humane Nature though performed by a Divine person being in their own Physical entity finite and consequently so also in respect of that moral goodness that is intrinsecally inhaerent in them nothing hinders but that one in this respect may be better and more intensely perfect then another as well as one grief and torment which he suffered was greater then another And therefore the same Suarez even in that very Page and Columne and in the § immediatly preceding that passage that our Refuter has quoted Suarez in 3 m p. Thom. tom 1. disp 4. sect 4. p. apud me 46. col 1. A. B. expresly saies to this purpose Primum omnium fatendum esse opera Christi fuisse inaequalia in propria bonitate intrinseca essentiali vel realiter inhaerente ipsi actui quia ut dictum est tota haec bonit as erat sinita poterat ergo esse major minor aliunde unum opus Christi erat melioris Objecti quam aliud unum intensius alio sic de aliis circumstantiis ergo erant vel poterant esse inaequalia in hac bonitate And will not every man think that our Refuter was a man of great Judgement and Parts and fit to quote Suarez against Doctor Hammond But I rather think he was misguided by some Notes and that he never consulted the Authors he quotes but took them upon trust otherwise methinks it is impossible he should be so strangely deceived § 13. Well then it being so clear and evident in it self and so acknowledged by our Refuters own Suarez for Albertinus I have not by me that though every Act of Christ in respect of the Person that performed it was of infinite and so of an equal intensive value yet in respect of the real entity and substance of the Act and the Moral goodness inhering in it it was sinite as the Humane nature it self wherein it was performed nothing hinders but they being finite might exceed one another in gradual perfection and intenseness in that moral goodness that was intrinsecally inherent in them § 14. Seeing then that nothing ab intrinseco hinders but that this might be so the Doctor now like a rational man and a Scholar here brings his Medium to prove that de facto it was so § 15. And as the subject matter of the present discourse was only the moral goodness and different gradual perfection in the Acts of this habitual Grace so he makes use of such Medium's that properly concern that Subject The Moral value arising from the Dignity of the Person that performed it would make nothing to the purpose And therefore though he knew it as well as our Refuter yet being loth contrary to the lawes of Art and Method transire à Genere ad Genus he would take no notice of it but keep close to the present argument § 16. And prov'd his assertion he has by a very clear and apposite medium his Argument rightly proceeding from the Reward to the Work For though all the Actions of Christ as weighed in the scale of Merit at the great Tribunal were valued actually valued I say according to the dignity of the Person and not the finite goodness really inherent in the Acts yet nothing hinders but even the gradual perfection in the Acts themselves their multiplied numbers and works as they may and were by God considered in themselves so a◠thus in and by themselves considered they may be more or less valuable so might be capable of a greater reward though de facto they were not so valued but according to the dignity of the Person And therefore nothing hinders but from this different valuableness of the goodness of the outward Acts the sincerity and intenseness of the inward Acts might be collected For most plain it is that the Scriptures tell us that God rewards every man according to his work And therefore if God de facto thus proceed in the rewarding of the Acts of all other men the Acts operations of the vertues of Christ as considered according to their own real and intrinsick goodness might be valuable also in his sight For why that Moral goodness intrinsecally inherent in the Act and à qua as Suarez tells us Actus dicitur bonus moraliter actus virtutis should not in the Actions of Christ be valuable in Gods sight I see no reason since it is so in respect of all other men besides And this was that which the Doctor alone aimed at For this is all that he saies The very multiplication of more Acts of any vertue supposing it equally sincere in the Habit and such is the length of Prayer when it is in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God that argues it more excellent then the smaller number of those Acts would be § 17. And if I be not very much deceived the Scripture speaks very agreeably to this purpose For it tells us expresly that | Rom. 5. 8. God commendeth his love toward us in that whilst we were yet sinners Christ died for us And is it not the commendation of Christ's Love that he * Gal. 2. 20. loved us and gave himself for us And if as our Saviour himself testifies †Joh. 15. 13. Vide Bernard in Serm. Feriae 4. hebdomadae ◠tae Joh. 10. 15. 