Doctor This love infinite Not positively 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 473 SECT XXIX His authorities oppose not the Doctor why urged by Protestants Bellarmine acknowledges the places and inference But such love simply impossible even in Paradise How Austin Bernard hold it obligatory how not Bellarmine the Refuters adversary His authorities from Aquinas Scotus his charity to his Reader First from Aquinas answered His meaning Bellarmine and he agreed Doctor and all Protestants will subscribe to this of Aquinas His second from Aquinas answered Perfection of life state according to Aquinas not pertinent Aquinas opinion summed up Scotus his manner of writing How God may be loved above all things according to Scotus Henriquez opposed by him Love melting strong This genuine that a passion sensitive Scotus love of God above all things intensivè extensivè agreeable to Chamier He rejects the reason grounded on Austin Bernard His authority pruned At large Contrary to the Refuters inference from him His sense cleared from D' Ordellis Cavellus The sense of the old Schoolmen from Durand Austin and Bernard's opinion the same with Durands and the Doctors proved How urged by Chamier These Fathers opinion summed up What perfection required of Christians according to them What proposed Refuters discourse impertinent Distinction Quatenus indicat finem non quatenus praecipit medium not invented by Bellarmine Taken from Aquinas By whom used to expound S. Austin Agreeable to Austin Cajetan for freewill offerings 480 SECT XXX The Refuters return His proof impertinent weakens a known truth Christs agony a fit season for heightning ardency in prayer As Comprehensor he enjoyed an intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence Hence a love necessary Love as Viator Beatifick love hindred not the free exercise of this love and graces nor his happiness his grief in the sensitive appetite Suarez Hence a gradual difference in the acts of love as Viator Particularly in prayer Fallacy à dicto secundum quid His confounding of terms Grounds Motives Occasion What. Christ as Comprehensor still had cause to love God but no grounds motives nor occasions As Viator he had Refuters contradictions Tautologies Love of desire complacency distinguished not divided One oft begins the other Bishop Andrews Natural love of desire in Christ What hope in Christ Love of concupiscence though first in men yet otherwise in Christ Threefold love of complacency in Christ Experimental love of desire and complacence in him capable of increase Both heightned at his passion Ardency of these and of prayer different Of which the Doctor Vanity of the Refuters Title-page 520 SECT XXXI Poor Refutor Doctor digresses not Affliction a fit season to heighten devotion Christs ardency our instruction The Doctor heightning Christs actual love derogates not from his habitualfulness Charitas quamdiu augeri potest c. variously cited The Doctors mistake The words not Jeromes but Austins This lapse how possible Venial Occasion of Austins writing to Jerome His severall proposals of solving the doubt His own upon the distinction of righteousness Legal Evangelical Place in Austin at large How applyed against Papists How not M. Baxters censure of our differences in point of justification Place impertinent to the Refuters conclusion Ex vitio est how here understood against M. Cawdrey and the Refuter and the Doctor Denotes originall corruption This how called by Austin Signally vitium in opposition to a saying of Pelagius Parallel places for this meaning Pelagius objection Answered Austin and the Doctor accord but not the Refuter Doctors exposition of Austin Corrected Dilemma's Confidence springs from ignorance Chedzoy-confidence Learned Protestants and Papists and himself assert what he sayes all else deny but the Doctor A new Jury of them against him for the Doctor Erasinus Cajetan Tolet. Outward works of wisdome and grace in Tolet what Estius Jansenius L. Brugensis Beza Piscator Deodate Assembly notes Cameron Raynolds How Christ grew in actual grace the habitual still invariable Illustrated by two instances Erasmus and Doctor Eckhard assert Christs growth in habitual perfection This charged on Luther Calvin c. by Bellarmine with probability on Calvin How they acquitted Refuters conclusion complyes with the sowrest of Jesuites Maldonates censure of the Lutherans and Calvinists Answered Stapletons like censure Answered They and Bellarmine if they speak consequently must mean the same with us Whole recapitulated Refuters unhappiness Doctors safety 540 SECT XXXII Zeal and loud noise different M. Cawdrey grants all in controversie Heightning outward expressions à posteriori conclude the increase of the inward acts Outward and inward acts both compleat the moral action How proportioned Difference of Christs obligation to purity and ours All born in sin First covenant how in force how not Cannot oblige to sinless Perfection Man reprieved from the final execution of its curse by Christ Objections Answered New covenant how aggravates damnation What required by it Law holy How a rule The subject matter as well of the second as the first covenant Difference of obligation to its purity under the first and second covenant Law abrogated not as a rule but as a covenant Second covenant allows growth toward perfection which the first did not What the Doctor speaks of Refuters first reason Terms of the first part of his assumption distinguished Applyed Second part of his assumption Answered Aquinas serves not the Refuters interest Exteriour acts of charity here signifie not outward sensible expressions but morall duties Proved from Aquinas Cajetan Suarez His second reason His ignorance and confusion in it Necessity Liberty of three kinds What. He denies Christ to be the meritorious cause of our salvation He confounds Christs naturall liberty of will with the moral liberty of the action Contradicts Scripture Christ how no more free to the outward expression then the inward act How indifferent actions determined Christ how free to the use of outward expressions how not Proof from Suarez examined Grossely understood What Suarez intends Defenders advise to the Refuter 595 SECT the Last The close Refuters deliberate answer abortive His civility His appeal to the Readers judgement His stiling himself the Doctors Refuter His challenge of the Doctor to a rejoynder Clearness in dispute approved by the Defender Why the Refuter plainly dealt with The Libeller his own executioner Defenders proposal and promise The Refuter may take his leave for the present and if he please rest for ever Refuters strange complement at parting Why the Defender as the Refuter subscribes not his name but keeps unknown 638 Names of AUTHORS Cited Examined and Illustrated in this TREATISE A Aelianus Aelius Lampridius Ainsworth Alphonsus à Castro Ambrosius Amesius Andrews B. Aquinas Argentinus
