sed quod potest adjutus divino Spiritu Quo autem major nunc datur aut offertur spiritus copia eo praeceptum quoque istud vberius praestandum est H. Grot. in annot ad Matth c. 22. vers 37. p. 375. § 48. †Daille l. 1. de Jejuniis cap. 7. apud D. Hammond in his Account of the Triplex Diatribe p. 144 Scalig. Elench Trehaeres c. 22. in the treatise of Will worship sect 28. Vide Bp. Downeham of the Covenant of Grace c. 10. throughout Monsieur Daillé and Joseph Scaliger both Protestants sufficient and in Treatises particularly opposed against Bellarmine and Serrarius the Jesuite have been quoted by the Doctor to this very purpose and others might be added to the Number But these are sufficient to acquit the Doctor from the suspicion of Popery in this his Doctrine and let our Refuter know that all Protestants are not even of the learned Chamier's opinion in this point And now that the Doctor and those of his Judgement are in the right I undertake to defend and shall make it good in * Vide infra sect 32. §. 20 21 22 23 24 c. 32. sect 26 27 29 31. due place § 49. Indeed the assertion of Chamier is so notoriously false that it carries its own confutation in its forehead even to the most ordinary observer and I wonder by what misfortune and inadvertence it dropped from his Pen. What Omnes gradns comprehendimus amoris qui obtineri possunt vel in hac vita vel in altera si quid sit minus id peccato deputamus Let our Refuter himself in his most Protestant Ruff construe it and tell us how he can make it good Can he ever be able to prove that it is my sin that I see not God face to face while I am in the body and walk by Faith not by sight If it be my sin that I be not a Comprehensor in Heaven while I am in the state of a Viator upon earth that I be not present with the Lord while I am absent from him that I enjoy not Heaven happinesse and the sight of God whilst I am in the flesh in which state no man can see him and live then God with all humble Reverence be it spoken must be the Author of it For God has planted us all in that Condition where we can only see him by Faith and Revelation as through a glass darkly and not face to face Even Adam in innocence had only this advantage to see God by 1 Cor. 13. 12. Faith and clearer Revelation but not at all by Sight And now if our Love of necessity must bear proportion to our Knowledge Impossible it is I should love God at that height whilst I am in the flesh as I can do and shall by Gods Grace I firmly hope when I see him face to face and shall know as I am known Even the souls of Adam and all just men now made perfect do far more intensely more fervently love God whom they now see and enjoy in Heaven then ever Adam did or could if he had continued still in Innocence They love him now Naturally Uninterruptedly Constantly and Immutably but Adam in Paradise Habitually and not alwaies Actually for of necessity the Acts of his Love must be interrupted at least whilst he slept and Freely and therefore Mutably as his fall does too sadly evidence Nay the very Angels that fell not but kept their first station do now more fervently love God since their Confirmation in Grace because they now Immutably love him and have had since the fall of Lucifer an Experiment of his Favour to them which the others had not § 50. With what colour of truth then can it be maintained that it must be deputed and reckoned my sin if I love not God to as high a degree in this life as is possible to be attained in the next For does not that height and perfection of Love depend purely upon the sight and enjoyment of God and the participation of Heaven happiness And is not this height and intensenesse of Love an effect at least of the happiness of the Spirits of just men made perfect And does not this wholly and absolutely depend upon Gods bounty For though the wages of sin be death yet the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6. 23. And shall it be my sin that Gods gifts are not at my Command or within my power to purchase them Or must we say with Bellarmine that it is our sin and will be our punishment if we do not even ex condigno merit Heaven For so of necessity it must be said before it can be maintained that it must be our sin and transgression of this first and great Commandement if we love not God to that height and degree that the blessed Saints and Angels do love him in Heaven with that precise utmost height which is possible to be attained not only in this life but also in the next Add to this that the Saints and Angels now confirmed in grace do love God Naturally and Necessarily to that height that they love him and they can as well cease to see God and know God as not so to love him This is not now their election and choice but their happinesse and Crown their reward nay their Nature not their Labour and Endeavour How then can the want of that Fervour be my sin which is not within the compass of my Will and power to arrive at * Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. c. â—1 p. 470. arg 1. He should as well have said it is our fault that now we be not immortal and glorified whilest we are in the flesh And let me tell our Refuter that he also should have said we are obliged to see God face to face whilest we are in this body as well as to have told us that the first and greatest Commandement enjoyneth us a love of God with as high a degree as is possible Jeanes hic p. 31. unto the humane Nature For I hope he will not say but that is possible to the humane Nature which Enoch and Elias not to speak of our Blessed Saviour at the right hand of God and the Spirits of just men made perfect have now attained to § 51. Indeed this assertion of Chamier is so extremly crude and absurd in that sense which the words at first view do seem to import that I had rather strain them to the meaning and purpose of Grotius and Doctor Hammond then any such monstrous Paradox should be affixed to so Judicious and learned a man Howsoever if Mr. Cawdrey and our Refuter will needs otherwise understand him as they seem in this assertion of theirs to have done which I conceive was to them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Stone of stumbling and Rock of offence I shall leave them to defend and make it good For
