The blessednesse of the righteous discoursed from Psal. 17, 15 / by John Howe ...

CHAP. III. (Book 3)

The nature of this Blessedness propounded un∣to consideration, in the three ingredients (here mentioned) whereof it consists. 1. Vision of Gods Face. 2. Assimilation to him. 3. The satisfaction resulting thence. These propounded to be consider∣ed 1. Absolutely and singly each by it self. 2. Relatively in their mutual respects to each other. The first of these, Vision of Gods Face discourst of. 1. The Object. 2. The Act.

[ 2] NOW for the Nature of this Blessedness; or the inquiry wherein it lyes, so far as the Text gives us any account of it, we are invited to turn our thoughts and discourse to it. And we have it here represented to us in all the particulars that can be supposed to have any nearer interest in the business of Blessedness, or to be more intimate and intrinsical thereunto.

For (the beatifique Object supposed) what more can be necessary to actual, compleat for∣mall blessedness, than the sight of it, and adap∣tation or assimilation to it (which is nothing else but its being actually communicated and im∣parted to the soul, its being united and made as it were one with it) and the complacential fruition the soul hath of it so communicated, or having so transformed it into its self?

And these three are manifestly contained in the Text (the beatisique Object being involved with them) the first in the former clause, I shall behold thy face, the second and third in the latter, I shall be satisfied with thy likeness; where, being made like to God hath been discovered to be supposed, & the satisfaction, the pleasant content∣ful relishes consequent thereto, plainly exprest.

We shall therefore have stated the entire nature of this Blessedness in the handling of these three things.

• Vision of the Face of God.
• Participation of his likeness.
• Satisfaction therein.

And I shall chuse to consider them

• 1. Absolutely, and singly, each by it self.
• 2. Relatively, in the mutual respects (by way of influence and dependence) they may be found to have towards each other.

Therefore first, in the absolute considera∣tion of them severally, we begin with

First the Vision of Gods Face, where

The

• Object, the Face of God,
• Act of seeing and beholding it are distinctly to be spoken to.

1. The Face of God (the Object of this Vi∣sion) which is his glory represented, offered to view. And this objected or exhibited glory i•• twofold.

1. Sensible, such as shall incurr and gra∣tifie (after the resurrection) the bodily eye.

2. Intellectual, or intelligible: that spiri∣tual glory that only comes under the view and contemplation of the glorified mind.

1. A sensible glory, (to begin with what is lower) is fitly in our way to be taken notice of; and may well be comprehended (as its lesse-principal intendment) within the signi∣ficancy of the expression the Face of God. So indeed it doth evidently signifie, Exod. 33. 11. And if we look to the notation of the word, and its frequent use as applied to God, it may com∣modiously enough and will often be found to signifie, in a larger and more extended sense, any aspect or appearance of God: And though it may be understood verse 23. of that Chap∣ter to signifie an overcoming spiritual glory, as the principal thing there intended, such as no soul dwelling in flesh, could behold, with∣out renting the vail and breaking all to pieces; yet, even there also, may such a degree of sen∣sible glory be secondarily intended, as it was not consistent with a state of mortality to be able to bear.

And supposing the other expression [Thy likeness] to signifie, in any part, the objective glory Saints are to behold, it is very capable of being extended so far, as to take in a sensible appearance of glory also, which it doth in these

words, The similitude of the Lord shall he be∣hold (yet even that glory also was transforma∣tive and impressive of it self:* 1.1 Moses so long converst with it, till he became uncapable, for the present,* 1.2 of converse with men, as you know the story relates.)

Such a glory as this, though it belong not to the being of God, yet it may be some ••mbrage of him, a more shadowy represen∣tation, as a mans garments are of the man, which is the allusion in that of the Psalmist, Thou art cloathed with Majesty and Honour,* 1.3 Thou coverest thy self with [Light] as with a Garment.