omne quod possumus whatsoever we are and whatsoever we are able to do yet this * B. White Reply to Fishers answer Point 8. §. 3. pag. 533. C. Doctor Francis White in the very same Treatise and Paragraph does acknowledge and grant unto the Jesuite That a man may offer unto God a Freewill offering and yet herein he performeth no more then he is obliged unto by the Law of gratitude § 10. No clashing then here betwixt Doctor Hammond and Doctor White unless our Refuter will make that learned man first to quarrell with himself who positively grants and acknowledges that Truth which Doctor Hammond maintains § 11. But then though Doctor Hammond is not confuted yet thanks to our Ames Cardinall Bellarmine is confuted and confounded for all that § 12. And let him be so for me I owe him not so much service to come with a Candle and Lanthorn at Noon to find his Carcasse at the foot of your divinity chair Nor have I taken Fee from any of his Party to be an Advocate in his cause And I think they would but laugh at us both If I should undertake to make it good Let him and his Party stand and fall to their own Master I am sure they are of Age at least they pretend Antiquity enough and therefore let them speak for themselves § 13. Howsoever I shall express my present hasty thoughts of both places as well Bellarmines as Ames that to me they seem not to be so opposite as our Refuter would make his Reader believe and that the difference between them is rather in the expression then the thing it self And I believe that Bellarmine will not refuse to subscribe Ames his Retort and yet for all that Ames will not deny but that * Any men all men are bound to aspire to the perfection of holiness not the Perfection of Martyrdome Cawdreys triplex Diatribe pag. 109. Bellarmine speaks truth when he sayes all men are not bound to love God so as to be Martyrs or Virgins or what other else he calls states or Acts of Perfection And yet this is all that Bellarmine seems to me at least to drive at and if it were worth the enquiry I should be content to be taught this so wonderfull deep point as the understanding a piece in Bellarmine But the Reader if he please may turn to Bellarmine de Monachis l. 1. c. 13. Col. mihi 350. D. E. 351. A. Amesii Bellarmin Enervat tom 2. lib. 4. c. 2 § 42. pa. 161. § 14. But let Ames his Reply be as round and acute as our Refuter thinks fit I shall be so far from envying that commendations the Author does deserve in his pains against Bellarmine that I love and use to read him for it § 15. But what I pray is all this to Doctor Hammond is Bellarmines Ghost by any Pythagorean Metempsychosis transfused into the Doctor or has the Doctor wedded or embraced this saying of Bellarmine that Ames confutes How then is he concerned § 16. Without doubt very much For the vulgar Reader cannot chuse but think the Doctors opinion to be popishly affected because our Refuter in his answer to the Doctor so eagerly confutes Bellarmine and urges against him Doctor White and Doctor Ames § 17. It was an art of Cruelty practised against the Primitive Christians to put them into the skins of Wolves and Bears that they might be baited more fiercely in the Theaters And I remember to have read in Master Fox of one of our Martyrs that being condemned to the stake was forced to his execution in a coat all painted over with Devils that so the rabble and multitude of spectators might be moved by this dress so to loathe and hate the Person as not to take notice of his constancy and patience in his sufferings And if our Refuter had any such design I must look upon it as a very ungodly practise and a piece of Tyranny not much inferiour to that of Mezentius to couple the living and the dead that the ill favour of Bellarmines name might poyson the Doctors living spotless repute and kill it in the Breasts of those that read him but much more of those that read him not § 18. But if this was the design of our Refuter I must tell the Doctor for his comfort that he has not onely the Martyrs for his companions in this piece of Persecution but our Saviour also for his pattern and president He was cloathed in a purple Robe and he had a Reed for a Scepter and a crown of thorns on his head and they bowed the knee before him and cryed out hayl King though he alwayes professed his kingdome was not of this world and commanded us to Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars But I go on and so does our Refuter SECT 29. His Authorities oppose not the Doctor why urged by Protestants Bellarmine acknowledges the Places and Inference But such Love simply impossible even in Paradise How Austin Bernard hold it obligatory how not Bellarmine the Refuters adversary His Authorities from Aquinas Scotus His Charity to his Reader First from Aquinas answered His meaning Bellarmine and he agreed Doctor and all Protestants will subscribe to this of Aquinas His second from Aquinas Answered Perfection of Life state according to Aquinas not Pertinent Aquinas opinion summed up Scotus his manner of writing How God may be Loved above all things according to Scotus Henriquez opposed by him Love melting strong This Genuine that a Passion sensitive Scotus Love of God above all things Intensivè Extensivè agreeable to Chamier He rejects the Reason grounded on Austin Bernard His Authority pruned At large Contrary to the Refuters Inference from him His sense cleared from D'Orbellis Cavellus The sense of the old Schoolmen from Durand Austin and Bernard's opinion the same with Durands and the Doctors Proved How urged by Chamier These Fathers Opinion summed up What Perfection required of Christians according to them What proposed Refuters discourse impertinent Distinction Quatenus indicat Finem non quatenus praecipit Medium not invented by Bellarmine Taken from Aquinas By whom used to expound S. Austin Agreeable to Austin Cajetan for Free-will offerings § 1. FRom Reason he comes now to Authority JEANES For the further confirmation of this point Protestants alleadge the testimonies of diverse of the Fathers particularly Austin and Bernard as also of the antient Schoolmen who say this Command cannot be fullfilled in this life because it commands such a perfection of Love as is impossible to be attained in this life I shall not clog the Readers Patience c. § 2. For the Confirmation of this Point What Point I pray is this Sir Do you not Antipheron like of whom the Philosopher tells us that having a fault in his brain the Organs of his sight still carried his own Reflection and shape and effigies before him wheresoever he went And do you not all along in this controversie still
Jeanes and others guilty of this Propositio malè sonans as well as the Doctor The piouslycredible Proposition of the Schoolmen as the Refuter calls it much prejudices an assertion of his own in his Mixture but no whit the Doctor JEANES A Second argument is drawn from the perpetual and vn-interrupted happiness of Christ It is resolved both by Aquinas 3. q. 34. art 4. Scotus lib. 3. disp 18. and their followers that Christ in regard of his soul was even here in this life from the first moment of his conception all his life long unto his death perfectus Comprehensor and therefore he injoyed in his Soul all that was necessary unto heaven happiness And I find learned Protestants herein consenting with them Now 't is the unanimous opinion of the Schoolmen that a most intense actual Love of God an actual Love of God for Degrees as high as ardent as fervent as is according to God's ordinary Power possible unto the humane nature doth necessarily belong to the heaven-happiness of men The Scotists place the very formality of Happiness solely herein and Suarez with others think it essential unto happiness though he supposeth the essence of happiness not to consist wholy or chiefly in it And for the rest of the Thomists who hold that the essence of Happiness stands only in the Beatifical vision of God why even they make this actual most intense Love of God a natural and necessary consequent of the Beatifick vision § 1. To this I answer That it is most true as these Schoolmen determine that Christ by virtue of the hypostatical union was in the superiour part of his soul the mind Perfectus Comprehensor from the first Moment of his Conception and so he did love and enjoy God more perfectly then all the Saints and Angels did in heaven This was a necessary Consequent of the hypostatical union and the fulness of divine Grace Manifestum est saies Aquinas truly Quod Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis accepit non solum tantam gratiam quantam Aquin. 