as high a degree of actual love as thou art able to reach unto Deus est totaliter diligendus potest intelligi ita quod totalitas referatur ad diligentem sicetiam Deus totaliter diligi debet quia ex toto posse suo homo debet diligere Deum quicquid habet ad Dei amorem ordinare secundum illud Deuter 6. Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo 2. 2. q. 27. art 5. But now Christ-man had in him as great abilities for the actual Love of God as Adam in Paradise as the Saints and Angels in heaven for an all fulnesse of the grace and virtue of Love dwelled in him and therefore if the inward acts of his Love were less intense at one time then another then sometimes when he actually Loved God he did not Love him as intensely as ardently as fervently as he could he did not Love him with all his might and strength ex toto posse suo and so consequently he fulfilled not all righteousnesse for his obedience unto this commandement would have been by this your opinion imperfect and sinful which to imagine were blasphemy But you will be ready to tell me c. § 2. This is your Argument and the most specious of all but yet as little to the purpose as any of the rest And that it may so appear I thus reduce it into Form He whose love of God in the inward Act is more intense at one time then an other breaks that first Commandement that enjoynes the most intense Love of God Possible But Christ that was impeccable could not did not break that Commandement Ergo Christ's Love of God in the inward act was not more intense at one time then another Or thus He that had greater abilities for the Actual Love of God then Adam in Paradise or the Saints and Angels in Heaven and yet does Love God in the inward Act more intensely at one time then an other he does not alwayes love God ex toto posse suo and as much as the Law requires But Christ had alwayes greater abilities for the actuall Love of God then Adam in Paradise or the Saints and Angels in Heaven and yet as you say his Love of God in the inward Act was more intense at one time then another Ergo By consequence according to your saying he loved not God ex toto posse suo and as much as the Law requires which consequence because it makes him sinful but to imagine were blasphemy § 3. Chuse you which Form you will the force and evidence of the Argument is the same and one answer will fit both And I shall give it you in brief and it is no more then by a denyal of your Proposition or Major in both § 4. The truth is all the seeming strength of this Discourse lies in the ambiguity of the phrase The Love of God which is differently understood by our Refuter in the premisses and Doctor Hammond whom he opposes in the Conclusion And consequently the Syllogismes consist of four termes and so are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phantastical paralogismes like the Colours in the Rainbow they make a fair show Arist Elench l. 1. c. 3. indeed to the eye but when we come to search what they are they are nothing but shew and without any solidity § 5. They are both guilty of that Sophism which the Philosopher calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first of the six in Voce For whereas Doctor Hammond as we have most demonstratively proved and as is also acknowledged in our Refuters first argument takes the Phrase The Love of God for the Acts of Divine Charity or holy Love in the General Notion our Refuter here takes it in a more restrained sense for that eminent Act of holy Charity that is immediatly terminated on God and is contradistinct from these other Acts of Charity whereby we love our selves and our neighbors as our selves And this will appear from the Tenor of the first Commandement and the places that himself has quoted Matth. 22. 37. Mark 12. 30 Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy Soul and with all thy mind This is the first and great Commandement and the second is like unto it Thou shalt Love thy neighbour as thy self Though then it were granted that all the Acts of our Love immediately fixed on God must be equal because alwaies by virtue of that Commandement we must Love God as highly as intensely as we can yet it will not follow that all the Acts of Divine Charity or holy Love must be therefore equally intense Nay because it was impossible for the Saviour of the world to sin I must conclude that the Acts of this his Love were not could not be equally intense For then he should have loved himself and his Neighbour the Finite goodness of the Creature with the same equal fervency and ardor as the infinite goodness of the Creator contrary to the Tenor of these Commandements and the fulness of our Saviours wisdom and grace § 6. But then this is not all the misadventure of our