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
as the Refuter calls it much prejudices an assertion of his own in his mixture but no whit the Doctor 345 SECT XX. The Refuters third argument reduced to form The major denyed His sophistical homonymy discovered His confounding the different acts of Christs love as Viator and Comprehensor The true assertions in his discourse severed from the false inferences Christ impeccable Thence iâ— follows not that the acts of his love are all equall but the contrary The great commandment of love enjoyns the most ardent love that we are able to reach to Thence it follows not that the acts of this love ought alwayes to be equal Christ as Comprehensor had on earth greater abilities to love God then Adam in paradise or the Saints and Angels in heaven Thence it follows not that the acts of his love as Viator were to be equall or if they increased successively that he sinned This discourse cleared and confirmed from Suarez The severall acts of charity by which Christ merited Hence the inequality of intension in these acts demonstrated Further proved from the Refuters mixture The Viator differs in abilities from the Comprehensor Proved from Scripture and reason Cajetan Scotus The Refuters following digression impertinent his design in it to amuse the Reader and to bring the Doctor into an unjust suspicion 365 SECT XXI As the Doctor needs not so is it not his custome to make use of former expositions This practise in the Refuter censured This digression not an answer to the Ectenesteron but a fling at the treatise of Will-worship His brief transcribing the Doctors exposition and large examining of it censured M. Cawdrey grants all in controversie between the Doctor and Refuter but contradicts himself The Refuters prevaricating and false suggestions to his Reader His first reason for this suggestion reduced to form Destructive to all religion Biddle Hobbes Leviathan Whatsoever answer he shal make for himself against a Socinian Anabaptist Quaker c. will secure the Doctor His five very false and proofless criminatious in his next reason mustered up His hasty oversight in citing Chamier 374 SECT XXII The occasion of the Doctors exposition of the first great commandment of love The reasons of his fundamental position in short If any one of them demonstrative as M. Cawdrey grants one is then all not bound to it to every act acceptable to God nor to perform it to a degree even then when they are obliged ad speciem This the utmost the Doctor undertook either against M. Cawdrey or the Refuter Reasonable the Refuter should answer these before he suggested to the Reader a need of further proof 383 SECT XXIII The Refuters two first charges Bellarmines explication at large The Doctors The defenders challenge hereupon The difference between Bellarmine and the Doctor examined What good in Bellarmine approved by the Doctor What erroneous not found in the Doctor or else declared against Bellarmine and the Doctor speak not of the same thing Chamier assents to the Doctors position The sixth Corollary of Bellarmine if found in the Doctor yet otherwise understood not censured by Chamier Ames Vorstius Two men may love God with all their hearts and yet one love him more then the other The Doctors exposition not borrowed from Bellarmine nor yet popishly affected 386 SECT XXIV The Refuters third and fourth charges The Doctors exposition parallel to that of Bishop Andrewss Davenant Downham White Hocker Field Grotius Ainsworth praised Assembly Annotations Vrsin Calvin Victor Antiochenus Imperfect work on Matthew Theophylact Theodoret Zacharias Austin Chamier The objections from Calvin Vrsin answered Chamiers conclusion against Bellarmine examined concerns not the Doctor advantages not the Refuter State of innocency a state of proficiency Proved from M. Cawdrey Saints and Angels love not God all to the same indivisible height Saints differ in glory The Doctor of the first and second covenant Perfection Legall Evangelicall Learned Protestants agree with him against Chamier The falshood of Chamier's inference as understood by the Refuter and M. Cawdrey demonstrated How to be understood Heresie of the Perfectists How not favoured by Chamier Thus more agreeable to himself Recapitulated in five positions Chamier and the Doctor agreed The Doctor justified from M. Cawdrey's concessions M. Cawdrey's contradictions in the point of perfection In what sense free will-offerings and uncommanded degrees and acts of piety and charity The question stated Davenant Montague White Hooker and generally the Fathers and divers Protestants agreeing with the Doctor in this point of perfection and counsel and doing more