17. Addo quarto si considerentur opera Christi ut erant sub divina ordinatione sub relatione illius operantis plus meruisse vel satisfecisse toto vitae suae tempore quam singulis operibus aliquid effecisse seu obtinuisse uno tempore non alio c. Ex hoc enim intelligitur quinto quamobrem redemptio nostra passioni morti Christi specialiter tribuatur cum non per solam illam sed per omnia opera quae in vita mortali Christus operatus est nobis meruerit pro nobis satisfecerit Ratio est c. Vide ampl Suarez in tert part Thom. tom 1. disp 1. sect 4. p. 50. col 1. F. col .... A. B. C. and immediately after it follow the words cited by the Refuter against the Doctor that greater love has no man then to lay down his life for his friend then it must be the most transcendent Act of love in Christ to die for his enemies And that so it was valuable and accounted in Gods sight seemes evident to me from that saying of our Saviour who tells us that therefore does his Father love him because he laid down his life for the sheep § 18. But the Doctor seems not much to insist upon this argument for in the Introduction to it he saies I need not adde what else I might and therefore I shall forbear the further prosecution of it and go on to the next Section SECT 16. The second part of the Refuters second answer The distinct Confession of all the Doctor pretends to The English translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
is an order in the acts and degrees of love Asserted by the Schools Of the order in the love of Christ The habit of love to God and our neighbours one and the same quality proved God and our neighbours not to be loved with the same equality and degree of affection Actus efficaces inefficaces what they are That they were in Christ Of the gradual difference between them Hence demonstratively proved that the first great law of charity Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart c. does not alwayes oblige us pro hic nunc to the highest degree and noblest act of Divine love Of the gradual difference between the free and necessary acts of Christs love Phrase actuall love distinguished The acts and operations of grace in Christ were neither intensively nor extensively still commensurate with the habit Proved In what sense Aquinas's rule urged by the Refuter holds 205 SECT XIV The Doctors discourse here onely ad hominem The Refuters reply grants all that the Doctors argument aims at Where the degrees of any Quality particularly the love of Christ are for number multiplyed in the same subject there the quality particularly the love is more intense Proved This inferrs not Intension to be a meer coacervation of homogeneous degrees The Refuter reaches not the Doctors meaning The Doctor argues from the effect to the cause The reasonableness of the proof The onely way to conclude the servour of the inward devotion by the outward performance Length and continuance in prayer an argument of high zeal Suarez and Hurtado's discourse concerns not the Doctor The Refuters ignorance notwithstanding his confidence Quantitas virtutis molis No absurdity in the Doctors discourse if as the Refuter falsly charges him he had concluded a greater ardency in Christs devotion from the multiplying of the severall acts of prayer Continuance in prayer a demonstration of fervour Frequent repetitions of the same words in prayer an argument of an heightened fervour of Spirit 251 SECT XV. The pertinency of the Doctors Argument and impertinence of the Refuters charge The Doctors argument à posteriori from the necessary relation between the work and the reward Not understood by the Refuter The outward work more valuable in Gods sight for the inward fervour and devotion The Refuters petitio principii Works in a Physicall sense what and what in a Moral The Refuters discourse of the infinite value of Christs merit arising from the dignity of his person Nothing to the purpose The dignity of a morall action according to the physicall entity of the act or according to the dignity of the person performing it The actions of Christ in regard of his person infinite in value Not so in regard of their substantial moral goodness Proved and acknowledged by our Refuters own Suarez Consequently in this regard they might exceed one another in moral perfection The Doctors argument that it was so in Christ The appositeness of the proof The Scriptures say the same 265 SECT XVI The second part of the Refuters second answer The distinct confession of all the Doctor pretends to The English translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more earnestly justified The Refuter's nonsense What ardency in Christ it was that was heightned Luk 22. 