Refuter For in the latter part of his Discourse he confounds that Act of our Saviours Love of God belonging to him as Comprehensor with that other Act of Love that belonged to him as Viator and which alone is enjoyned in that first and great Commandement Now these two though the Objects be the same yet differ as really as heaven in possession from heaven in hope and expectation The one is a Free Act of the Will issuing from the Infused habit of Charity the other a necessary Act of the Will that flowes per modum emanationis from the beatifical vision as Light does from the Sun To the one he had a proper freedome and the Act by way of Duty fell under the authority and guidance of the first and great Commandement To the other he had no more freedom then now the Saints and Angels in heaven have who because they are already possessed of heaven and all that heaven can afford are not under any Law but as Naturally as Necessarily they love God as since their being made perfect they see him there § 7. And now though this be sufficient to demonstrate the weakness of our Refuters Discourse yet for the full satisfaction of the English Reader who is most likely to be deceived with these False Lights and empty shewes I shall take his whole discourse asunder that so I may sever Truth from Falshood and vain aerial shapes and Appearances from solid Bodies § 8. First then I grant that it was impossible for Christ to sin For such a high Priest became us who is holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners and made higher then the heaven Heb. 7. 26. When not only Pilates Wife calls him that just man but even his very adversaries and accusers were not able to convince him and his Judge does publickly acquit him
est nisi quaedam explicatio voluntatis apud Deum ut supplâ—at indigentiam quam per nos ipsos supplere non possumus Durand l. 3. Sent. dist 17. q. 2. art â— p. 185. 4. Oratio est Actus inferioris deprecantis superiorem ut se adjuvet unde est Actus indigentis ope alterius cui cultum reverentiam exhibet ideo ad religionem pertinet Suarez in 3. p. Tho. q. 21. art 1. in Commentar p. 588 col 2. E. Est oratio quaedam hominuÌ„ cum Deo communicatio quâ Sanctuarium coeli ingressi de suis promissis illum coram appellant ut quod verbo duntaxat annuenti crediderunt non esse vanum ubi necessitas ita postulat experiantur Calv. Institut lib. 3. c. 20. §. 2. Quando verò hunc esse orationis scopum ut erecti in Deum animi ferantur tum ad confessionem Laudis tum ad opem implorandam ex eo intelligere licet primas ejus partes in mente animo positas esse vel potius Orationem ipsam esse propriè interioris cordis affectum qui apud Deum cordium Scrutatorem effunditur exponitur Calv. ibid. §. 29. an Act of the Soul whereby we supplicate and beseech God whom we reverence and worship for a supply of our wants which we our selves are not able to attain to but only by his assistance and bounty in whom is all fulness § 22. But then though this be the proper genuine signification of Prayer yet * Etsi autem Oratio proprie ad vota preces restringitur tanta est tamen inter Petitionem Gratiarum actionem affinitas ut commodè sub nomine uno comprehendi queaÌ„t NaÌ„ quas Paulus enumerat species sub prius membrum hujus partitionis recidunt Calv. ibid. §. 28. Vide Aquin. 2 2. q. 83. art 17. Suarez in 3. p. Thom. q. 21. art 4. distinct 45. sect 1. such is the affinity between Prayer and Thanksgiving that as they usually and most decently go together so they are commonly comprehended under the same common name of Prayer Of Prayer in this notion the Apostle and the Schools from him reckon up four kinds 1 Tim. 2. 1. | Haec alia nomina quibus preces distinguantur reperies in libro de morte Mosis Vide H. Grot. Annot posthum in 1 Tim. c. 1. ver 1. First Supplications which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and are Deprecations or prayers for the removal of Evils whether corporal or spiritual Secondly Prayers which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and these are for the procurement of Good things for our selves Thirdly Intercessions which he there calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are either for the suspension of Judgements or obteining of Blessings for others Fourthly Giving of thanks which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that are in an humble acknowledgement and gratulation offered up to God for the Benefits we or others have received Of all these the Scriptures afford us frequent Instances § 23. Now if we take Prayer in the first sense according to Damascen for an assent of the Soul to God by Contemplation Meditation Devotion and the like there is no doubt but thus it was most super-excellently in Christ * Si hoc modo sumatur Oratio non est quod disputetur an in Christo fuerit cujus anima perfectissima contemplatione in Deum ferebatur non solum per beatam fruitionem sed per Scientiam etiam infusam liberum charitatis actum ut in superioribus tractatum est Suarez in 3. p. Thom. dist 45. sect 1. His Soul winged with Contemplation still constantly lodged it self in the bosome of God whom he so perfectly saw so perfectly enjoyed and so perfectly loved The only doubt is that since Christ was from the first moment of his Conception perfectus Comprehensor in full and perfect possession of heaven happiness and the clear sight and enjoyment of God whether he may with any congruity be said to pray as that properly signifies an Act of the Soul either requiring aid and asstance from God for the supply of those things we stand in need of or returning Thanks for that supply For Christ being truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect God as well as Man he could neither have a superiour to reverence nor have need of assistance because he was Almighty and the Soveraign Lord of all things And being also in the humane Nature perfectus Comprehensor he enjoyed the fulness of heaven happiness which excludes all wants and all sorrows And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes and there shall be no more death neither sorrow nor crying neither shall there be any more pain for the former things are passed away Rev. 21. 