And in as much as that spiritual Body (the House not made with hands) wherewith the bles∣sed are to be cloth'd upon, must then be un∣derstood to have its proper sensitive Powers and Organs,* 1.4 resined to that degree, as may be agreeable to a state of Glory; so must these have their suitable objects to converse with. A faculty without an object is not possible in Nature; and is altogether inconsistent with a state of Blessedness. The bodies of Saints will be raised in glory—fashioned like Christs glo∣rious body;* 1.5 must bear the image of the hea∣venly;* 1.6 and this will connaturalize them to a Region of glory, render a surrounding sen∣sible glory necessary, and natural to them, their own element: they will as it were not be able to live but amidst such a glory. Place is conservative of the body placed in it, by its suitableness thereto. Indeed every created being (inasmuch as it is not self-sufficient,

and is obliged to fetch in continual refresh∣ings from without) must alwayes have some∣what suitable to it self to converse with, or it presently languishes. By such an harmony of actives and passives the world consists and and holds together. The least defect thereof, then, is least of all supposeable in the state of blessedness.

The rayes of such a glory have often shone down into this lower World. Such a glory we know, shewed it self upon Mount Sinal: afterwards often about the Tabernacle, and in the Temple, Such a glory appeared at our Saviours Birth, Baptism, and Transfiguration; and will do at his expected appearance, which leaves it no unimaginable thing to us; and shewes how facile it is to God to (do that which will then be, in some sort necessary) creat a glory meet for the entertainment, and gratification of any such faculty, as he shall then continue in being. But,

2. The intellectuall glory, That which per∣fected Spirits shall eternally please themselves to behold, calls for our more especial consi∣deration. This is the glory that excelleth hy∣perbollical glory (as that expression imports) such,* 1.7 as in comparison whereof, the other is said to be no glory:* 1.8 as the Apostle speaks, comparing the glory of the Legal, with that of the Evangelical dispensation, where the former was, we must remember, chiefly a sensible glory, the glory that shone upon Mount Sinai, the latter a purely spiritual glory; and surely if the meer preludes of this

glory, The primordia, the beginnings of it, The glory—yet shining but through a glass (as he there also speaks of this glory) were so hyperbollically glorious, what will it be in its highest exaltation in its perfected state? The Apostle cannot speak of that, but with hyper∣bole upon hyperbole in the next chapter,* 1.9 as though he would heap up words as high as heaven to reach it,* 1.10 and give a just account of it.

Things are as their next Originals. This glory more immediately, rayes forth from God, and more neerly represents him. 'Tis ••is more genuine production. He his stiled ••he Father of Glory:* 1.11 every thing that is glo∣rious is some way like him, and bears his ••mage.* 1.12 But he is as well the Father of Spirits, ••s the Father of Glory; and that glory, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 purely spiritual, hath most in it of his na∣••ure and image: as beams but in the next ••escent from the body of the Sun. This is ••is unvailed face, and emphatically, the divine ••••keness.

Again things are as the Faculties which ••hey are to exercise and satisfie, this glo∣••y must exercise and satisfie, the noblest ••aculty of the most noble and excellent crea∣••ure. Intellectual nature in the highest im∣••rovement tis capable of in a creature must ••ere be gratified to the uttermost, the most ••nlarged contemplative power of an im∣••ortal Spirit finds that wherein it terminates ••ere, with a most contentful acquiescence.

Tis true it must be understood not totally

to exceed the capacity of a creature, but it must fully come up to it. Should it quite transcend the Sphere of created nature, and surpass the modell of an humane under∣standing (as the divine glory undoubtedly would, did not God consider us in the man∣ner of exhibiting it to our view) it would cofound not satisfie. A creature even in glo∣ry is still a Creature, and must be treated as such. After the blessed God hath elevated it to the highest pitch, he must infinitely con∣descend, it cannot otherwise know or converse with him. He must accommodate this glory to the weaker eye, the fainter and more lang••id apprehensions of a poor finite thing. I had almost said, nothing, for what is any crea∣ture, yea the whole creation in it's best state compared with the I AM, the being (as he justly appropriates to himself that name) the All in All. We must be careful then to settle in our own thoughts such a state of this glory (in forming that indeterminate no∣tion we have now of it) as may render it (though confessedly above the measure of our present understandings as to a distinct knowledge of it) not manifestly incompetent to any created understanding whatsoever, and as may speak us duly shy of ascribing a De∣ity to a worm, of affixing any thing to the creature, which shall be found a∣greeing to the blessed God himself alone▪ Their expressions therefore, who over magn••fie (even deifie) the creature as∣sumed into glory, must be heard and rea••

with caution and abhorrency, as the high swelling words of blasphemous vanity. Is it not enough that perishing wretches,* 1.13 that were within one hands breadth of Hell, are sa∣ved except they be also deified too? that they become happy unless they also become Gods? The distance even of a glorified creature from the glorious God is still infinitely greater, than between it and the silliest worm. The minutest atome of dust.