3. p. q. 34. art 4. in Corp. Comprehensores habent sed etiam omnibus comprehensoribus majorem Et quia gratia illa non suit sine actu consequens est quod actu fuerit Comprehensor videndo Deum per essentiam clarius caeteris creaturis § 2. But then it is as true that Christ at the same first Moment wherein he was Comprehensor in respect of his Soul was also in respect of the inferiour Faculties of that and the frail mortal passible condition of his Flesh a Viator too And this the same Aquinas has as expresly determined in the same 3 part of his Summes q. 15. art 10. And this is a most clear Scripture-truth in it self For ought not Christ to suffer saies he Luke 24. 26. himself and then to enter into his glory And therefore for the joy that was set before him saies the Apostle to the Hebrews he endured the Cross and despised the shame and is now set down on the Heb. 12. 2. Philip. 2. 6 7 8 9. right hand of God For though he were in the form of God and thought it no robbery to be equal with God yet he made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and humbled himself to death even the death of the cross wherefore God also hath highly exalted him In this state though he were a son yet learned he obedience by the things that he suffered In this state Heb. 5. 8. he prayed for his own after-exaltation as well as ours saying Father the hour is come glorifie thy Son that thy Son may also John 17. 1. glorifie thee In this state he merited as Suarez and some other of the Schoolmen determine his own exaltation in the flesh how truly or in what sense I now determine not but most certain it is and no man but the Socinian denies it that he merited ours And this is so clear a truth that I think not any of the Schoolmen that write upon the third of the Sentences or the third part of the Summes but acknowledge it And our Refuter himself if he had but consulted the places in Thomas and Scotus that here he referrs to might have found it For Aquinas in the very next words in his answer to the first objection saies Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est q. 19. art 3. Christus non meruit gloriam animae secundum quam dicitur Comprehensor sed gloriam corporis ad quam per suam passionem pervenit The answer in the Body of that article tert part q. 19. art 3. is long the summ is this Dicendum est quod Christus gloriam corporis ea quae pertinent ad exteriorem ejus excellentiam sicut est Ascensio Veneratio alia hujusmodi habuit per meritum And then immediately in his answer ad primum he saies Dicendum quod fruitio quae est actus Charitatis pertinet ad gloriam animae quam Christus non meruit ideo si per Charitatem aliquid meruit non sequitur quod idem sit meritum praemium Nec tamen per Charitatem meruit in quantum erat Charitas Comprehensoris sed in quantum erat Viatoris Nam ipse fuit simul Viator Comprehensor ut supra habitum est q. 15. art 10. Et ideo quia nunc non est Viator non est in statu merendi And then as for Scotus who in the 18th distinction most admirably disputes this question Vtrum Christus meruerit in primo instanti suae conceptionis he founds his whole discourse upon it § 3. This subtile School-man having first proposed divers arguments against the possibility of Christ's Merit which are all founded upon the fulnesse of Christ's happinesse as Comprehensor and to the very same purpose with this of our Refuter in the next place he proceeds to determine the question And having acknowledged the difficulty of it he goes on to define what Merit is and having Difficile videtur salvare quod meruerit Christus cum fuit beatus perfecte conjunctus fini secundum voluntatem in primo instanti Scotus l. 3. Sent. dist 18. q. unica § 4. p. 131. cleared that he proceeds to resolve that though the Saints and Angels in Heaven because they are Comprehensores were incapable of Merit yet Christ in the dayes of his flesh being not only Comprehensor but Viator too in this respect he was capable of meriting at Gods hands by Particular Covenant and Contract and that he did indirectly at least de facto merit his own exaltation in the flesh I shall for the Reader 's satisfaction transcribe one short passage and refer him to the Author for the rest Alii beati à Christo quia secundum totam voluntatem conjuncti sunt ultimo fini sc Deo affectione justitiae perfectissimae etiam habent summum commodum conjunctum
when Mahomet who has commanded his followers to oppose and persecute his worshippers has yet in his very Alcoran declared him to be a most holy man and the next great Prophet sent from God and therefore condemnes his own followers that blaspheme him for us Christians that acknowledge him our Saviour either directly or indirectly to pull the glorious Crown of Righteousness from his head is most hideous and protentous blasphemy And therefore I shall as readily as cheerfully as our Refuter pronounce Anathema to all such Conclusions that cast the least Umbrage and suspition of guilt upon our ever blessed Saviour And so I undertake shall Doctor Hammond and I am bold to promise our Refuter his thanks and most grateful acknowledgement if at any time he shall reclaim him from any such dangerous though by himself undiscovered Inferences § 9. But then secondly I must adde that because Christ was absolutely impeccable and could not sin therefore of necessity the Inward Acts of his Love and holy Charity could not be of the same equal Intenseness but must differ in gradual Perfection according to the Order of Charity that Gods Law requires and the different Participation of the Divine goodness in the several Objects of this Love § 10. Thirdly I grant that the first and great Commandement enjoynes us the most intense Actual Love of God that is possible command us it does to love God tanto nixu conatu quanto fieri potest with our utmost force and endeavour and with as high a degree of Actual Love as is possible for us to reach unto § 11. But then fourthly I must deny that it will follow that even the Acts of this Love this high transcendent Love that is immediately fixed on God are all equally intense though the Ardor of them must be still as intense as we are able For since as St. Austin and Bernard Aquinas and Scotus say truly that this commandement in that sense cannot perfectly be fulfilled in this life but it shall be then only in Heaven when man shall be totally united and joyned to God by virtue of the beatifical vision when God shall be all in all since also it is evident that this first and great Commandement obliges us to love God only with all our strength and not with more then ever we had at first in Adam before his fall and since it is also evident that Adam in innocency had not the same Abilities to love God in Paradise as the soul of the same Adam and the Spirits of all just men now made perfect have in Heaven and since it is also as evident as I shall also by and by and beyond all exception further demonstrate that Christ as considered in the state of a Viator had not the same Abilities to know and love God as he had at the same time as considered in the state of a Comprehensor and fully possessed of heaven happinesse and the full sight and Vision and enjoyment and fruition of God it will undenyably follow