4. § 24. To this I answer from Aquinas that if Christ were only God or though he had two natures yet if he had but one Will which was divine as the Monothelites phansied then it neither Si in Christo esset una tantum voluntas scil divina nullo modo competeret sibi orare quia voluntas divina per seipsam est effectiva eorum quae vult secundum illud Psalmi 134. Omnia quaecunque voluit Dominus fecit Sed quia in Christo est alia voluntas divina alia humana voluntas humana non est per seipsam efficax ad implendum quae vult nisi per virtutem divinam inde est quod Christo secundum quod est homo humanam voluntatem habens competit orare Aquin. 3. part q. 21. art 1. in Corp. Vide Cajetan Suaresium commentator in loc alios Suarez ibid. disp 45. sect 1. Durand l. 3. Sent. d. 17. q. 2. art 1. could be needful nor proper and convenient for him to pray For as God has no superiour to reverence so has he no need of any helper or assistant His will is absolutely all-powerful and therefore saies David Psal 134. 6. Whatsoever the Lord pleased that did he in heaven and in earth in the sea and all deep places § 25. But then Christ being also perfect man as well as God and endued with a humane will and understanding essentially consequent to that Nature which of it self is not able without the assistance of God to perform what it may rationally desire and being as Man of a nature truly passible and mortal and whose Soul also in the inferiour part was subject to Passions and infirmities as well as his body before his Resurrection in which respect he was not yet possessed of heaven happinesse but a necessity there lay upon him first to suffer and then to enter into his glory in this state and condition he might with convenience and without any derogation from the Perfection of his divine
tell us that for the joy that was set before him he endured the Heb. 12. 2. Crosse and despised the shame and is now set down on the right hand of God Does he not also say that when Christ had by Heb. 1. 3 4. himself purged our sins he sate down on the right hand of the Majesty on high being made so much better then the Angels as that he hath obtained a more excellent name then they what are these also Propositions harshly sounding in the ears of Christians that are jealous of their Masters honour Review your assertion Sir and confesse and acknowledge your own thoughts or will you write uses of Confutation against the pen-men of sacred writ as well as against Doctor Hammond For can a state of Sorrow and Grief and Misery and Want consist with an absolute and compleat uninterupted heaven happiness where the Scripture testifies there shall be no more death nor sorrow nor crying neither Revel 21. 4. shall there be any more pain for the former things are passed away If in the dayes of his flesh he were so absolutely and compleatly happy that this blessedness could in no respect be interrupted how then as the Apostle testifies did he offer up prayers supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to help him For how can he pray for assistance that is in an absolute incapacity of want that is alwayes as happy as God and heaven-happiness can make him If he were so absolutely and compleatly happy so that in no respect it could be interrupted why then for the joy set before him which sure was not therefore yet Heb. 12. 2. obtained did he endure the cross and despise the shame why prayed he so earnestly for his own after-glorification Why John 17. 1. 2. said he to his Disciples after his Resurrection Ought not Christ Luke 24. 16. to suffer these things and to enter into his glory § 10. If here now you say that Christ in the state of his humiliation may be considered 1. Either in respect of the present state of his soul in the soveraign part of it his Mind and understanding or else 2ly in respect of the present state of the Inferiour sensitive part of his soul and the frail mortal passible condition of his flesh In the first respect he was Perfectus Comprehensor and enjoyed the fulness of heaven-happiness and therefore alwaies did love God to the full height that he enjoyed him And of this only you now spake But then in the second respect he was in a state of frailty and misery and sorrow and want and because truly a Viator he was not yet possessed of heaven-happiness and of this speak the Scriptures I shall accept of your answer and acknowledge the truth of it But withall I shall desire you to apply this distinction to your own argument and the assertion of Dr. Hammond § 11. And now I pray deal ingeniously with the world and tell us whether ever Dr. Hammond did deny the fulness of Christs happiness in the soveraign Part of his Soul Does not he allow him to be truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God man from the first indued with the fulness of