43. Comprehensor Viator what In what state whether of Comprehensor or Viator Christ was in a capacity to pray as that signifies either petition deprecation or thanksgiving and this whether onely for others or also for himself Of prayer and the severall kinds Whether though Christ were in a capacity thus to pray yet being God that was able of himself to accomplish whatsoever he might desire as man it was expedient for him to do so and whether God had so determined What things Christ might and did pray for both for himself and others M. Hooker commended Whether Christ did in truth and reality or onely in shew pray for a removal of that cup which he came on purpose to drink Whether these prayers and desires were not repugnant to Gods decree and the end of his coming into the world and his own peremptory resolution to drink it How those desires for a removall of this Cup might be advanced notwithstanding his readiness and resolution to drink it How Christs ardency in prayer for a removal of this cup might be increased above what it either was or there was occasion for at other times Of the greatness of his agony and bloody sweat How his zeal in prayer at this time might be advanced without derogation from the fulness of his habitual grace the impeccability of his soul and the uninterrupted happiness of it and perfect love as he was Comprehensor Strictures on the former part of the Refuters second answer 276 SECT XVII The Refuters three arguments to prove the act of Christ's love alwayes equally intense impertinent to the present question His confident proposal of them to be examined as rigidly as the Doctor pleases and his vain ostentation in placing them in his Title-page censured The ambiguity of the phrase Christs love of God distinguished from Crellius Estius Aquinas and others In what sense still used by the Doctor 333 SECT XVIII The Refuters first argument contradicts his second and proves not his conclusion Reduced to form The Sequele denyed The reason His authorities concern not the question His citing Aquinas from Capreolus censured The conclusion to be proved Hurtado's and Aquinas first saying from Capreolus true with the reason of it from Suarez but not pertinent A view of the place in Aquinas He speaks of the habit c. not the act The different workings of necessary and voluntary causes The Refuters argument guilty of a double fallacy His next place of Aquinas from Capreolus impertinent His gross ignorance or prevaricating in his third place of Aquinas Scotus testimony impertinent Aquinas and Scotus maintain that proposition which he would confute in the Doctor by their testimonies 337 SECT XIX The Refuters second argument Christ on earth Comprehensor true but Viator also Proved from Scripture Aquinas Scotus in the places referred to by the Refuter From Suarez also None but the Socinians deny Christ to be thus Comprehensor His beatifick love as Comprehensor an uniform because necessary act Fruitless here to enquire wherein the essence of happiness consists according to the Thomists or Scotists It follows not because Christs love as Viator was more intense at one time in some acts then at another in other acts that therefore his happiness as Comprehensor was at that time diminished Proved The Doctor never denies the fulness of Christs happiness as Comprehensor The Refuters grave propositio malè sonans His argument a fallacy à dicto secundum quid Christs twofold state Though the infused habit of grace in him alwayes full yet not so the acts The reason M. Jeanes and others guilty of this propositio malè sonans as well as the Doctor The piouâ—â—y credible proposition of the Schoolmen
Super-excellency of this Act above the rest tells us (c) Phil. 2. 8. That he humbled himself to death even the death of the Cross § 38. And now I shall desire our Refuter to sit down and sadly consider what will become of his Consequence If neither the Proposition nor Assumption can be true how then will he be able to infer his Conclusion against the Doctor § 39. Indeed he had said somewhat to the purpose if this Habit of holy Love in our Saviour had been determined in its Operations to one equal uniform degree and height as natural forms are (d) Vid. Burgersdic Log. l. 1. ca. 17. theor 10 11 12 13. For these working by a necessity of nature to the utmost of their strength therefore alwaies work the same unless they be by some Accident hindered And consequently any variation in the Effect must argue a proportionable encrease or abatement of the natural virtue and efficacy of the Form that is the Agent But here the case is far otherwise For this Grace of holy Charity in Christ being a Moral Habit as our Refuter does and must acknowledge and so supernaturally seated in the humane Will of our Saviour must of necessity partake of the nature of the Will wherein it is subjected and still (e) Vid. Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 44. sect 6. §. 6 7 c. concurring effectively with the Will to the production of the Act it must continue still free as the Will it self is which it qualifies and modificates (a) Relinquitur ergo non posse Habitum juvare aut facilitare potentiam ad Actum nisi augendo virtutem per se effectivam talis actus c. Suarez Metaph. ibid. §. 10. Actiones quae parto jam fiunt Habita non ab ipso Habitu tanquam ab efficiente oriuntur sed ab eâdem voluntate Habitus autem ille quasi forma quaedam est illarum Actionum c. Jul. Sca. lig de Subtil exercit 307. §. 