And by how much more we shall then know of his glory, so much more shall we understand that distance. Yet as he shall then enlarge the capacity of the soul he glo∣rifies to a very vast comprehension, so shall

the exhibition of his glory to it, be fully ad∣equate to its most inlarged capacity. They are as yet but obscure glimmerings, we can have of this glory; But so far as, without too bold curiosity, we may, and wherein Scrip∣ture light will give us any preapprehension of it, let us consider a while,

The

• Nature
• Excellency

of it.

We cannot indeed consider these sepa∣rately, for we can no sooner understand it to be glory, than we conceive it excellent; Glory, in the proper Notion of it, being no∣thing else but resplendent excellency, the lustre of excellency or real worth made conspicuous. Yet as there is an excellency

conceivable in the nature of it, that excellen∣cy whereof it is the splendor and brightness; so we must conceive a peculiar excellency of that very radiation, that splendor it self, where∣with it shines unto blessed souls. In its very na∣ture it is the brightness of Divine excellencies: in its present appearance, it shines in the highest

excellency of that brightness; in its nature it ex∣celleth all things else: in its present exhibition, compared with all its former radiations, it ex∣celleth it self.

As to the nature of this glory, 'tis nothing else but the conspicuous lustre of Divine perfecti∣ons. We can only guide our present concepti∣ons of it, by the discovery God hath already given us of himself, in those several excellen∣cies of his Being, the great Attributes that are convertible and one with him. When Moses besought Him for a sight of his glory, he an∣swers him with this, I will proclaim my name be∣fore thee. His Name, we know, is the collecti∣on of his Attributes.

The Notion therefore we can hence form of this glory, is only such as we may have of a large volume by a brief Synopsis or Table; of a magnificent fabrick, by a small Module or Platform, a spacious Countrey by a little Landskip. He hath here given us a true re∣presentation of himself, not a full: such as will secure our apprehensions, being guided thereby, from error not from ignorance. So as they swerve not in apprehending this glory, though they still fall short. We can now ap∣ply our minds to contemplate the several per∣fections which the blessed God assumes to himself; and whereby he describes to us his own Being: and can in our thoughts attribute them all to him, though we have still but low defective conceptions of each one. As if we could at a distance, distinguish the Streets and Houses of a great City; but every one appears to us much lesse than it is; we can apprehend somewhat of whatsoever he reveals to be in himself, yet when all is done how little a por∣tion do we t••ke up of him! Our thoughts are empty and languid, straight and narrow such as diminish and limit the holy one: Yet so far as

our apprehensions can correspond to the disco∣very he affords us of his several excellencies, we have a present view of the Divine glory. Do but strictly and distinctly survey the many per∣fections comprehended in his name, then ga∣ther them up and consider how glorious he is! Conceive one glory resulting from substantial wisdom, goodness, power, truth, justice, holi∣ness; that is, beaming forth from him who is all these by his very Essence, necessarily, origi∣nally, infinitely, eternally; with whatsoever else is truly a perfection. This is the glory blessed Souls shall behold for ever.

For the excellency of it, 'tis called by way of discrimination,* 1.14 the excellent glory. There was glory put upon Christ in the transfiguration; of which, when the Apostle speaks, having occasion to mention, withal, the glory of heaven it self, from whence the voice came, he adds to this latter, the distinguishing note of the excellent: He himself was eye-witness of the honour, and majesty, and glory which the Lord Jesus then received; but beyond all this, the glory from whence the voice came, was the excellent or stately glory,* 1.15 as the word imports.

'Tis a great intimation how excellent a glory this is,* 1.16 that 'tis said to be a glory yet to be re∣vealed, as if it had been said, What ever ap∣pearances of the Divine glory are now offered to your view, there is still somewhat undisco∣vered, somewhat behind the Curtain that will out shine all. You have not seen so much, but you are still to expect unspeakably more.