that even in the Acts of this high transcendent Love of God there was and must be acknowledged a Gradual difference in respect of Ardor and Intensenesse according to the difference of his Abilities as considered in the state of a Viator and as considered in the state of a Comprehensor § 12. Fifthly I grant that Christ as Man had in his humane soul as considered in the state of a Comprehensor in the superiour part of it the Mind farr greater abilities for the Actual Love of God then Adam had in Paradise because from the first Moment of his Conception and Birth by virtue of the hypostatical Vnion he had greater Abilities for this Love then all the Saints and Angels in heaven And therefore I do also grant that the inward Acts of this his Love as Comprehensor were alwaies One without any Interruption or Gradual Variation these were alwaies at the height and the same equal intensenesse because they were alwaies in Termino and not free Acts of the Will but Necessary effects of the Beatifical Vision § 13. But then sixthly I must add what our Refuter ha's in his Mixture of Scholastical Divinity with Practical told us Jeanes mixture pag. 261. concerning our blessed Saviour as considered in the state of a Viator That it is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation there was some restraint of the influence of his happinesse or beatifical vision in the whole course of his humiliation and particularly in the time of his doleful passion But though truly as he addes immediately it seemes very improbable and no waies sortable unto the state of Christs blessednesse for his grace and holinesse the Image of God in him his love of God c. to wit in the habit as these Phrases signifie to be lyable to perpetual motion and augmentation yet because let me add his Abilities during this restraint of the Influence of his happinesse and as considered in the state of a Viator were not the same as now they are in the state of a Comprehensor the Intensenesse and Ardor in the Acts of his Love now must be higher then they were during that Restraint But much more must this be allowed that there was a Gradual difference in the Acts of his Love if as our Refuter in his Mixture undertakes to demonstrate that Jeanes his mixture p. 250 our Saviour did as truly increase in the inward Acts of Wisdom and Grace as he did in Stature § 14. But then seventhly let me add that if the Inward Acts of this Love of God were not alwaies equal but did Gradually differ because they did Gradually increase it will not therefore follow that our Saviour must be concluded guilty with all humble reverence be it spoken of the breach of the first and great Commandement For he that alwaies loves God with all his Soul and might and strength that loves him to the utmost of his ability that he ha's by Gods gift and not weakened by sin nor impaired by his own fault loves him pro praesenti statu as much as that Law does require and if as his Abilities do increase his Love does constantly still increase he still loves God according to that duty and measure which that Law does require though the Acts of this Love are now more intense than they were formerly And thus it was in Christ at least as compared in the state of a Viator with himself as considered in the state of a Comprehensor The Acts then of this his Love were alwaies holy and most conformable to Gods Law and still in suo genere perfect though they were not all equal in Gradual Intensenesse and all simply and absolutely perfect as now they are where he sits at the Right hand of God And therefore even in respect of these Acts it will not follow that though they were not alwaies equal in gradual perfection his Obedience to this Commandement was therefore imperfect
esse Comprehensorem Viatorem non repugnat Merito ut aliquo modo fundetur in ipsa visione Comprehensoris sed solum repugnat illi ut formaliter ac per se pertineat ad statum Comprehensoris ut sic Vnde sicut scientia beata existens in Viatore potest esse ratio prophetandi it a etiam potest esse principium vel fundamentum merendi dici potest ille actus Viatoris ut sic quia ipsa visio non potest ad illum actum ut meritorius est deservire nisi prout est in Viatore Dico primo Christum habuisse actum amoris Dei liberum supernaturalem elicitum à charitate ab amore beatifico distinctum illo actu perfectissime meruisse It a intelligo Sententiam D. Thomae hic solutione ad primum dicentis meruisse Christum per charitatem non in quantum erat charitas Comprehensoris sed in quantum erat Viatoris ubi de charitate loquitur prout terminatur ad Deum Et non potest exponi de uno eodem actu charitatis Dei ut sub una ratione sit meritorius non sub alia quia non potest idem actus numero prout tendit in idem indivisibile objectum atque adeo secundum eandem indivisibilem entitatem esse liber necessarius quia hae duae proprietates includunt contradictionem ergo non potest idem actus indivisibilis esse meritorius ut est Viatoris non ut est Comprehensoris praesertim quia ille actus licet materialiter ut ita dicam potuerit dici Viatoris quia fuit in Christo etiam eo tempore quo fuit viator formaliter autem propriè non dici potest pertinuisse ad Christum ut Viatorem Intelli endus est ergo D. Thomas de charitate operante per diversos actus quorum alter consequitur visionem beatam ut sie dicitur charitas Comprehensoris alter vero versatur circa Deum ut cognitum per scientiam infusam quae ut sic dicitur charitas viatoris c. Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 39. sect 2. per totum To this for the further clearing of the whole I should adde another passage in the same Author and the same Treatise disp 37. sect 4. p. 518. But it is quoted after and thither I refer the Reader § 19. To give the sum of this discourse from Suarez First plain it is that Christ in the daies of his Flesh was truly Viator and in statu merendi Secondly It is essentiall to Merit that the Meritorious Act be freely and voluntarily performed Thirdly Christ did truly merit otherwise we must deny him to be the Meritorious Cause of our Salvation and turn downright Socinians Fourthly He merited not only by the Inward Acts of that Love which was the consequent of his supernaturally infused knowledge of God but also by the Inward Acts of Charity and Love to his own Glory and his Love to us Men his Neighbors and all Inward Acts of all Virtues and Graces whether Infused or Acquisite as also by those other free Acts of his Will of a more inferiour Alloy such as Suarez calls ordinis naturalis his Natural Love of God Since then that all these were not could not be equal in themselves and with that high transcendent Act of his Love that was immediately yet freely seated upon God it necessarily follows that as he merited by them all though all were not of the same height and Gradual Perfection so he was not cannot be concluded guilty of the breach of the first and great Commandement though they differed from one another in gradual perfection because he truly did merit by every one of them Quâ—d erat demonstrandum § 20. But then though this be abundantly sufficient to acquit the Doctors assertion from the least suspition and umbrage of that so dangerous crimination yet I shall further demonstrate it from our Refuters own Concessions and that so clearly that either Sampson-like he must involve himself as well as his adversary in the same common ruine or else retract his so uncharitable aspersion For first in his Mixture he expresly grants that Christ in the Jeanes his mixture of Scholastical c. p 261. daies of his Flesh was not purè Comprehensor