then is commanded This proves not the Popish doctrine of Supererogation 440 SECT XXV Heads of the reasons for the Doctors exposition and assertion of degrees in love and freewill offerings Refuters fifth charge examined Falshood of it Challenged to make reparations Calumny of Popishly affected how easily and unhappily retorted 433 SECT XXVI Artifice in refuting the Doctor in Ames words answering by halves Doctor asserts not lukewarmness How differs from sincerity What. Christianity a state of proficiency Growing grace true acceptable How differs from lukewarmness Bellarmine and Ames dispute concerns not the Doctor Artifice in citing Bishop White Doctor asserts sincerity as opposed to partiall divided love What. Bishop Whites words not to the purpose Love of God above all things objective appretiative intensive what Doctor maintains all Most intense love required yet not so much as is possible to the humane nature Perfection of charity how required of Christians how not 438 SECT XXVII His first reason proves not Intension and degrees of what love fall not under the commandment Modus of a virtuous act how under precept Aquinas how to be understood Opposes not the Doctor No one precise degree of love commanded First inference denyed Lukewarmness and first degree of love differ Second and third inferences denyed Vanity of his argument demonstrated Naturall spirituall qualities how differ His conclusion granted Love the highest 1 in respect of the thing beloved 2 The person loving according to mans threefold state In innocence obliged to sinless perfection Condition of the first covenant How urged by Protestants and S. Paul Condition of the second covenant How the Doctor denies legall perfection obligatory to Christians How bound to love God now Their love still growing Acknowledged by M. Cawdrey Opposed to lukewarmness Our loves future how the highest how not Degrees of this love proportioned to degrees of glory This the Saints crown not race 3 Love the highest in regard of the form No one precise degree highest in love as in naturall qualities May be increased in infinitum How a set number of degrees in love His argument retorted Doctors assertion proved by it Gods righteousness infinite immutable Inchoate sanctification a fruit of the Spirit Whole recapitulated No prejudice to the Doctor if all granted 450 SECT XXVIII His second reason proves not yet granted God by more obligations then he expresses to be loved Acknowledged by the
Actum secundum ordinem supra dictum Durand ibid. art 2. ad 3m. It were vain to adde more to this purpose seeing that all for ought I find who write on the Sentences follow the Master l. 3. Sentent d. 29. and assert after him A. B. that 1. Datur ordo in charitate and that 2. Ordine dilectionis Deum omnibus aliis praeferendum esse quem tenemur diligere plus quam nos ipsos 3. quod quisque se magis quam proximum diligere debeat 4. quod propinqui prae aliis sint diligendi illi magis inter proximos qui secundum carnis originem sunt nobis propinquiores 5. quod iste ordo Charitatis seu differentia gradualis ex parte Actuum Charitatis cadat sub praecepto For this see Lombard l. 3. Sent. dist 29. per tot Aquinas 3. Sent. dist 29. a. 1 2 3 5 6 7. Scotus l. 3. d. 29. q unical Alexander Halensis Bonaventure Richardus Valentia Soto Petrus Navarrus Capreolus are also quoted by H. Cavellus as agreeing with his Master Scotus See also Durand l. 3. d. 29. q. 1 2 4. Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 29. § 1 2 3 4 5. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 26. art 1. ad 3m. q. 44. art 8. Cajetan and the rest of the Commentators on the place § 49. And thus having cleared the Major I come to the proof of the Minor § 50. And now if the infused Habit of Grace and holy Love in Christ were specifically the same with that of Angels and men of necessity also it must have the same Object and consequently also if there be a gradual difference in respect of the goodness of the Object there it must of necessity also be so in respect of the Objects of Christ's Love And for this the Scriptures are very evident For as they testifie that our Blessed Saviour loved Jo. 14. 31. and honoured Jo. 8. 49. and did the will of his Father so they as expresly declare that for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven and that he so loved â—s that he gave himself for us And though he took not on him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham yet he so loved those blessed Spirits as to become the head of all Principality and Power and to reconcile all things unto God whether they Ephes 1. 10 20. Colos 1. 