Jeanes.
That possibility to sinne is essentiall unto every rationall creature I grant; and hereupon inferte, that 'tis not separated from the Saints in their full glorification; neither shall I feare your charge of blasphemy herein, having the generality of Schoolemen, (both Thomists, and Scotists) and reason too on my side. Indeed, the Saints of Heaven do constantly, and interruptedly shun, and decline sinne; yet, 'tis an ev••ll possible unto their nature, considered in it selfe; however they are secured therefrom by their glorified state and condition: for though sinne, and a fullnesse of glory be inconsistent; yet 'tis no contradiction, or repugnancy, that their natures abstractly considered, secluding the consideration of their glory, should be sinfull. Yea, but you say, impeccability is certainely a part of the full glo∣rification of the Saints; and what is impeccability but an impossibility of sinning; if God then make the Saints impeccable, he takes away from them all possibility of sinning.
For answer.
1. There is a twofold impeccability.
- 1. By nature.
- 2. By the grace and gift of God.
Impeccability by nature takes away all possibility of sinning; but it is received ge∣nerally as a rule among the School-men, that a creature cannot be made impecca∣bi••is per naturam, (that is) such a one, as cannot by nature sinne. And, if you please, you may view the proofes thereof in Capreolus lib: 2. Dist: 22. quaest. 1.
Impeccability by the gift and grace of God doth not eradicate the remote pow∣er of sinning; but only keeps it from being actuated; and 'tis this impeccability on∣ly, that is part of the Saints glorification.
2. A thing may be said to be impossible, sensu diviso, or sensu composito.
In sensu diviso 'tis not impossible, but possible, for the Saints in Heaven to sin; for that (considered in themselves without the custodient grace of God alwayes un∣derpropping them) they are liable unto sin, the lamentable fall of the Angels of darkenesse is an evident proofe.
But now, sensu composito, 'tis indeed impossible for glorified Saints to sinne; that is; 'tis impossible for them to sinne considered under this reduplication, as fully glorified; because fullnesse of glory and sinne cannot stand together. This answer is in Scotus (lib. 4. dist: 49. quaest: 6.) whose words I shall insert for the sake of some Readers who may not have him in their studies:) Respondeo; patet, quod bea∣tus est impeccabilis in sensu compositionis, hoc est, non potest simul esse beatus, & peccare: sed in sensu divisionis, quod maneas beatus non habeat potentiam & possibilitatem ad pec∣candum potest intelligi duplicitèr: vel per aliquid sibi intrinsecum, quod excludit po∣tentiam talem; vel per causam extrinsecam, quod excludit potentiam propinquam ab il∣lo, &c: nulla est causa intrinseca in voluatate Michaelis nunc beati, per quam exclu∣datur potentia ad peccandum pro alias, in sensu divisionis, non est autem causa intrinseca prohib••ns istam potentiam omnino reduci ad actum: sed per causam extrin∣secam est impossibilis potentia illa propinqua ad peccandum, videlicet per volutataem Dei praevenientem illam voluntatem, ut semper continet actum fruendi, & ita nunquam possit pote••tiam suam r••m••am non s••••endi, vel peccandi, reducere ad actum: siqui∣dem umquam causa secunda praeveata à causà superiori agente ad unum oppositum po∣test potentia propinqua exire in aliud oppositum. Concedo ergo, quod infert, quod Mi∣chael