4. pag. 884. Potentia Habitus conveniunt ad effective causandum Actum sicut unum perfectum principium ita quod ambosimul non differunt ab uno sicut imperfectum differt à seipso perfecto Cajetan in 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. Advance and heighten indeed it does the power and efficacy of the Will to the performance of those Acts which of it self it is unable to perform but then the Will thus assisted by the Habit continues still a free Agent not destroyed in its nature and working but perfected § 40. If it shall be here replyed that the Saints and Angels in heaven love God freely and yet love him necessarily too and quoad ultimum virium § 41. I readily grant it in the sense that (b) Causa libera est quae consultò causat necessaria quae non consultò sed necessitate naturae causat Cum voluntas libera dicitur cumque causa libera causae necessariae opponitur Libertatis nomine nihil aliud intelligitur quam immunitas à coactione à necessitate ac determinatione naturali Burgersdic Log. l. 1. c. 17. Theor. 10 11. Dico secundò hanc libertatem voluntatis humanae Christi non solum intelligendam esse oppositam coactioni sed etiam necessitati atque adeo includere indifferentiam aliquam seu potestatem operandi non operandi Non est sensus Christum in omnibus actibus suae voluntaris habuisse hanc indifferentiam non enim est hoc necessarium nam Deum clarè visum necessariò amabat necessariò illo fruebatur sicut alii Beati sed sensus est habuisse Christum libertatem in aliquibus actibus c. Suarez in 3. part Thom. q. 18. art 4. disp 37. sect 1. pag. 512. Vid. eund ibid. disp 39. sect 2. per tot Freedome is improperly taken for a liberty from Coaction And withall I acknowledge it most true of the prime Act of Divine Love in Christ immediately terminated on God cleerly seen and enjoyed as Comprehensor in the superior faculties of his Soul he alwaies loved God freely and yet necessarily and because he could not chuse but love God the greatest good whom alwaies he most perfectly knew he could not chuse but love him in the height and utmost Perfection But then withall I must adde that this is nothing to the purpose For it was an (c) Heb. 10. 5 6 7 8 9. Esay 53. 10. Act of pure Love and Choice in Christ to be born and dye for us And therefore he loved us not of necessity but freely and he loved us as he himself best thought fit And therefore every Act of Joh. 10. 18. Non necessitate sed voluntate crucem subiit Hieron in Isai 53. Omni necessitate calcatâ cum voluit mortem sponte suscepit Gregor lib. 24. Moral c. 2. Vid. Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disput 37. sect 2. pag. 511 512. this Love respecting us must be commensurate to his own good will and pleasure And being all-wise as well as all-good he loved us in every several Act proportionably to that which his own Wisdom thought fit Every Act of this Love being purely voluntary though it was not equally intense yet so high and fervent it was that it was not any way disproportioned to the present end and occasion § 42. By this it evidently appears that I may make some reflexions on the second Paragraph how much of Charity there was in our Refuters adding not supplying the word farther to the Doctors Discourse If these be his mistakes of Charity to pervert an Adversaries saying to a contrary sense and that very erroneous I wonder what is his Malice The addition indeed might be very pertinent to the matter that himself had then in hand which was to calumniate the Doctor but it concerned not at all the business and scope of the Treatise of Will-worship For what though the Doctor in that Treatise had undertaken to prove that those large inclusive words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy Soul c. do not alwaies pro hîc nunc as they speak oblige us in every single Act of Divine Charity to the most intense and high degree but only to that sincerity and fervour as the present occasion does require will you thence conclude it to be the Doctors meaning that a man may fulfil that command though he loves not God with all his heart If you do Sir you are very uncharitable and irrational as might easily be demonstrated But I am loath to run into an unnecessary Digression and therefore I shall reserve the full clearing of the sense of this Commandement to its proper place For this Refuter will anon give occasion to prosecute it at large according to those true and solid grounds that the Doctor has already laid § 43. I shall only adde to preclude all subterfuges and captious advantages that may arise from general and undistinguished and ambiguous terms that the Acts