20. Suarez in 3. p. Thom. q. 19. art 2. dist 42. sect 1. p. 570. col 1. E. p. 572. col 1. F. sect 2. p. 574. col 1. F. be things in earth or things in Heaven And therefore the Schooles determine 1. Christum Dominum meruisse Angelis gratiam gloriam quae illis data fuerit propter merita Christi 2. Christum Dominum meruisse Sanctis Angelis omnia dona gratiae quae nobis meruerit proportione servatâ exceptis iis quae ad remedium peccati pertinent electionem scil praedestinationem vocationem auxilia omnia excitantia adjuvantia sufficientia efficacia ac denique omne meritum augmentum gratiae gloriae And consequently he may be stiled the Sanctifier the Justifier and Glorifier of Angels though not properly their Redeemer And therefore it unavoidably followes that there must be a gradual difference in respect of the Acts of Christs Love respecting God the holy Angels and Men according to the gradual goodness to be found in the several Objects and according to that measure and standard that Gods Law required Quod erat demonstrandum § 51. It is true indeed the Schools do rationally resolve that there was not the same order in the Acts of Christs Charity or holy Love as there is in other men who rightly love according to the state and condition of this life Nam Christus secundum animam fuit ab initio perfectus comprehensor ideoque ille dilectionis ordo qui Beatis non qui Viatoribus competit ei tribuendus Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 32. §. 5. Confer Aquin. 2. 2. q. 26. art 13. in corp est Atqui in Beatis totus ordo dilectionis accipitur ex sola conjunctione ad Deum Quare talem distinctionis ordinem in Christo ab initio fuisse fatendum quo unumquemque hominem Angelum eo magis minúsve diligeret quo magis minúsve per justitiam Deo esset conjunctus § 52. There can be but two things possible as farre as I can foresee and if our Refuter can look further I hope he will let us know it returned in answer to this Discourse § 53. First that it is not one and the same Habit of Charity whereby we love God and our neighbours as our selves and therefore as the precepts are several so the Objects are diverse and the affections of the Soul that carry it on to the love of God and our neighbour are as different as the Objects themselves are And therefore though it be granted that the several Acts that flow from these severally distinct Habits do gradually differ in themselves in respect of intenseness according to the gradual distance of goodness in the Object yet it follows not that therefore the Acts of one and altogether the same Habit of Charity and holy Love do gradually differ also which was the thing to be proved § 54. Secondly though it were granted that the Habit of Charity and holy Love to God and our neighbours be one and the same Habit yet a gradual difference in the goodness of the Objects of this Love will not argue a gradual difference of intenseness in the inward Acts of this Love but only in the outward Acts and Expressions § 55. If our Refuter shall make use of the first Answer I must say to him that he has all the Schoolmen at least all those that I have seen for his enemies For they all unanimously resolve with the Master of the Sentences who herein follows Saint Austin that the Habit of 1. August lib. 8. de Trin. c. 8. â— Petro Lombard citat 2. Augustin lib. 1. de doctrina Christiana ca. 22. ibid. citat Pet. Lombard lib. 3. Sentent dist 27. C. divine Charity whereby we love God and our Neighbours for God's sake is one and the same Habit. Ex una eademque charitate Deum proximumque diligimus sed Deum propter Deum nos verò proximum propter Deum Vna est Charitas duo praecepta unus Spiritus duo mandata quia alia Charitas non diligit proximum nisi illa quae diligit Deum Quâ ergo charitate proximum diligimus saies Lombard eâdem Deum diligimus Sed quia aliud est Deus aliud proximus etsi unâ charitate diliguntur ideo forte duo praecepta dicuntur alterum majus alterum minus vel propter duos motus qui in mente geruntur dùm Deus diligitur proximus Movetur enim mens ad diligendum Deum movetur ad diligendum proximum multo magis erga Deum quam proximum
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