but also Viator and if he should not he must contradict the Scriptures that in many places assert it Secondly he expresly grants that Christ in the daies of his flesh did as truly grow in the Inward Acts of Wisdom and Jeanes Mixture of Scholast p. 249 250. Jeanes Mixture of Scholast p. 261. actuai apprehension and Grace as he did in Stature Thirdly he saies It is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation there was some restraint of his happiness or beatifical vision in the whole course of his humiliation and particularly in the time of his doleful passion § 21. From hence I argue that if Christ did truly and not in Appearance grow and receive Increase in the Inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace then the utmost height and degree of Actual Grace and holy Love is not alwaies pro hic nunc required by that first and great Commandement because Christ was impeccable and it was impossible for him to sin § 22. Secondly I argue that if Christ was truly Viator in the daies of his flesh then as Viator and in that state and respect he could not love God so highly so ardently by virtue of the infused Habit of divine Love as he did as considered in the state of a Comprehensor or as now he does at the right hand of God because as our Refuter maintaines from Austin and Bernard Aquinas and Scotus this Precept of Loving God perfectly cannot be fulfilled in this life but only in Patria quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus § 23. Thirdly I argue that if Christ as Viator had not could not have the same Abilities to love God with the same fervour and ardency as he has as Comprehensor therefore there must of necessity be a gradual difference in the Acts of his Love as Comprehensor and Viator because our Refuter has told us in his first Argument from Hurtado that Intensio actus secundi supponit aequalem intensionem in actu primo cum actus secundus supponit primum § 24. And now that the Viator differs in Abilities from the Comprehensor as it is clear to any that understands the very terms so plain also it is because the Viator knows God and his Goodness only by Infused knowledge and Revelation and the other by Actual Apprehension the one only tasts and sees how good he is by Grace and the other actually enjoyes him by fruition in Glory And since our Love must still be proportionable to our Knowledge the more we see and injoy God the more are we enabled and the more perfectly we love God For we know in part and we prophesie in part But when
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
by us as in regard of our own strength and vigour so that we can not love beyond it Fourthly that then we shall truly love God with all the heart when we shall do nothing else but love him and perfectly obey his Lawes which will not cannot be so long as any motion of evil concupiscence dwells in us which will be so long as we are in the Flesh Fifthly that his Opinion in this Point is the same with St. Austins and the ancient Fathers and this is all he undertakes to make good against Bellarmine § 56. And therefore if it appear as I doubt not but it will anon that St. Austin and Bernard Aquinas and the old Schoolmen were of opinion that this absolute sinless perfection and uninterrupted actual Love of God was not attainable in this life and therefore could not be obligatory to believers sub periculo animae to attain it but was only so far commanded as that we should aspire to it only so far proposed as the Object of our hopes and aimes and endeavours and that we should labour as much as in us lies to come up to the Perfection of Saints it being the prime Jewel the brightest aureola and glory of their Crown of happinesse that we should earnestly long for our translation and desire a better life wherein dwells righteousnesse that upon consideration of it we should be humbled in our Pride empty conceipts of Perfection and be admonished of our Frailty and infirmity and that we should be instructed that by the works of the Law no flesh living can be justified and that therefore we have all reason to rejoice that now we are not under the Law which requires exact unsinning obedience but Grace and the second Covenant which requires Faith and Repentance and our utmost and most sincere and hearty Endeavours to serve God in holiness and righteousnesse and conformity to all his Commandements all the dayes of our lives it will evidently follow that Chamier also meant the same And then there will be a perfect harmony and agreement between him and the Doctor whatsoever becomes of Bellarmine § 57. And now let me desire our Refuter to review this Recapitulation and Summary of Chamier's opinion in this point and let him tell me if it be not the very same with that of Grotius Let him consider and deal impartially and say whether it be not all one in substance with that of the learned Author of the Additions to the Reverend Bishop Andrews his Pattern of Catechistical Doctrin Let him tell me whether there be any thing in this Opinion of Chamier that is not to be found in the Doctor For does he not expresly say that we must love God above all things and as much as possibly we can that we must not acquiesce in any one degree of holiness but that we must grow in grace till we come to be perfect men in Christ Jesus and still improve our Talents till we be called to our Audit does he not say that though exact unsinning obedience this absolute perfection be not attainable in this life yet renewed sincere honest faithful obedience is required to the whole Gospel that we give up the whole heart to Christ and sincerely labour to mortifie every lust and perform uniform obedience to God still bewayling our infirmities and sins and from every fall rising again by Repentance and Reformation Saies he not in effect all along that though Believers are not bound sub periculo animae to attain to exact unsinning obedience that being the Condition only of the first Covenant and not at all concerning us now to Justification because we are not under the Law but under Grace yet by the Tenour of the second Covenant we must aspire to it and endeavour after it as much as we can because the Tenour of the second Covenant requires our utmost endevours to obey God in all his Commandements to love him with the whole heart and will and affections and understanding to improve our Talents to the utmost advantage and that the more God enables us by his Grace the more we should labour to love him and that having these promises we should cleanse our selves from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord § 58. Nay saies he not expressy and in termes terminant as they speak in the Schooles That Piety is one of those vertues which Hammond Treatise of Will-worship §. 16. have such width of Compass that the larger they are they are also so much more commendable To which that of the Son of Sirach is agreeable Ecclus 43. 