destroy your Major When the Sun and Stars produce Gold and Silver and Brass and other Minerals when they produce Stones of all sorts and kinds in the bowels of the earth are not the cause and effect at least as Species subalternae placed under the same Genus of Substantia corporea When an Asse begets a Mule or a Man produces Worms and Vermin in his head and entrailes and when a woman brings forth monstrous births in stead of legitimate issues as Serpents Moles and Froggs and other such like of which among (b) Ita nonnullas mulieres Serpentes Talpas Ranas Mutes Aves aliaque animalia enixas fuisse inter historias relatum est Imo verò in Apuliâ Lombardiâ frequentem esse talium animalium generationem multi Authores referunt idque Genus animalium ideo vocari Fratrem Lombardorum à Gordonio Tornamirâ aliisque Barbaris Medicis Arpa seu Arpia nominatur quod hujusmodi monstrum multos plerumque habeat pedes quos etiam sermone illo barbarico Arpas nominant Lazar. River Observ med Cent. 2. observ 100. p. 201. Vid. Schenckium Lycosthenem de Prodigiis Physitians there are many true stories I pray Sir must not the cause and effect be both ranged under the same immediate Genus proximum which is Animal So when light produces heat are not the cause and the effect both put in the same Praedicament under the same Genus of Patible Qualities To keep closer to the business more immediately in controversie The habit of Love (c) Dicendum est habitum simul cum potentia efficere actum hunc esse proprium finem ejus Vid. Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 5. n. 6. sect 6. n. 12. Scheibler Metaph. l. 2. c. 8. tit 4. art 2. n. 59. art 4. punct 2. n. 104. Vid. etiam Aquin. 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. in corp Et Cajetan in loc latè Scot. l. 1. Sent. dist 17. q. 2 3. 4. Sent. dist 49. q. 1. effectively concurs with the Will to the production of the inward Acts of Love and yet I say that Love as a Genus is equally praedicated of the Habit and the inward Acts of Love as has already been demonstrated and may in due time be further proved notwithstanding any thing you have or can say to the contrary And this is abundantly more then sufficient to shew the falshood of your Major when you say that no one word can as a Genus whether proximum or remotum summum or subalternum for you absolutely deliver it equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect § 17. But perhaps you had read somewhat like it concerning the First most universal Cause God and his effects or perhaps you had heard the like concerning the Cause and the Effect in Actu Signato and therefore you would apply it to all Causes and Effects in Actu also Exercito And so much be spoken to your third Argument § 18. I come now to your First And this though it be not altogether so absurd yet is false enough in conscience For whereas you say that nothing can as a Genus be equally predicated of things put in several Predicaments but the Habit of Love and Expressions of Love are put in several Predicaments therefore Love as a Genus doth not equally comprehend them both Here Sir your Assumption is too infirm For let me ask you Quanta est Minor Is it not universal And if it be not your Syllogism will be false and you will conclude an Vniversal contrary to all Rules of Art and Reason from a Praemisse particular If it be universal as the Mood and Figure and Conclusion requires for rightly framed it is in Celarent thus Whatsoever things are put in several Praedicaments cannot have the same Genus But the Habit of Love and the Expressions of Love in general are put in several Praedicaments Ergo the Habit of Love and Expressions of Love in general cannot have the same Genus I say it is false and you will never be able to prove and make it good if any one instance can be produced to the contrary What say you now Are not Joy and Grief and the other Passions of the mind frequent expressions of Love * Joh. 11. 35 36. when Jesus seeing Mary and the women weeping for Lazarus groaned in the Spirit and was troubled and also wept said not the Jewes truly Behold how he loved him But now I hope you will not say that these Passions of the mind are any thing else then Patible Qualities and ranked in the third Species as Habits are in the first And consequently true it is that all the Expressions of Love are not though true it is I grant of many or most of them that they are put in several Praedicaments And if so your Conclusion though most true in it self does not follow by virtue of these Praemisses because your Assumption is false And so much for your First § 18. Your Second and Fourth have somewhat in them I confess of the Face of an Argument An argument I say For though you have slit it into two and divided it from it self by another what-ye-call't between yet it differs no more then Socrates in one suit does differ from himself in another The matter is the very same though the words be different and both the Minors depend upon one and the same Medium § 19. But good Sir let me advise you that though now you have the good luck to light upon a right proof of your Conclusion yet do not for the future obtrude your Arguments upon the world without any more confirmation then your bare Ipse dixit For I assure you Sir you have all-along