and Scotus and other of the old School-men say is required by this Law And is not this denyed by Bellarmine and is it not therefore justly charged upon him by Protestants And yet does not the Doctors exposition in this comply with Bellarmine § 30. To this I answer by degrees First that true it is that the learned Chamier does thus conclude against Bellarmine But then plain it is that these are none of that Veterum Sententia quam nos tenemus but only Inferences and Deductions from it And if our Refuter will allow me what he cannot reasonably deny that the Doctors exposition is exactly conformable to this of the Ancients which Chamier acknowledges that the Protestants maintain I shall not envy him those advantages he can make by these Corollaries § 31. Secondly though it were †Vide Davenant de Justit habit actual c. 46. p. 529 550 in sol ad 2. granted that these Inferences were good and forceable against Bellarmine that maintaines a man may not only keep the Law to that height that he may merit at Gods hands but also supererogate and be more holy and righteous then the Law does require yet they no waies concern the Doctor that speaks not of a sinlesse perfection but of the sincerity of this or that vertue in this or that Performance which though it exclude not all mixture of sin in the suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that Act. The truth of which assertion as it is acknowledged by Chamier in the Case of David and Josiah so is it so farre different from Bellarmine's assertion against which these Corollaries of Chamier were directed that it is even opposite and contrary to it § 32. Thirdly I acknowledge that Bellarmine grants that Saint Austin and Bernard and Aquinas and other of the old Schoolmen do speak of such a Perfection required by this Law that advances our Love to that height that we must do nothing else but think of God nothing else but love him and this not only in the Habit but in the Act. This Love he acknowledges does so wholly possess the soul that no idle vitious Thought can obtrude or press in upon it nothing either contrary or besides this holy love can have any the least admission into the heart but that of necessity God is and must be all in all But then he addes that this Love is proper only to the Saints in Bliss and that we whilst we are in the flesh as we are not capable of it so it is not it cannot be enjoyned us but it is only proposed that we may know what we are to aim at and hope for and desire in heaven and that this is the meaning of Saint Austin Bernard and Aquinas and the Schoolmen when they say this Perfection is not attainable in this life But of this more in due place and let Bellarmin stand and fall to his own Master § 33. But then Fourthly be it granted that those Corollaries of Chamier are rightly inferred against Bellarmine's doctrine of the several states of Perfection and works of supererogation and the possibility of fulfilling the Law yet neither of them will any whit advantage our Refuter in the present controversie depending between him and the Doctor For though God should require of us by that Law that we love him totis viribus naturae non tantum totis viribus corruptionis yet the †Vide Doctor Hammonds Account of Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe c. 6. sect 8. §. 6 7. p. 204. Doctor has most irrefragably demonstrated against Mr. Cawdrey that even the sinless Perfection of Adam in Innocence was a state of Proficiency and that he and all his posterity had even in that first Integrity and Holiness wherein they were first created been in statu merendi till the time of their translation and consequently had been obliged as well as we are now to grow at least in Actual Grace and the knowledge and the Love of God § 34. And Mr. Cawdrey in effect grants it For Christ being Heb 7. 26. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatrib p. 116. holy harmless undefiled and still perfectly continuing in that first innocent estate wherein Adam was created he saies did more then the Law required and did supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and so in the degree of affection in Prayer if not in the Prayer it self § 35. It is true that for a Salve he saies that Christ was above the Law § 36. But then this is nothing to the purpose For though 1 Tim. 6. 16. as he was God the King of Kings and Lord of Lords he were the supreme Lawgiver and the absolute Soveraign and so in this Philip. 2 7. Gal. 4. 4. sense was not under but above the Law yet as he took upon him the form of a servant as he was made of a woman so the Apostle expresly saies he was made under the Law and as he was born Gal. 3. 16. Gen. 17. 9 10 11 12 13 14. Gal. 5. 2. the Son and Seed of Abraham so bound he was to be circumcised the eighth day and being thus circumcised the Apostle plainly testifies that as every man that is circumcised so he was a debter to do the whole Law and consequently in this sense he was not above it And therefore nothing hinders but that Adam if he had persevered in his first Innocence might notwithstanding the Obligation of that first great Law of Love to which Christ also was subject as Man supererogate also in some such like Actions and Passions so in the degree of Affection suppose in Prayer if not in the Prayer it self § 37. If here it be replyed that as Christ according to his Divine Nature was above the Law so by virtue of the Hypostatical Vnion as Man he had the fulness of Grace which Adam had not whereby he was enabled to such supererogating Performances § 38. For answer indeed I grant that he had the very †John 1. 