30. When you glorifie the Lord exalt him as much as you can for even he yet will far exceed and when you exalt him put forth all your strength for you can never go far enough i. e. How far so ever you exceed the particular Command you are yet within the compass of the general this general command of Love on which hang all the Law and the Prophets and in respect of that can never be thought to have done enough though the particular Act or Degree of it be somewhat that you are not particularly obliged to § 59. And now if this come not home to that exposition of Chamier which our Refuter has quoted in the Margin I shall never expect to find a Parallel or that the Print and the Seal the Face and the Shape and Reflexion in the Glass should ever agree and be alike And therefore if after a second review of this his Charge he shall not find any the least passage in that quotation rightly understood that I shall not also parallel in Doctor Hammond and those of his Opinion I shall in Justice expect that he should blot out this Calumny also and say that he was mistaken in the Doctors opinion and acknowledge that it is the very same with Chamier's and of all other Protestants that understand what they say and are willing to say no more against Papists then they are able to maintain For as for his friend Mr. Cawdrey's Addition to this exposition it plainly appears by the Doctors answer that he is not able to make it good and I doubt not but our Refuter will be found as weak as he in his defence of a known untruth which admits of no rational Medium to make it good § 60. Nay I doubt not if it were worth while to the Doctors vindication from this aspersion of complyance with Papists to prove all that our Refuter with any colour or shew quarrels at even in Mr. Cawdrey himself and in that very Treatise that was purposely writ against the Treatise of Will-worship § 61. For saies he not expresly The degree of Grace binds to a gradual improvement To whom more is given more is required Triplex Diatribe p. 103. 104. Saies he not again Every man is bound to be merciful to his ability as our heavenly Father is merciful which sure is the highest
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
qui ad hoc principaliter intendunt ut in eis charitas per augmentum roboretur Tertium autem studium est ut homo ad hoc principaliter intendat ut Deo inhaereat eo fruatur hoc pertinet ad perfectos qui cupiunt dissolvi esse cum Christo sicuti etiam vidimus in motu corporali quod primum est recessus â termino secundum autem est appropinquatio ad alium terminum Tertium est quies in termino § 14. And now I appeal to all the world whether Aquinas be not a fit man for our Refuter to build upon For what one opinion of * Vid. Davenant de Justit habit Act. c. 39. p. 458 459. c. 41. p. 469. Perfection and Merit and Evangelicall Counsells and supererogation is to be found in Bellarmine that is not in Aquinas Nay what one Argument or answer is there that Chamier and Ames find fault with in Bellarmine in these very controversies that may not be matched and indeed were not borrowed and transcribed from Aquinas doctrine § 15. The truth is Aquinas in these very places cited by our Refuter affirms nothing but what even Bellarmine grants and if that may content him Doctor Hammond also will subscribe to even in these very places of Aquinas that our Refuter has here cited Bellarmine was too subtle and the Angelicall Doctor as they call him had too Aquiline a wit and eagle-ey'd Judgement to write palpable contradictions Indeed this opinion of the Cardinals in this Particular is easily reconcileable with that of S. Austin and Aquinas himself has chalked him out the way In this Aquinas and Scotus and the old Schoolmen and Bellarmine let me adde and the Doctor and all Protestants too that write not for Passion and Interest agree and all accord with S. Austin and Bernard who say the same with the Doctor and Bellarmine and Aquinas and the Schoolmen And Truth is venerable and lovely from whose mouth soever it comes and a Prophet may be fed with that meat a Raven brings to him nor is it therefore polluted in the use because an unclean bird hath touched or brought it to us § 16. And therefore now being secure of the meaning of Aquinas I shall not be very sollicitous for an answer to your next Quotation from that Author Indeed if you had rendered the whole determination entire the place would have answered it self § 17. Thus then it lyes at large and let the Reader be judge how it advantages your assertion The Question is Vtrum Perfectio consistat in Praeceptis an in Consiliis For the determination of this question thus he answers in Corp. Dicendum quod Perfectio dicitur in aliquo consistere dupliciter uno modo per se essentialiter alio modo Secundario accidentaliter Per se quidem essentialiter consistit Perfectio Christianae vitae in charitate principaliter quidem secundum dilectionem Dei Secundariò autem secundum dilectionem proximi de quibus praecepta generalia divinae legis ut dictum est Non autem dilectio Dei Proximi this is the passage quoted by our Refuter cadit sub praecepto secundum aliquam mensuram ita quod id quod est plus sub Consilio remaneat ut patet ex formâ praecepti quae perfectionem demonstrat cum dicitur Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo totum enim perfectum idem sunt secundum Philosophum 3. Phys cum dicitur Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum unusquisque enim seipsum maxime diligit Et hoc ideo est quia finis praecepti charitas est ut Apost dicit 1. ad Tim. 1. In fine autem non adhibetur aliqua mensura sed solum in his quae sunt ad sinem ut Philos dicit in 1. Polit. sicut Medicus non adhibet mensuram quantum sanet sed quantâ medicinâ vel diaetâ utatur ad sanandum sic patet quod Perfectio essentialiter consistit in praeceptis unde Augustinus dicit in libro de Perfectione Justitiae Cur ergo non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamvis eam in hâc vit â nemo habeat Secundariò autem instrumentaliter Perfectio consistit in Consiliis quae omnia sicut praecepta ordinantur ad charitatem sed aliter aliter Nam Praecepta alia à praeceptis charitatis ordinantur ad removendum ea quae sunt charitati contraria cum quibus scil charitas esse non potest consilia autem ordinantur ad removendum impedimenta actus charitatis quae tamen charitati non contrariantur Sicut est matrimonium occupatio negotiorum secularium alia hujusmodi unde Augustinus dicit in Enchiridio Quaecunque mandat Deus ex quibus unum est Non moechaberis quaecunque non jubentur sed speciali consilio monentur ex quibus unum est Bonum est homini mulierem non tangere tunc recte fiunt cum referuntur ad diligendum Deum proximum propter Deum Et ideò est quod in collationibus Patrum dicit Abbas Moses Jejunia vigiliae meditatio Scripturarum nuditas ac privatio omnium facultatum non perfectio sed perfectionis instrumenta sunt quia non in ipsis consistit disciplinae illius finis sed per illa pervenitur ad finem Et supra praemisit quod ad perfectionem charitatis istis gradibus ascendere nitimur Thus Aquinas 2. 2. q. 184. art 3. in corp § 18. The summe is that there is according to this Authour a twofold Perfection The one of the Christian life and the other of the Christian state The first consists in charity and the loving God and our neighbours This has no bounds or limits and let a man do here what he can he can never do enough because charity is the end of the Precept and no man deliberates how much or how little he should obtain of his end but simply to obtain it Now this being not acquirable in this life but onely in the next let us endeavour as much as we can to come to the height of it yet we shall never attain it Howsoever fit it was that it should be prescribed by the commandment that man might know what to aim at and that he should labour to attain his last end But then as for that other Accidentall perfection of state which is onely instrumentall and subservient to the attainment of the former that remains under counsell and contains uncommanded Acts and has uncommanded degrees though the precepts of Charity towards God and our neighbours have not In these all men are absolutely obliged and nothing remains to counsell and Freedome and discretion but onely in the other § 19. And what is all this to our Refuters design How little let the very same Aquinas tell him in his answers to the first second and third objections in that very article I shall onely acquaint the Reader with