habitual grace And does not of congruity a fulness of happiness in Christs soul flow from this Vnion and fulness of grace And does not an absolute uninterrupted Act of divine Love in its utmost height and intenseness flow necessarily from this happiness shew us then whether ever this was brought into debate betwixt you and the Doctor Nay do not you your self acquit him of this charge in your first argument when you conclude that the Inward Acts of the habits of all virtues and graces were alwaies full in him because the habits themselves were so will you say that the habits of virtues and other graces were proper to him as Comprehensor and that he could watch pray Tast suffer be meek patient humble c. as now in the state of heaven-happiness And have we not most evidently proved that Doctor Hammond understands by The Love of God only that Love and that Charity which was proper to Christ as Viator in the daies of his flesh and not that other necessary Act of Divine love proper to him as Comprehensor § 11. And therefore I pray now what is become of your argument and your grave Propositio malè sonans do you not all this while build upon an empty Sophism argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and conclude because Christ was perfectly happy in his Soul as Comprehensor and did therefore necessarily love God at the height therefore he must be absolutely so too in every respect and happy equally happy he must be also as Viator and according to that respect and so must also all his other Acts of divine Charity towards God himself and his Neighbours be equal all in themselves and with that high transcendent Act of Love immediately seated on God And is not this now a weighty argument well deserving to be put in the Title page of the Book to tell all the world how Doctor Hammond is subdued by it But because I see you sufficiently ignorant in this point I shall adde something for your instruction § 12. Plain it is that there was a twofold state of Christ during his abode upon earth The one was status Comprehensoris in respect of the soveraign Part of his Soul the Mind The other Status Viatoris in respect of the Inferiour Faculties of his soul and his frail mortal passible condition in the Flesh In this he was in statu merendi in the other not And consequently the Schoolmen do distinguish and observe a twofold Act of Divine Charity or holy Love in him The one †Necessary Vide Suarez in 3 part Thom. tom 1. disp 39 Sect. 2. p. 540. col 1. pag. 541. Col. 1. qui non potuit esse meritorius quia non erat liber sed necessariò consequebatur visionem beatam This they call Actus amoris Dei beatificus and Actus Comprehensoris and is the same with that of Christ and the Saints and Angels now in heaven who because they see and enjoy God face to face cannot chuse but perfectly love him The other * a Free Act and though it is Vid Suarez ibid. supernatural as flowing from the all perfect Habit of Divine Charity in Christ yet distinguished it is from the Beatifick Love that necessarily flowes from the Fulness of heaven-happiness this was proper to him as Viator § 13. Now though the habit of this Love was alwaies in Christ full and without any interruption even as he was Viator yet the Acts that flowed from this Habit were de facto some or other still interrupted because his present finite state and condition could not actually apply himself to the performance of all at once and the acts themselves were not all compossible in the same subject in one
must be in the increase nor has any limits to fix and bound its growth § 27. But then this love because it is a thriving thing of necessity must admit of a latitude and endless degrees because as the Schools determine it must be increased in infinitum And thus the Doctor acknowledges that we must love God with all our strength c. § 28. This is that Love in the height that Grotius and †Concedimus Charitatem simpliciter insinitam hoc mandato non requiri quia Creatura sinita non est capax qualitatis infinitae sed negamus huic mandato satisfacere ullum certum gradum charitatis qui subsistit infra metas ultimae possibilitatis humanae Nam mandatum totas vires nostras requirit in Actu diligendi Deum nullamque earum partem sub consilio relinquit ut ex Augustino ipso Aquinate rectissime statuit Gerson Davenant de Justitiâ habit Act. c. 44. p. 504. others speak of nay that which M. Cawdrey himself acknowledges cannot be denyed though he sayes not without a Contradiction that more then this is required and that not onely growth in grace is required which of necessity implyes a latitude and degrees but perfection also which he sayes has no degrees Nay this our Refuter in a lucid intervall does seem to import though he long continues not in that sober mood But I doubt not but upon better consideration he may be drawn to persevere and continue in it Otherwise Nauiget Antyciras for me I shall sooner expect to cure his Intellect by a Potion of Hellebore then a demonstration This is that Love that is opposed to Lukewarmness that is opposed to partiall and divided Love or service that Love that is the way to perfection in heaven there onely attainable and not Perfection it self This is the Love the Doctor speaks of and contends to be required by this commandment the Love that the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not that Love that consists in a sinless perfection that our Refuter contends is now required of the Christian This Love admits of a latitude and has degrees it is like the grain of mustard-seed though as considered in semine it is very small yet by the endeavour of Paul the Planter and Apollos the waterer and the richness of the soyle now manured and fitted by Grace and the benefit of the Climate the Church where it onely growes and Gods blessing that still gives the increase it growes up and multiplies into a tree so big that the fowles of the Aire may lodge and the blessed Spirits and Angels may be delighted in it § 29. But then thirdly man may be considered according to his future state and the Abilities God shall either de facto give us to love him at the last day when not onely the Spirits but the bodies also of just men shall be made perfect or * Vid. Davenant de Justit habit Act. c. 4. 