Glory is then to shine in its Noon-day

strength and vigour: 'Tis then in its Meridian. Here, the riches of glory are to be displayed, certain treasures of glory, the plenitude and magnificence of glory. We are here, to see him as he is, to know him as we are known of him. Certainly, the display of himself, the raies of his discovered excellency must hold propor∣tion with that Vision, and be therefore exceed∣ingly glorious.* 1.17 'Tis the glory Christ had with the Father before the foundations of the world were laid; into the vision and communion whereof, holy souls shall now be taken, according as their capacities can admit; that wherewithall his great atchievements, and high merits shall be rewarded eternally; that wherewith he is to be glorified in heaven, in compensation of having glorified his Father on earth, and fini∣shed the work whereto he was appointed. This cannot but be a most transcendent glory. 'Tis in sum, and in the language of the Text, the glory of Gods own face, his most as∣pectable, conspicuous glory. Whose trans∣forming beams are productive of the glory im∣prest; the next ingredient into this blessedness, which will presently come to be spoken of, af∣ter we have given you some short account of

2. The Act of beholding: the vision or intuition it self, by which, intervening, the impression is made.

Glory seems to carry in it a peculiar respect to the visive power (whether corporal, or men∣tal; as it is it self of the one kind or the o∣ther) 'tis something to be contemplated, to be lookt upon. And being to transmit an im∣pression,

and consequent pleasure to another sub∣ject, it must necessarily be so, it can neither transform, nor satisfie but as it is beheld.

And here the sensitive intuition, I shall not insist on, as being less intended in the Text, and the discourse of it lesse suitable to such, as with a spiritual mind and design, set themselves to enquire into the nature of the Saints blessed∣ness. Yet, as this is the most noble, compre∣hensive, quick, and sprightly sense, so is the Act of it more considerable, in the matter of blessedness, than any other of the outward man, and the most perfect imitation of the act of the mind, whence also this so often borrows the name of the other, and is called seeing. 'Tis an act indeed very proper and pertinent to a state of glory. By how much more any sensible ob∣ject is glorious (supposing the sensorium to be duely disposed and fortified, as must be here supposed) so much is it the fitter object of Sight; hence when we would express a glori∣ous object, we call it conspicuous, and the lesse glorious, or more obscure any thing is, the less visible, and approaches the nearer to invi∣sibility, whence that saying in the common Philosophy,* 1.18 To see blackness is to see nothing.

Whatsoever a glorified eye, replenished with a heavenly vitality and vigor, can fetch in from the many glorified objects that encom∣passe it, we must suppose to concurr to this blessedness. Now is the eye satisfied with seeing, which before never could.

But, 'tis intellectual sight we are chiefly to consider here, that whereby we see him that is

invisible, and approach the inaccessible Light. The word here used,* 1.19 some Criticks tell us, more usually signifies the sight of the mind. And then, not a casual, superficial glancing at a thing, but contemplation, a studious, designed viewing of a thing, when we solemnly compose and aplly our selves thereto, or the vision of Prophets or such as have things discovered to them by divine Revelation (thence called Chozim, Seers) which imports (though not a previous design, yet) no lesse intention of mind in the act it self.

And so it more fitly expresses that knowledge which we have, not by discourse and reasoning out of one thing from another, but by imme∣diate intuition of what is nakedly, and at once offered to our view, which is the more proper knowledge of the blessed in heaven. They shall have the glory of God so presented, and their minds so enlarged, as to comprehend much at one view, in which respect they may be said, in a great degree, to know as they are known, in as much as the blessed God compre∣hends all things at once, in one simple act of knowing. Yet that is not to be understood as if the state of glory should exclude all ratioci∣nation, more than our present state doth all in∣tuition (for first and indemonstrable principles we see by their own light, without illation or argument) nor can it be inconvenient to ad∣mit, that while the knowledge the blessed have of God is not insinite, there may be use of their discursive faculty with great fruit and pleasure. Pure intuition of God, without any

mixture of reasoning, is acknowledged (by such as are apt enough to be over-ascribing to the creature) peculiar to God alone.* 1.20 But as the blessed God shall continually afford (if we may speak of continuity in Eternity, which yet we cannot otherwise apprehend) a clear dis∣covery of himself, so shall the principall exer∣cise, and felicity of the blessed soul consist in that less labouring and more pleasant way of knowing: a meer admitting or entertaining of those free beams of voluntary light, by a grateful intuition, which way of knowing the expression of sight,* 1.21 or beholding doth most in∣cline to,* 1.22 and that is, we are sure, the ordi∣nary language of Scripture about this matter.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Numb. 12. 8. to Ezek 1. 28.
• * 1.2