16. c. 3. 34. Coloss 1. 19. Fulnesse of Grace But then this solves not the Doubt For the Question is not now concerning the Measure of Grace but the Extents and Obligation of the Law and whether that admits of any vertuous o◠holy or pious performances above what Man is in particular obliged to by it And in this respect the first and second Adam are equall because both as Men were equally made under the Law But then Adam though he were created in a mutable Condition as Christ was not though he had not a fulnesse of Grace as Christ had yet if he had not fallen from his first innocence he had such a Measure of Grace and Original Righteousnesse bestowed upon him that would not only have preserved him in his integrity but also enabled him to do whatsoever the Law required and whatsoever other vertuous holy pious performances could by Man
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
carry your own shadow and Phantasm that an Error in your Intellectuals has created before your thoughts It is that point of your own framing that still runs in your head and no assertion of the Doctors For he has so often expresly declared that he speaks not of sinless perfection when he sayes it admits of uncommanded degrees but onely of the sincerity of this or that particular virtue or Grace in this or that Act or performance that I am ashamed so often to remind you of it § 3. And yet it is for the necessity of this sinless perfection and compleat obedience to all Gods commandments this perfect habit of Divine Love and holy Charity that the Protestants in the Controversies about Justification by works and Merit ex condigno c. do make use of these Authorities of Austin and Bernard and the School-men But then this concerns not at all the Doctor who meddles not here with these controversies Howsoever I observe it is confutation sufficient to Doctor Hammond and it is no less then one of Hercules labours that the Protestants have alledged the Authority of Austin and Bernard for the confirmation of this which onely flotes in our Refuters brain and is no where to be found in the writings of the Doctor § 4. But then as to the sayings pressed from Austin and Bernard they are not denyed even by Bellarmine to be found Vid. Bellarm. l. 2. de Monachis cap. 13. supra citat in those Authors and withall as may be seen in the former Quotation he acknowledges that the Inference is good and that such a Perfection is not attainable in this life § 5. But then our Refuter will never be able to prove that such a perfection of love that is not onely sinless but Perfectly all Act one interrupted constant and eternall Act of divine love and nothing else which is the Perfection they speak of was ever commanded to Adam in Paradise much less to us Christians that are not now under the Law and Covenant of works but under Grace and the Mercy of the Gospell Nor will he be ever able to prove that either Austin of Bernard did think that this was the sense of the Commandment as it is obligatory to Christians § 6. What Austin what Bernard and the old Schoolmen ever think that such a Perfection of Love is commanded It is no part of our Creed that God in the Evangelicall Covenant severely exacteth of man any thing as necessary to his Salvation which is impossible for him to perform by the assistance of Grace and yet we say again That God by the Rule of his Law commandeth a greater perfection of righteousness then man is able to perform in this life that all flesh may be humbled by the sight of infirmity and consider the gratious indulgence of God in remitting sin and his free bounty in conferring so great and so many undeserved benefits Pet. Martyr super Rom. 8. Si quis recte intelligat nostram assertionem facile videbit nos non docere mandata Dei prorsus esse impossibilia nisi tantum quod ad eos attinet qui à Christo sunt alieni August de Pecc merit remiss l. 2. c. 16. Jabet Deus omnibus hominibus ut non faciant ullum peccatum quamvis sit praescius neminem hoc impleturum ut quicunque impiè damnabiliter ejus praecepta contempserint ipse faciat in eorum damnatione quod justum est quicunque autem in ejus praeceptis obedienter pie proficientes nec tamen omnia quae praecepit implentes sicuti sibi dimitti volunt si aliis peccata dimiserint ipse faciat in eorum mundatione quod bonum est White against Fisher point 8. § 3. p. 