7. p. 532 533. may now by his absolute omnipotent Power bestow upon us for nothing hinders but that he might again create man in innocence and blesse him with the same Abilities of Originall Justice which Adam had or else he might translate us immediately soul and body into heaven as he did Enoch and Elias This this as it is the height of our happiness and holy ambition so it is the utmost height of love that we shall de facto ever arrive at § 30. But then I must adde that this Love is but like the Physitians Temperamentum ad Justitiam not like that which they call Temperamentum aequale ad pondus There is no one indivisible point and measure of love to which all arrive but Vid. Aquin. 2. 2 que 28. art 3. in corp respons ad 2. proportionable still it is to our works and the reward and the happinesse God shall bestow All the vessels of this new Jerusalem shall be full as full of love as they can possibly hold but yet the love in all will not be equally one and the same because the vessels are not all of one equall capacity For as one star differs from another star in glory so shall it be also at the Resurrection of the dead and as there be degrees of Angels whether Thrones or Principalities or Powers Angels and Arch-angells Cherubins and Seraphins whose very name imports a higher and more ardent strain of love and zeal so shall there be also degrees among Saints in respect of Glory and happiness and consequently of Love Christ the first in Glory as the first-fruits from the dead and afterwards they that are Christs I doubt not but the blessed Virgin and the Mother of God as she was saluted by the Angel Gabriel Luk. 1. 28. with an Hail thou that art highly favoured the Lord is with thee blessed art thou among women so she is blessed among Saints as she bore our Saviour in her womb so she is next to him in glory And then as for the Apostles our Saviour has promised that they shall sit with him on twelve Thrones And Mat. 19. 28 29. Luk. 22. 30. Jude 14. if they and ten thousand of his Saints with whom he shall come to Judgement shall be admitted to be Assessors with him in his Throne of Judgement I cannot but conclude they shall have a higher state of Glory And if our Love of God must of necessity bear a correspondence to our knowledge and sight and enjoyment of God in heaven and that knowledge and that happiness must be proportioned according to our works on earth then it will necessarily follow that according to the difference of our Love and grace and improvement of our Talents and stewardship here so shall our glory and happiness and sight and knowledge and Love of God be in heaven A love this though it be not equall in every man yet it is as high as any man shall for all eternity ever enjoy The love shall be still one in every man as the Crown of glory shall eternally be the same A love at the utmost height that the lover of God whosoever he is shall ever eternally obtain A love perfect because without sin a love constant because without interruption and not in habit but in Act a love where God shall be all in all § 31. This is the love we all hope for and aim at and must endeavour after and it will be our sin and our misery if we do not attain to it But then it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Christian as we have already noted the mark he must aime at the crown and the kingdome and not the Race it self and the way to the kingdome This is that height that Perfection of Love which S. Austin and Bernard Peter Lumbard and Aquinas and others of the old Schoolmen speak of when they say it is not attainable in this life but is the Perfection of heaven and adde that the Commandment
feel the motion of it yet we know not whence it comes nor whither it goes since thus it is with every one that is born of the Spirit since we cannot so much as think a good thought as of our selves but all our sufficiency 2 Cor. 3. 5. Phil. 4. 13. is of God through whose assistance and strengthening we can do all things he therefore will own every fruit and degree of Grace that flowes onely from his own holy Spirit and gracious assistance and will not break the bruised Reed nor Mat. 12. 20. quench the smoaking flax but in due time blow it up into a bright and glorious flame and set the bones which he has broken And consequently I must conclude that the highest degree is not commanded and that an Inferiour degree of Love even of Actuall love is no sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod erat demonstrandum § 39. To recapitulate all for the Readers better satisfaction 1. First the highest degree of Love absolutely such or rather the one infinite height and simply perfect Act of Love commensurate with the Perfection and amiableness of God no body sayes is required in this Love 2. The loving God according to sinless Perfection and the abilities and originall righteousness Adam had in innocence the Apostle against the Jews and the †Vid. White against Fisher point 8. §. 