  Ex. 34 35. &c.
• * 1.3

  Ps. 1••4 1••.
• * 1.4

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.5

  1 Cor. ••
• * 1.6

  Phil 3••
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.8

  2 Cor 3 10.
• * 1.9

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.10

  2 Cor. 4 17.
• * 1.11

  Eph. 1.
• * 1.12

  Heb. ••••
• * 1.13

  Not being willing to tro••ble a dis∣course wholly of another na∣ture and de∣sign, with any thing of con∣troversy: I have chos••n onely to annex a marginall digression, wherein, somewhat to animadvert upon the overbold disputes and definitions of the Schol••stique generation, touching what we have now under consideration. Some of whose. Writings seem the very Springs of the putid conceits (there no•• wanting those, that are offiicious enough to serve the illiterate, in accommodating things of that kind to their genius and language) o greedily imbib'd by modern Enthusiasts.

  Tis a Question much agitated among the School-men, whether the Divine Essence be exhibited to the veiw of the Blessed in Hea∣ven, in it self, immediately, or, by the inter••ention of any 〈…〉〈…〉 or similitude.

  Had it been agreed to forbear looking within this vail (the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 attempt whereof, rather rents than draws it aside) and to shut up all discourse of this kind, in a modest awful silence; or had the Ad∣ventures some have made been fool••sh onely, not 〈◊〉〈◊〉, this pre∣sent labour had been spared. But when M••n speak of things ••••ove their reach, not to no purpose barely, but to very bad; what they say ought to be considered. The Divine Essence, say the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (and the Scotists here disagree not) is it self immediatedly united to the intellect of the blessed [in rat••on•• Spec••••i intellig••bilis] so as there is no place for any intervening likeness, or representation. Ipsa D∣viaa Ess••ntia est, quae videtur & q••o v••d••tur. Th••m. Sum. p••imd pa••••••, q 12. A••t. 2. 3 contr. Gentes c 51. Now they assert concerning the Sp••cies intelligibiles, in general, that they have not, Locum objects, intell••ctionem termi••a••tis (which they make the place and office of the verbum mentis per intellectionem productum) but formae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & âctûs primi, and that the understanding so act, by them, as fire by it▪ pro∣per form, Thom. Sum. primd parte, q. 85. A••t. 2. (the contrary where∣to is asserted by Scotus in 1. Sentent. di∣stinct. 3. q. 6.) Yea and Caj••t. affirms 1. ••p. q. 76. Art. 2. That the Intellect and the intelligible species are more one than the mat∣ter and form in the compositum. For, saith he, (or to that purpose, not having him now at hand (the matter is not turned into the form nor ••e contrà, but the intellect, which is in it self meer power, doth, in genere intelligibili turn into its very intelligible object; and the in∣telligible obj••ct it self is after a certain manner imbib'd in the in∣tellect. So ••••desma de Divin. per••ect. q. 3. Art. 5. Unum transit in aliud ex quo scqu••tur, qu••d unum sit aliud. And hence, say they, applying this doctrine to the present purpose, [& secundum illum ••••dum, in conjunctione illâ essabili divinae essentiae cum intel∣l••ct•• creato, sit unum agens integrum, scil. intellectus creatus factus D••us mirab••ls modo] [Intellectus in visione beatificâ, est potentia jam deficata, per lumen gloriae, Cajet. primâ parte q. 12. Art. 2. ex Ledes. q. 8. Art 8.] For besides this immediate union of the Divine Essence it self with the intellect they assert a lumen gloriae, an accident super∣added, without which the vision cannot be performed; which addi∣tional the Scotists reject. Some, though they admit it, think the vision may be without it, and that it doth not implicare contradi∣••••••nem visionem beatificam fieri sine lumine gloriae, cum solo speciali 〈◊〉〈◊〉 auxilio, q••od item asserunt multi ex scholasticis, Palud. in 4. dist. 49. q. 1. Ar••. 3. Corel. 2. Thom. de A••gent. q. 2. Art. 1. Major. q. 4. H••nr. qu••••ibet 7. Zumel. 1. p. q. 12. Art. 5. disp. 2. c••ncl. 3. Ita O tuphr. de virtute poe••tenti. Whether there be any ve••bum creatum, the product of intellection, The Thomists are themselves divided. Their more common opinion is, that there is none, as Ledesma assures us; telling us also his reason, why he conceives there can be none. Beati no•• forma••t verbum in videndo Deo, sed plus vident quam verb•• creato dicere p••ssunt—nam beatus per visionem beatam quamvis non vi∣••eat [infinitè] videt tamen infinitum.—(which is their great ar∣gument against any intelligible species) & he further addes, sicut visio Dei quae est in ipso Deo h••bet pro principio & specie intelligibili ipsam Di∣vinam Essentiam; & protermino ips••m Divinam Essentiam visio beatorum est ità supernaturalis, & divini ordinis, & participatio divi••ae visionis ita perfecta, ut ipsa etiam habeat pro principio & spe∣cie intellig••bili, divinâ Essen••iā, & p••otermino sive verbo pro∣ducto, ipsammet divinā Ess••ntiā.