the Second Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut Augustinus dicit in lib. de Perfectione Justitiae Perfectio charitatis homini in hâc vita praecipitur quia non rectè curritur si quo currendum est nesciatur Quomodo autem hoc sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur Cum autem id quod cadit sub praecepto diversimodè possit impleri non efficitur transgressor praecepti aliquis ex hoc quod non optimo modo implet sed sufficit quod quocunque modo impleat illud Perfectio autem divinae dilectionis universaliter quidem cadit sub praecepto ita quod etiam perfectio Patriae non excluditur ab illo praecepto ut dicit Augustinus sed transgressionem Praecepti evadit qui quocunque modo perfectionem divinae dilectionis attingit Est autem infimus divinae dilectionis gradus ut nihil supra eum aut contra eum aut aequaliter ei diligatur A quo gradu Perfectionis qui deficit nullo modo implet praeceptum Est autem alius gradus perfectae dilectionis qui non potest impleri in viâ ut dictum est art praecedenti à quo qui deficit manifestum est quod non est transgressor praecepti Et similiter non est transgressor praecepti qui non attingit ad medios Perfectionis gradus dummodò attingat ad infimum § 20. In short he that shall read the first second third and fourth Articles of this Question shall find Aquinas opinion to be this 1. That the Perfection and last end of man consists in that Love that wholy unites man to God 2. That this Love is not attainable in this life because the state of this life admits not possibly that we should so love God as the Saints in heaven do because they are at the end and we but in the way to it 3. That yet this Love though onely attainable in the next life is proposed to our desires and aimes and commanded we are to endeavour after it as much as we can because it is our Last end and Perfection 4. That the best way to attain this Perfection is to Love God as much as possibly we can in this life and because this Perfection of Love is mans Last end therefore he must never deliberate how much he must love God since that agrees not to the end but the means and consequently we must think that we can never love him sufficiently or more then enough 5. That therefore God commands us in this life by that great precept of Charity that we love him withall our heart and strength and endeavour and that this is the duty of a Christian required in that Commandment for the attainment of that end that consists in a perfect union with God 6. That because the abilities of men are diverse and the callings and conditions of men not alike and the Gifts and dispensations of Grace variable and mens endeavours not alwayes the same and equall in the use and imployments of those Talents some may more perfectly fulfill the Commandment and love God more perfectly then others 7. That he that attains the lowest degree of divine Charity that consists in avoiding of all mortall sin has fulfilled this commandment 8. That this is the lowest degree of divine Charity and the fullfilling this commandment 9. That there is an accidentall Perfection of state and calling that is helpfull and instrumentall to the attaining the highest degree of divine charity attainable in this life 10. That in respect of this state there is something left to Evangelicall counsell and freedome and choice and that herein may be a freewill offering of love unto God and in this respect a man may do more for his sake then God requires by any Particular command 11. That there is nothing left to Counsell and choice in the precepts that per se and essentialiter concern the love of God and our neighbour but all we can do in them and our utmost endeavour to perform them is under the command 12. That an absolute sinless perfection and an uninterrupted act of divine Love is the portion of the Saints and not attainable in this life and not the duty of the Commandment though the last end and happiness of the Man 13. That the Christian perfection enjoyned in this commandment to be laboured after and practised by us in this life may consist with those they call veniall sins § 21. This and much more to this purpose may be found in that Author and not onely in this Question but also in the 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. where he handles the Questions of Charity at large and with him agree the antient and the modern Schoolmen as will be evident to any man that shall consult them And now how contrary these and the like assertions are to the design of our Refuter I shall leave any man to judge and how much hand over head Aquinas his authority was called in by him for his defence § 22. Nor is he more happy in his next quotation from Scotus which place if considered according to the scope of the Author fairly answers it self § 23. That subtle Doctor there disputes utrum sit aliqua virtus Theologica inclinans ad diligendum Deum super omnia He affirms it l. 3. sent dist 27. q. unica In the handling this question he delivers many profound and acute and subtle and yet very usefull things but then according to his manner of writing he goes not on in an even course and method but suddenly leaps from one thing to another which is the cause of his obscurity to those that read him only en passant with a more quick and transeent eye For usually such sublime acute wits that move in the highest orbe and so transcendent a Sphere like the fixed stars they cast forth their light sparkling and with a kinde of trembling scintillation They are wits of a lower station that cast forth their lustre in one constant even orderly Ray. And though these because they are neerer to our apprehension seem to have a more pleasant and far clearer brightness yet the other though by reason of their height and distance from the eye they seem to have a weaker and more inconstant trembling shine and not to give so much light in themselves are stars of a far greater magnitude and brightness though to us they seem otherwise But to come to the business § 24. That subtle Doctor § 16 17. whence this quotation is borrowed first distinguishes and sayes God may be loved above all things 1. Extensivè ita ut plus quis diligat Deum quam omnia alia citius vellet omnia alia non esse quam Deum that is as others God may be loved above all things Objectivè and Appretiativè 2. Intensivè quando quis ex majori affectu vult Deo benè quam alicui alteri And then he resolves that all do agree that God is extensively to be loved above
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