1. 2. p. 510. D. p. 522. B. C. D. E. Mountague's answer to the Gagger c. 15 17 19. Davenant de Justit Habit. Actual Protestants against the Romanists say is required to Justification and according to the Tenor of the first Covenant which therefore they say is necessary because the Papists speak of a Justification by works a fullfilling of the Law and merit ex condigno Perfection and works of Supererogation This our Refuter undertakes to maintain to be now required of Christians to Justification otherwise he has no opposite But then the Doctor maintains that this Law requires not that Love and that Charity that consists in this sinless Perfection to the Justification of believers now because they are not under the law but under Grace And if our Refuter be his Adversary in this let him try his School-skill and answer our arguments in a School-way and leave his begging of the question 3. The loving God according to the Abilities and advantages we shall have in heaven when we shall see God face to face is the Perfection of Saints and those of the Church Triumphant not the duty of Christians and those of the Church Militant more then sincerely to endeavour after it and by comparing their weakness with the uprightness of the Law and the Perfection of this Love they may have wherewithall to humble them and long for and to fly to Ckrists Righteousness and Mediation and Gods Mercy And though our Refuter bring after the Authorities of Austin Bernard Aquinas and Scotus to prove that to this we Christians are obliged by the Law yet I shall demonstratively prove anon that they say it not but the contrary and so our Refuter stands alone and naked like the Shrub on the point of a Rock or the top of a Mast in open Sea in a storm that has nothing to succour it 4. That there is no one degree in this Quality and Grace of holy love so high beyond which there can be no higher or it cannot go but it must cease to be love and become somewhat else and consequently we cannot be obliged to love God in any one degree precisely much lesse in the eighth degree which is the highest as our Refuter and Master Cawdrey maintain 5. That believers by this old this new Commandment of Love as * Mat. 22. 39. Joh. 13. 34. our Saviour and S. John †1 Joh. 2. 7 8. 2 Joh. 4. 5. calls it are obliged to Love God to the utmost of their Power and sincerely to endeavour to grow more in grace and the knowledge of our Lord that so they may be enabled still to love him the more The onely measure of love here being to love him without measure not fixing upon any bounds or limits of love And this is that the Doctor and the most learned of Protestants maintain and let him see if he can disprove it and make what advantage he can by it § 40. But now though all this is said and demonstratively proved I must tell our Refuter that all this is nothing to the present controversie depending between him and the Doctor I must grant it indeed to be very usefull in it self and very fit to be known and better considered then oftentimes it is And in this respect I thank our Refuter for his digression that has thus occasioned mine And withall I must adde that though all were granted which now he contends for it would no whit at all concern the Doctors assertion Because the Doctor expresly in very many places especially in the defence of his Treatise of Will-worship professes not to speak of sinless perfection but of the sincerity of this or that virtue or Grace in this or that performance when he sayes it consists in a latitude and admits of uncommanded degrees And so much for his first reason I follow him to the next SECT 28. His Second Reason proves not yet granted God by more Obligations then he expresses to be Loved Acknowledged by the Doctor This Love infinite Not Positively and Categorematicè but Negatively and Syncategorematicè Acknowledged by Bellarmine and others Hinders not Freewill-offerings of Love These asserted by Bishop White Doctor not confuted though Bellarmine may Bellarmine and Ames at no great odds here Concerns not the Doctor Refuters Artifice censured Doctors Comfort and Precedent in this Persecution of the tongue 1. HIs second Reason whereby he undertakes to evince that this Commandment enjoyneth a most intense actuall Love of God a love of God with as high a degree as is possible to the humane Nature now follows and it is this JEANES A most intense Love of God a love of him with the utmost of our forces and endeavours is due unto God debito connaturalitatis debito gratitudinis 1. Debito connaturalitatis by an obligation of congruence for it is fitting that we love him as much as we can who is infinitely good in himself and therefore the chief good and supreme end of man The Protestants are brought in by Bellarmine de Monach. l. 2. c. 13. thus objecting against their Popish Evangelicall counsels of perfection that he that is unwilling to love God as much as he can doth hereby deny to wit virtually and interpretatively that God is the chief good of man and whereas he is so bold in his answer to affirm that non requiritur ut quis summum bonum tam ardenter amet quam forte posset Ames hath hereunto a round and acute reply tum non requiritur ut in bonum omni ratione summum feramur affectu omni etiam ratione summo 2.