in this Discourse shewed your self so unhappy a Disputant that even now when you have clear and evident truth in your Conclusion men would not believe that it followed from your Praemisses if Raynaudus had not been brought in to your assistance who has said more to the purpose in that small passage you have quoted from him then you have done in the whole page besides § 20. And yet I must be bold to tell you that though Raynaudus be your Friend you do not throughly understand him and that Author in the place quoted means more then you seem to apprehend Your words are these Raynaudus makes mention out of Gab. Biel of a distinction of Love into Affective Effective and what is this Effective Love but the Effects and Expressions of Love Thus you Now the subject matter of your present discourse leads me necessarily to understand your interrogation of the outward sensible effects and expressions of Love And if this be your meaning I must tell you that Raynaudus is not so to be understood and plain it is from that Author that Love effective is not only the outward sensible effects and expressions but also something else For though it be true that all the outward sensible effects and expressions of Love be Love
himself as most necessarily he is For Goodness being the one Proper Object of Love if any good which is not God could be the Proper Object of his Love that Goodness must be wanting in God because loved and desired by him No Love then of Desire or Complacence as they call it is here to be found in a Proper acceptation (c) Wisd 11. 21 22 23. He sees nothing desireable or lovely in them but the free communications of his own grace and favour By his own good will and pleasure and Power they were all created and when he had now made them all what now they are then he (d) Gen. 1. 31 Eccl 39. 16. Vid. Suarez Metaph. disp 30. sect 16. §. 60. saw all things that he had made and loe they were very good And therefore in this sense he may be said indeed to love them because by his favour they are what they are nor can they arrive to any higher advancement but only by his bounty Nothing therefore of Excellence and Perfection can he possibly find in them but what issues from himself by a voluntary Communication and was infinitely in himself from all Eternity before and thus only fitted for his Love And this is it which the most * Scot. in 3. Sent. dist 32. q. 1. §. 5 6. infra citand Subtile Doctor means when he tells us that the Act whereby God loves all things is still equal alwaies one and the same Quia una est Potentia unum Objectum primum habet unum Actum infinitum adaequatum sibi Because the Power and Object and Act is alwaies one and the same and nothing else but God who as he is the last and only Good so is he One simple infinite and Eternal Act nothing but God § 26. When therefore God is said in Scripture to love any thing without himself the expression is not proper but only Metonymical in regard of those effects of his grace and goodness bestowed upon them and when also he is said to love some more some less the like Figure is also to be understood And because men do ordinarily affect less or more where they bestow the less or greater favours and pledges of their Love therefore by an Anthropopathy God though his Love be still the same yet is said in Scripture to love more where he bestowes the greater blessings and marks and tokens of his Goodness § 27. But then let me adde since (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 1. Eth. c. 1. §. 1. Vid. eund ibid. c. 7. Et lib. 8. Eth. c. 5. §. 7. Suarez Metaph. disp 23. sect 5. Bonum est quod omnia appetunt and Goodness wheresoever it is found cannot chuse but be affected and the greater still it is the more amiable it appears and is the more eagerly beloved God loving only himself and his own infinite Perfection may yet be said virtually though not Formally even in regard of this inward Act to love those things more that partake most of his Goodness and carry the greatest likeness and resemblance with his own all-infinite Perfection which to him is alone amiable and lovely (b) Maresii Hydra Socinianism l. 1. c. 30. p. 549. §. In eoque libertas divina Cum as Maresius in his Animadversions on Crellius saies well non tam res ipsas amat quam seipsum in illis bonitatis aliquos radios quos in illas effundere prout omne Bonum est sui communicativum dignatus est § 28. And therefore in this sense I can safely allow this in Crellius to be true (a) Crellius apud Volkel l. 1. c. 30. p. 301. Omne bonum cognitum per se amatur quanto melius esse cernitur tanto magis Quod ergo Deus valde bonum esse vidit videtque quomodo etiam non amaret Similiter autem dubitare nemo potest qui vel Sacras Literas vel ipsam Rationem consulit Deum pietatem hominum factaque suae voluntati consentanea amare c. So again (b) Ibid. p. 302. Vnde etiam Sacrae Literae de piis nominatim atque adeo peculiari ratione affirmant eos à Deo diligi quasi caeteri ab eo non diligantur c. Vid. Psal 146. 