  So that the principle and term of this vision are own'd to be no∣thing else, but the simple Divine Essence. Concerning the formal act it self, it is much disputed, whether the creatures intellect do at all effectively concur to it, or whether God himself, be not the one∣ly efficient or agent in this vision. Some stick not to a••••irm the latter, Marsil. in 3. q. 1. Palud. in 4. dist. 49, q. 1. A••t. 2. (referente Led••s••â) and say plainly, that the action of the in••eriour agent wholly ceases, and the superiour onely acts, the same thing that D. M. Causabon in his Enthusiasm charges one M••ximus with, who in a book entituled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 writes thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. T••at the Soul taken into immediate union 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Go••, loses all us k••owing power (though this be not distinctively spoken of the state of glory, And what doth this amount to? but that while they are eagerly contending about the Saints blessednesse, and too curiously labouring to explicate the manner of their seeing God, they unawares destroy the subject of the question, and deny that they see him at all; and so upon the whole, dispute themselves into a worse than P••ganish infidelity. And even the rest, that agree in the sense of the passages above recited, will not be easily able to avoid the charge of as intollerable consequen∣ces; which it is my businesse, here, onely to discover, and not to de∣termine any thing in this controversie, whiles I tax the too much boldnesse of others, who adventure it. And here not to insist on the absurdity of what they say concerning the intelligible species in general, let it be considered. 1. That the Divine Essence is said to be united to the intellect of the blessed, as an intelligible species. 2. That the intelligible species, in the businesse of intellection, and the intellect, become one another, do not remain distinct things uni∣ted, but are identified. 3. That hence in understanding God, the in∣tellect is deified and becomes God, which naturally followes from the two former; and is moreover expressely asserted in plain words. What need is there to presse this Doctrine with hard con∣sequencies? or how can it look worse than it doth already, with its own natu∣ral face? Nor can I appre∣hend which way it should be made look better. For should it lay claim to that favour, to be understood acco••ding to the usual sense of the peripat 〈◊〉〈◊〉 m••xime, Intellectus, intelligendo, sit omnia; it will be found manifestly to have precluded it self: That maxime is wont to be un∣derstood thus; that the intellect becomes that which it understands 〈…〉〈…〉, by putting on the species or likeness of its Object, the re∣presentation of it. For instance, when I form in my mind the notion of a mountain, my understanding becomes an Ideal or Spiritual moun∣tain: it becomes that species (which is liable to more exception too than I shall now insist on, and looks more like the language of a Poet than a Philosopher) that is now formed there; and not the material mountain it self. But how shall this assertion [The understanding by its act of understanding God becomes Go••] be capable of that int••rpretation, i. e. It becomes his likeness, his Id••a, his representation now formed in it, when any such intervening likeness or representation is utterly denied; and th••t supposed species is said to be the simple Divine essence it self▪ and if the Divine essence it self be that species by which 'tis un∣derstood, will it not follow from that other Arist••t••••an axiome (which with them must signifie as much as a Text from Saint Paul) s••••bile & 〈…〉〈…〉: That our very knowledge of God must be God too, or would they disown that maxime, sure, when once the faculty is supposed dei••ied, the act immanent in it, cannot be a created accident; nor can that maxime (understood of the 〈…〉〈…〉 or the 〈…〉〈…〉 denied by them: And sure. if the Saints k••owledge of God; the likeness of him in their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be God; their holiness, the likeness of him in their h••arts, must be so too. How absurd then would it be, to use that Scripture language, and speak of these under the names of Gods image or likeness, when 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, are no∣tion•• so vastly disagreeing; and since a Saints knowledge and holiness here and in heaven differ but in degree; they can be, here on earth, nothing but God dwelling in them. And supposing that Scotus have better defended than his adversaries impugned the real identity of the soul and its faculties, that must be deified too. However, wh••t could be imagined more absurd, than that the substance of the soul should be a creature, and its faculty God? Whence then do we think that mo∣dern familists have fetch their admired non-sense? Whom have they had their original instructors? or who have taught them that brave magnificent language of being Godded with God, and Christed with Christ but these? Nor sure need they blush to be found guilty of so profoundly learned inconsistencies, or to speak absurdly after such Patrons. And what should occasion these men so to involve them∣selves, I cannot find, or divine more than this, that they were not able to fasten upon any more tolerable sense of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Cor. 13. 12. 1 John 3. 2. but taking that in its highest pitch of significan∣cy; all their arguments are generally levelled at this mark to prove that no created species can possibly represent God [sicuti est] and thence infer that he cannot be seen by any created species in the glo∣rified state, where he is to be seen sicuti est. But could we content our selves with a modest interpretation of these words, and understand them to speak not of a parity, but of a similitude only between Gods knowledge and ours, nor of an absolute omni modous similitude, but com∣parative only; that is, that comparing our future with our present state, the former shall so far excell this, that, in comparison thereof, it may be said to be a knowing of God, as we are known, and as he is; insomuch as our future knowledge of him, shall approach so unspeakably nearer to his most perfect knowl••dge of us, and the truth of the thing, than our present knowledge doth or can; by such an interpretation we are cast upon no such difficulties. For admit that no species can represent God as he is, in the highest sense of these words, yet sure, in the same sense wherein he can be seen by us as he is, he may be represented to us as he is. And what can be more frivolous than that fore-recited rea∣soning to the contrary?