533. D. E. us Christians as is impossible to be obtained in this life Is this the easie yoke of Christ whose burdens are not grievous or were they so dull and flat to say it was impossible absolutely impossible I mean for such is that Perfection that is not compatible with the state of a viator whether in Paradise or the Church that is hortus inclusus a fenced garden and vineyard that is indeed the perfection and Crown and reward of the Saints triumphant in heaven which now alone is that Church without spot or wrinckle and yet be commanded by God § 7. Commanded it may be I grant in some sense and it Vid. August de spirit li. terâ cap. 36. per tot is so not onely proposed to our hopes and aimes but enjoyned as to our endeavours and striving for and so run we must as we may obtain it But it is not to be hoped for and gained while we are here on earth but onely in heaven § 8. And therefore you need not have clogged your Readers patience with transcribing Quotations to this purpose The case is plain enough and no body denies it and Bellarmine our onely adversary all along not Doctor Hammond expresly acknowledges it § 9. The onely difference now between you and Bellarmine is Whether this commandment in the sense of Perfection and height that Austin and Bernard in those places speak of is obligatory to Christians and that in this life they either are or let me adde ever were even in Paradise obligatory to mankind And since this is the mark let us now see the leap since this is the true state of the Question between him and his Adversarie whosoever it is let us now see his proof of it JEANES I shall not clog the Readers Patience with transcribing the severall quotations because I believe he may have them almost in every Writer of Controversies betwixt us and the Papists onely I shall trouble him with what I conceive to be most remarkable in Aquinas and Scotus concerning this matter Aquinas secunda secundae q. 44. art 6. intendit Deus per hoc praeceptum Deut. 6. ut homo Deo totaliter uniatur quod fiet in Patria quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus 1 Cor. 15. ideo plenè perfecte in Patria implebitur hoc praeceptum And again q. 184. art 3. Non autem dilectio Dei proximi cadit sub praecepto secundum aliquam mensuram ita ut id quod est plus sub consilio remaneat ut pa et ex forma praecepti quae perfectionem demonstrat ut cum dicitur diliges Dominum Deum ex toto corde tuo totum enim perfectum idem sunt sec Phil. 3. Phys cum dicitur diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum unus quisque enim seipsum maximè diligit Et hoc ideo est quia finis praecepti charitas est ut Apostolus 1 Tim. 1. in fine autem non adhibetur aliqua mensura sed solum in his quae sunt ad finem ut Philosophus dicit 1. Polit sicut medicus non adhibet mensuram quantum sanet sed quantâ medicinâ vel diaetâ utatur ad sanandum Thus also Scotus l.
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
proportionably intended aff p. 253 254 255 256. Whether the multiplication of the outward acts of prayer and a longer continuance in them and a repetition of the same words argue a greater ardency of inward affection and true devotion aff 257 c. Whether though the merit of every act of Christ were infinite in regard of his person yet it were finite in regard of the real physical value of the works themselves And consequently Whether one work of his might in this respect be more valuable and meritorious then another aff p. 270 c. 574 580. Whether the English Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed more earnestly be just and best aff 279 c. Whether the ardency of Christs inward devotion were heightned in his agony aff 283 c. 322 c. 328 c. 543 c. VVhether Christ in the state of his humiliation was both comprehensor and viator aff 292 346 347 c. 525. VVhether Christ being alwayes comprehensor upon earth were in a capacity to pray aff 293 c. VVhether Christ being still God as well as man it were convenient for him to pray And God had so decreed And Christ de facto did pray And for himself as well as others And with a difference aff p. 296 297 298 299 300. VVhether Christ in truth and reality and not in shew did pray for a Removal of that cup of his passion which he knew his Father had determined he should drink and when himself came into the world for that very purpose aff p 301 c. VVhether Christs agony and prayer for a removal of this bitter cup implyed any unwillingness in him to suffer or contrariety of desires in himself or repugnance to the will of God neg p. 306 c. VVhether Christ and consequently we from the authority of this great example might lawfully and rationally pray for a removal of that cup which