9. Joh. 14. 21 23. c. 16. 27. Jud. Ep. vers 21. And again (c) Ibid. p. 302 303. Jam quod ad homines etiam pios attinet non dubium est alium alio magis à Deo amari prout vel ipse magis Deum amet vel Deo in ipsum placeat esse benigniori Nil dicimus nunc de discrimine amoris Dei in Homines Angelos in quo quidem ex parte Angeli nos antecellunt sed ex parte vicissim à nobis superantur c. Quis vero dubitare potest supra omnes Angelos Homines pios diligi à Deo Christum quem ipsemet Filium suum dilectum in quo bene ipsi complaceat seu quo insigniter delectetur voce de coelo bis repetitâ pronunciavit Matt. 3. 17. 17. 5. Vid. Coloss 1. 13. Ephes 1. 6. Esai 42. 1. Mat. 12. 18. Joh. 3. 35. 5. 20. But then when he adds (d) Ibid. p. 303. Diversitas autem haec Amoris Divini partim ex ipso Deo liberrimaque ipsius voluntate ac decreto proficiscitur partim ex ratione Objecti in quod Amor ille fertur c. I can by no means approve it in the sense he puts upon it as if there were a true and real difference in the inward Acts of Gods Will proportionably diverse in themselves according to the various goodness of the Object or the will and pleasure of him from whom they flow For though it be thus with men yet it is far otherwise with God Because they being Creatures finite and more or less compounded in their Natures it can be no derogation from their perfection if they have different Powers and Habits and Acts superadded to their Essence since naturally they are Creatures perfectible by means of such additions But God being most simple because infinite in his Being to attribute any such Acts to him that are distinguished in themselves and different from his Being must needs highly derogate from this his Essence and all infinite Simplicity and Perfection and therefore cannot properly be ascribed unto him without implying a Contradiction § 29. The Doctrine therefore of the Schooles is far safer that tells us that the inaequality of Gods Love of which the Scriptures make frequent mention is not to be considered in regard of the Act of God loving which because it is but one simple infinite and immutable Act is not capable of Intension and Remission but only in regard of the things beloved and the things bestowed upon them which make them thus beloved (*) Scot. l. 3. Sent. dist 32. q. in fine 217. Scotus calls the one Actus operantis and the other Actus transiens super
21. q 1. art 3. in Corp. outward Expressions depending precisely upon the inward Acts as the Effect upon their Cause it necessarily follows that the more I love the greater Expressions of this Love I am bound to exhibite and to whom I am bound to shew the greater tokens of Love him I ought to love more in proportion to the Expressions otherwise let me adde the Love will be lame and imperfect or else hypocritical and counterfeit Not that every man is bound at all times to express his Love according to the height and intension of the inward Act but that he is obliged to do it when a just Occasion offers and a Necessity requires it For sometimes they whom we love do not either stand in need at all of our outward signs and expressions or perhaps do lesse want them then others lesse beloved or else there may not be a fit Opportunity to express our Love unto the height when they want or we desire or perhaps it may be more advantage for those we love to have the height and Ardour of this Love for the present concealed as we also have already intimated But then though sometimes it be convenient not to expresse our Love unto the height yet ordinarily it is required that there be a proportion and agreement in respect of Intension and Remission between the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love For the affection of Charity which is an inclination of Grace is not less ordinate then the Appetite and Inclination of Nature because both flow from the same divine Wisedome But we see in Nature that the inward Appetite is proportioned to that outward Act and Motion which is proper to every thing For the Earth has a greater inclination to gravity then Water which naturally is seated above it And therefore since as the good Father said Amor meus pondus meum since Love is as it Augustin were the weights and plummets of the Soul the more the Soul loves in the inward Act the more it carries the Soul to higher and nobler Expressions and a proportionable agreement and correspondence there will and must be between the inward Affection and the outward Effects and as the Bounty increases and is more intense so in proportion does the Love which is the very same that the Doctor had asserted § 58. And this was abundantly sufficient to the Doctors purpose though he never had attempted to prove that Expressions gradually different in themselves could not flow from several Acts of Love that were gradually the same or that the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love were of necessity equal in point of Intension For since you grant to the Doctor that it is an