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
indifferent to the inward acts nay rather more then to the outward expressions of them otherwise he could not be the meritorious cause of our salvation § 68. If here he shall reply though this be true in respect of all other men yet the case is otherwise with Christ The reason here is peculiar unto him above all other men whilest he lived here on earth he enjoyed the beatificall vision and the naturall and necessary consequent thereof is a most intense actuall love of God I accept of his answer But then withall I must desire him to tell me how he can reconcile this position with the many Scriptures that so clearly assert the meritoriousness of our Saviours whole life and glorious example as well as of his death and passion For if Christ had onely a proper freedome of will and active indifferency to the outward expressions and not to the inward acts of virtue and charity but did perform them all ex necessitate by a necessity of his glorified state and condition and clear intuitive sight of God it was not possible he should merit by any of them as has already been observed § 69. If he understand his assertion in the second Notion of liberty for a morall indifferency of the action it self plain it is that Christ had no more morall freedome and indifferency to many if not to most of the outward expressions then to the inward Acts themselves For where the outward act and expression does aeque cadere sub praecepto and is aswell the object and matter of duty commanded as the inward act there both outward and inward act are equally necessary to be bone or omitted I desire him to tell me what greater liberty and indifferency there was to Christ in respect of the outward acts of all the negative precepts of the moral law more then to the inward acts what liberty and indifferency there was in respect of the outward acts of many of the affirmative precepts more then to the inward acts was he not aswell bound at least in most cases to the outward acts of adoration of honouring Gods name of reverence to parents and the like as he was to the inward acts But then what thinks he of all the Mosaicall rites and ceremoniall observances which clearly consisted in the exterior Act As he was born of Abrahams seed and under the law so was he not bound upon pain of excision to be circumcised the eight day And consequently being thus circumcised did he not become a debtor to the whole Mosaicall law ceremoniall and judiciall that consisted chiefly in the outward acts as well as to the morall and this upon condition of the curse annexed to the very least breach of the least tittle that was written in the book of Moses law was he not bound to the outward sanctification of the Sabboth the rites and ceremonies of the Passover and the like as well as all other persons circumcised Once more what thinks he of our Saviours obligation to the outward acts and exteriour expressions and performances of his prophetick office As the spirit of the Lord was upon him anointing him to preach the Gospel to the poor c. So an * Joh. 12. 49 50. cap. 18. ver 37. Luk. 2. 49. obligation from God his Father lay upon him to do it And Luk. 4. 18 21. therefore sayes he to his parents that found him in the Temple disputing with the Doctors and asking them questions How is it that ye sought me wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers business To conclude what thinks he of the death and passion of our Saviour was it not an high act of charity and love both to God his Father and us Men and yet plain it is that an absolute necessity lay upon our Saviour for performance of the outward act and manifestation of this love bound he was to suffer and to lay down his life for his sheep For ought not Christ to suffer these things and then to enter into Joh. 10. 49. Luk. 24. 26 27. Heb. 10. 5 6 7 8 9 10. his glory For what sayes he himself Sacrifice and burnt-offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me Then said I lo I come in the volume of the Book it is written of me to do thy will O God by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all And it is observable from Suarez even in this very question to which our Refuter here referrs that this Precept did directly and immediately first fall upon the outward act and expressions Quod maxime declarari potest in praecepto illo moriendo pro hominibus nam illud praeceptum directe cadit in actum ipsum exteriorem qui est objectum interioris actus voluntatis qui etiam consequenter praecipitur quatenus cum exteriori componit unum actum moralem liberum Suarez in 3 part tom 1. disp 37. sect 4. where the question is Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera p. 519. col 2. A. and immediately and by consequence onely on the interiour inasmuch as the outward is the object of the inward act of the will and together with it does compound and constitute one compleat morall action § 70. If here he shall reply that he spake not of the outward expressions that were matter of duty and under command but onely of those expressions of the inward acts that were left indifferent such as are the outward prostrations and gestures the words and other signs of the inward ardency in prayer though it is evident that his words indefinitely proposed must reach to all the outward acts and expressions of the inward acts of divine love that necessarily issued from the beatificall vision yet I shall for the present accept of this answer though nothing at all to the words and the purpose of this his second reason which he sayes is peculiar to Christ above all other men But then withall I must tell him that this grant and acceptation will do him no service § 71. For though it be true even in respect of the outward acts and expressions of the inward ardency and devotion in prayer that no law of God has interposed to determine and necessitate the outward act of devotion either quoad speciem or quoad exercitium either for kind or degree as that we should use this gesture suppose of standing kneeling or prostration c. this form of words these lifting up the eyes or hands to heaven and the like but has left us at liberty to use what we shall see fit in either kind whensoever we pray yet since the law of God and religious prudence requires that all things be done decently and in order in Gods worship it evidently follows that whatsoever outward gestures or words or signs or expressions he should make use of they were of necessity to