counsels but perfection life does not aff 491 492 493. Whether Scotus maintains that the first great law of love requires that perfection of Christians by way of duty that is onely attainable in heaven neg 496 c. Whether Durand maintains the same neg 504 c. Whether S. Austin and S. Bernard do assert the same neg 509 c. Whether the distinction of Quatenus indicat finem and quatenus praecipit medium were invented by Bellarmine to avoid the Refuters testimonies of Aquinas and Scotus 517 c. and whether it is agreeable to the sense of S. Austin aff 519. Whether the clear intuitive knowledge and happiness and necessary love of Christ as comprehensor had any influence on or altered the nature and freedome of the acts of his love and virtues and graces as viator neg 522 c 529 634 635 636 637. Whether Christ as comprehensor though he had alwayes sufficient cause to love God to the utmost height yet could have any more grounds and motives thus to love then he had occasions neg 530. 531. Whether as viator he might have occasions grounds and motives to heighten his love and ardency in prayer aff 532 533. Whether as viator he were capable of hope aff 535 536. Whether the love of desire and complacency immediately fixed on God were in Christ as viator capable of increase and de facto augmented aff 533 534 535 536 537 538. Whether it may be rightly inferred from this saying of S. Austin Charitas quam diu augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est that to ascribe growth to the ardency of Christs actuall love is to charge it with imperfection and sin neg 550. Whether the phrase ex vitio est be to be causally understood as denoting our originall corruption aff 558 c. What was S. Austins opinion concerning original sin and whether all born in it aff 560 c. 605 606 c. Whether the Refuter be very unjustly confident that besides this Replyer D. Hammond no learned man either Protestant or Papist hath ascribed any such growth to the actuall love of God And whether severall eminently Learned both Protestants and Papists have asserted it aff 570. c. How Christ might increase in actuall grace the habituall still continuing in one equal fullness 583 584 585. Whether the first Covenant since the fall of man were ever in force to justification or obligatory by way of duty to any but Christ neg 605 c. Whether God under the second Covenant requires sinless perfection to the justification of believers neg or onely faith and evangelicall righteousness aff 460 462 610 611 612. Whether from the more profuse pouring out of the outward expressions of devotion at the time of our Saviours agony may rightly be concluded the increase of his inward ardency aff 598 c. Whether Aquinas means by the exterior acts of charity moral duties and not outward sensible expressions aff 617 c. Whether the will of Christ had the same equall natural and proper freedome to the inward acts of love and the outward expressions of it aff 628 629. Whether Christ had more morall freedome and indifferency to many or most of the outward acts and sensible expressions then to the inward acts of charity neg 629 630 631. Or might indifferently use any outward gestures or actions or expressions in prayer then what pro hic nunc were prudentially decent and fit neg 632 c. Whether every act of piety and charity that is meritorious or remunerable is quoad exercitium and in individuo determined in respect of outward circumstances affirm 632. Whether Suarez asserts that the will of Christ had a naturall and proper freedome or active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward sensible expressions onely and not to the inward acts of the love of God or holy charity neg 633 c. Authors omitted in the Catalogue Petrus S. Joseph Suarez F. Errata Epist ded p. 4. l. 26. Raunandus Raynaudus Treatise p. 123. l. 21. love good 139 8. intrinseco extrinseco 167. 13. inward outward 377. 23. perfectly perfect 387. 24. aliud aliud nisi 393. 23. the form and that form of 415. 32. Deum ex parte De um amari ex parte 422. 6. de quibus praecepta de quibus dantur praecepta 562. 11. ut omnino non ut omnino 581. 24. as with out as we in all things without 640. l. 12. would call would you call Smaller literall escapes the Reader will amend and pardon THE END A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane London Books written by Doctor Hammond and Printed for Richard Royston and Richard Davis A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Hen. Hammond D. D. in fol. the second Edition enlarged 2. A Paraphrase Annotations upon the books of the Psalms briefly explaining the difficulties thereof by Hen. Hammond D. D. fol. new 3. The Practical Catechism with other English Treatises in two volumes in 4. 4. Dissertationes quatuor quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis Primaeva Antiquitate adstâ—uuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum in 4. 5. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries in 12. 6. Of Schism A defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists in 12. 7. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice in 12. 8. Paraenesis or a seasonable exhortation to all true sons of the Church of England in 12. 9. A Collection of several Replies and Vindications published of late most of them in defence of the Church of England now put together in four volumes Newly published in 4. 10. The Dispatcher Dispatch'd in Answer to a Roman Catholick Book intituled Schism Dispatch'd in 4. new 11. A Review of the Paraphrase and Annotations on all the Books of the New Testament with some additions alterations in 8. 12. Some profitable directions both for Priest and people in two Sermons in 8. new Books and Sermons written by J. Taylor D. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays of the year together with a discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity Sacrednesse and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ third Edition in fol. 3. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12. 4. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying in 12. 5. The Golden Grove or A Manuall of daily Prayers fitted to the daies of the week together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness in 12. 6. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance rescued from popular Errors in a large 8. newly published 7. A Collection of Polemical and Moral discourses in fol. newly reprinted 8. A Discourse of the Nature Offices and Measure of Friendship in 12. new 9. A Collection of Offices or forms of prayer fitted to the needs of all Christians taken out of the Scriptures and Ancient Liturgies of severall Churches especially the Greek together with the Psalter or Psalms of David after the Kings Translation in a large octavo newly published 10. Ductor Dubitantium or Cases of Conscience fol. in two vol. Now in the Press Books written by Mr. Tho. Pierce Rector of Brington THe Christians Rescue from the grand error of the heathen touching the fatal necessity of all events in 5. Books in 4. new The new Discoverer Discover'd by way of Answer to Mr. Baxter with a rejoynder to his Key for Catholicks and Disputations about Church government 4. new The Sinner Impleaded in his own Court whereunto is added the grand Characteristick whereby a Christian is to be known in 12. newly printed The Lifelesness of Life on the hither side of Immortality with a timely caveat against procrastination Books in Fol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae Anglicane Suspiria The Tears Sighs Complaints and Prayers of the Church of England setting forth her former Constitution compared with her present condition also the visible Causes and probable Cures of her Distempers by John Gauden D. D. of Bocken in Essex fol. new The Royalists defence printed at Oxon. 4. The Regall apology printed at Oxon. 4. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas by the Archbishop of Tuam 4. printed at Oxon The Image unbroken or a vindication of his Majesties Book entituled A Pourtraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his solitudes and sufferings in 4. by B. Bramhall in a reply to Milton Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae or the Works of that Great Monarch and Glorious Martyr King Charles the first 8. with a short view of his Life and Death Place this CATALOGUE at the end of the Book The End