  There can be no created representation of God [sicuti est] adequate to the Vision the blessed have of him; but they see more than any created representation can contain, for they see ••••finitum, though not in∣finitè.

  For how must we understand the i••finitum they are said to see? Materially or formarlly? must we understand by it him that is infinite onely, or else as he is in∣finite? If it be said the latter, that is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 say, they see infinitè too; If the former only; Do not Saint on 〈◊〉〈◊〉 see, (viz. mentally which is the vision we are speaking of) him who is infinite, in their pre∣sent state, where it is acknowledge their knowledge is by Species.

  Y••t would I not hence conclude, that the knowledge Saints shall have of God hereafter shall be by Species, for my design in all this is b••t to discover the vanity of too positive and definitive conceptions concerning it, beyond the measure of G••ds Revelation, and the ducture of clear and unintangled reason. All knowledge hath been thought to be by assimilation, i. e. by receiving the species or images of the things known. So the intellect is not really turned into the things which it understands but only receives their species wherewith it is united so closely that it is therefore said to be [like] to them. Virtuosi of Franc•• Confer. 65. One waie or other it hath been judged necessarie the mind should be furnished with such images of the thing it is said to understand; which therefore, some have thought connate, others, sup∣plied by sense totallie; others, by a separate intellectus Agens; which some have thought to be God himself: others one common Intelli∣gence. Others a particular Genius so indispensably necessarie it hath been reckon'd unto intellection, that office should be performed by one or other. If any clearer explication can be given, or better way assigned of the souls knowing things, it cannot but be welcome to ra∣tional men. But I se•• no necessity or reason it should have a specifi∣callie distinct way of knowing here and in heaven. Much less that we should imagine to our selves such a one as to that other state, as is al∣together unaccountable and capable of no rational explication. And reckon it much more becoming to be silent, than on pretence of anie mysteriousness in the things we discourse of, to talk absurdlie and un∣intelligiblie about them. A confessed ignorance in this case is becoming to say with that great Apostle, It doth not appear what we shall be. But to conclude and define such matters is surely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.14

  2 Pet. 1. 17.
• * 1.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.16

  1 Pet. 4. 13.
• * 1.17

  John 17.
• * 1.18

  Arist. in 3. Me∣teor••l••g. Cap. de ••ride.
• * 1.19

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.20

  Cognoscere deum clarè & intuiti∣vè est proprium & naturale so∣li deo sicut est proprium ig••i calefacere & so∣li illuminare Ledesm. de di∣vin. perfect. q. 8. Art. 7.
• * 1.21

  Mat. 5. 8.
• * 1.22

  Heb. 12. 14.