God had absolutely decreed he should drink aff p. 315 316 317 318 319. Whether as the greatness of our Saviours agony in the garden exceeded all his former sufferings so his ardency in prayer for a removal of it were proportionably intended aff 322 c. 537 538. Whether affliction be a fit season for the heightning our devotion and more then ordinary fervour in prayer And God now calls for it And Christ by his own example has instructed us what to do in such cases aff 327 328 522 523 528 542 543 544 545. Whether the inward acts of Christs habituall grace were alwayes in termino and at the highest and belonged to him as comprehensor neg 3â—7 338. Whether Aquinas Capreolus Scotus assert that the inward acts of Christs habituall grace were all equally intense in gradual perfection neg 334 c. Whether Aquinas and Scotus assert the contrary and that which the Doctor maintains aff 342 343. Whether it were possible for Christ to merit and only as viator aff 348 349 525 526 527 626 627 628 And by what acts 365 366 367. Whether he that affirms that the inward acts of Christs love of God or holy charity were lesse intense at one time then another does deny Christ to be happy in his soul at those times neg 351 c. Whether he that affirms that the acts of Christs love or holy charity were more intense at one time then another does by consequence make him guilty of the breach of the first great law of love neg 361 c. Whether Christ as viator had the same abilities to love God as he had as comprehensor and the charity of the Saints on earth can possibly equal in perfection the charity of the Saints in heaven neg 369 c. Whether he that makes use of any Scripture exposition to be found in Bellarmine or other Popish writer is eo ipso guilty of a complyance with Papists neg 378 379 380. Whether D. Hammonds exposition of the first great commandment of love be the same with Bellarmines neg 386. Whether the Doctors exposition be agreeable to that of the Fathers and most learned of Protestants aff 400 401 402 c. How reasonable it is 433 434. Whether the state of Adam in innocence were a state of proficiency aff against M. Cawdrey 421 456 612. Whether the Saints and Angels in heaven all love God to the same indivisible degree neg 423 466. Whether the Saints and Angels in heaven differ in degrees of glory aff 423 424 425 466 467. Whether Christians are now bound sub periculo animae to that degree of innocence and prudence and perfection of Adam in paradise neg 425 426 429 430 446 447 605 606 607 608. Whether Christians are now bound by the first great law of love to all the degrees of love either in this life or the next so that whatsoever falls short of the utmost height is sinful as Chamier asserts neg 431 432 486 487. Or to as high a degree as is possible to the humane nature as the Refuter Neg. 433 445 446. Whether the first great law of love excludes all possibility of freewill-offerings neg 442 443 c. And consequently Whether there be certain acts of religion and degrees of piety to which no man by any particular law is obliged which yet when spontaneously and voluntarily performed are approved by God and accepted of him as freewill-offerings over and above what any law in particular requires as the Doctor maintains aff 383 442 c. 446 447. Whether this Doctrine of Gospel-freewill-offerings inferrs the Romish Doctrine of supererogation neg 448 c. And whether the Doctor has freed it from this charge aff 436 437. Whether the Doctor asserts lukewarmness in love neg How it differs from sincerity And whether Christianity be a state of proficiency and growth aff 438 c. 455 456. Whether God is to be loved above all things objective appretiativè intensivè And whether the Doctor approves all aff 442 443 444 496 c Whether the Christian is bound to aspire to and endeavour after the loving of God according to the perfection of the Saints in heaven aff 446 447 448 467 472. Whether the modus of virtue and charity falls under the precept neg 453 454. Whether charity may be increased in infinitum aff 458 468 469 502. Whether the creature may be obliged to love God as much as he is lovely neg 459. Whether we are bound to love God as much as we can in this life and infinitely and without measure aff 460 464 465 474 475 476 505 619. Whether the quality or grace of divine charity or holy love admits of an eight or any set highest degree to which all are bound to arrive at neg 467 468 469 470. Whether Aquinas maintains that the first great commandment of love requires of Christians by way of Duty that perfection of love that is onely attainable in heaven neg 485 c. Whether perfection of state according to Aquinas admits of uncommanded acts and