lame and imperfect for want of a natural kindly warmth And such abortive cripled lame creatures are all your proofes for want of a truly genuine and Scholastical heat in the brain that brings them forth Though in outward modesty like Caesar you seem to decline the title and office of Perpetual Dictator yet it concernes you in poynt of Interest as it did that great Conquerour not to forego it that you may secure your great victories over Truth and Doctor Hammond But by your so worthy performances in this Part of your argument you give me very little hope that you have better quitted your self by the testimonies of the School men § 7. And thus they follow JEANES AQuinas as Capreolus quotes him lib. 1. dist 17. q. 2. fol. 306. hath this Passage Nihil inquit aliud est qualitatem augeri quam subjectum magis participare qualitatem Non enim aliud est esse qualitatis nisi quod habet in subjecto ex hoc autem ipso quod subjectum magis participat charitatem vehementius operatur quia unumquodque operatur in quantum est actu Aquinas thought you see that a greater vehemency in the Operations of Love argued a greater participation in the Subject of the Habits of Love And again secund â secundae q. 24. art 4. ad tertium Similiter charitas essentialiter est virtus ordinata ad actum unde idem est ipsam augeri secundum essentiam ipsam habere efficaciam ad producendum ferventioris dilectionis actum Vnto this I shall add a third place out of Aquinas quoted by Capreolus lib. 3. dis 27. 28 29 30. pag. 209. Cum Actus Habitus speciem habent ex Objecto oportet quod ex eodem ratio perfectionis ipsius sumatur Objectum autem
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.