obvious Truth That each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love in Christ of which they were so many different Expressions then if to use Cajetan's word major Benevolentia major Beneficentia mutuò se inferunt and unless there be a proportion between the outward and the inward Acts of Love the Inclinations of Grace as Aquinas proves would be less orderly then those of Nature the Doctor might very well conclude that where the outward Expressions were gradually different there the inward Acts from whence the Expressions issue were gradually different also If it be ordinarily so with all others that the greater Expressions argue the greater Love what should hinder but that the Doctor might conclude it was so in Christ § 59. It will not be enough to Reply in this case and yet this is all you have to say that the Doctor has said nothing to prove that these Expressions which are acknowledged to be gradually different in themselves might not could not proceed from a Love equally intense § 60. For though nothing naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that different Expressions because they are imperate Acts of the Will and subject to its Command may flow from Acts of Love still the same for Degrees yet ordinarily they do not And therefore unless you can shew that the case is different in Christ from all other men and that every Act of his Love that flowed from the same all-full all-perfect Habit of Divine Charity was of the same height and intenseness and equal to the Habit it cannot be denied but that the Doctors Conclusion is most rational and just § 61. For Morality admits not of Mathematical Demonstration but as the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 1. Eth. c. 3. §. 1. great Master of Method tells us sufficient it is if here the Conclusion be inferred from Praemisses and Medium's that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and most commonly so And therefore Sir if the gradual intension and remission in the inward Expressions do most commonly argue and inferr a proportionable increase and decrease in the inward Acts of Love you must needs be unjust for charging the Doctor for not saying any thing to prove that these different Expressions could not proceed from a Love equally intense and for speaking impertinently to the matter in hand unless he can prove that they were of necessity equal in point of Intension For why should you require the Proof of that which the nature of things will not admit of The Doctor now was not engaged in the Demonstration of a Mathematical but an Ethical Probleme for the Schoolmen will tell you of Theologia Moralis and he that proves that such a Proposition is most commonly so has as demonstratively concluded as that Science does re-require § 62. But why cannot the Doctors Conclusion evidently follow unless he can first prove that they ought of necessity to be equal in point of Intension For will you therefore conclude because Expressions gradually different may flow since there is no necessary reason to the contrary from Acts of Love gradually the same that therefore they do so or necessarily must If you should as you intimate by this your redoubling your charge against the Doctor I must tell you that you are guilty of arguing A potentia ad Actum affirmativè which is the most simple and palpable Sophisme of all just as if I should argue Because nothing naturally and of necessity hinders but that Mr. Jeanes may be a Jesuite in a Ministers cloak therefore without doubt he is so § 63. Whereas you then put the Question to the Doctor and thus ask him Now Sir have you said any thing to prove that they Expressions of Love gradually different could not proceed from a Love equally intense and then adde in the following Section That though it be an obvious Truth that each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love of which they were so many different Expressions yet it is impertinent unto the matter in hand unless he can prove that they were of absolute necessity equal in point of Intension the proof whereof he has not hitherto so much as attempted It is evident you are mistaken and the
fiebat ut iste Habitus Gratiae Sapientiae ejus qui revera non crescebat hominum tamen opinione cresceret Atque hoc sensu non incommode accipi possunt verba Bedae à Magistro citata quem sensum indicat etiam Damascenus l. 3. c. 22 c. sunt autem qui memoratum Evangelii locum malunt intelligere de Sapientia acquisita quam etiam secundum Habitum putant aetatis successu auctam in Christo Sed obstat huic intellectui quod adjungitur de Gratia Non enim credibile est Christum secundum aliquem Habitum acquisitum in Gratia profecisse qua Deo hominibus paulatim gratior evaderet Et sane rectius Scientiae quae rerum est humanarum quam Sapientiae quâ res divinae cognoscuntur Habitus aliquis acquisitus videretur in Christo agnoscendus quare retinenda est superior explicatio Thus far Estius To these I might adde Scotus l. 3. Sent. dist 14. q. 3. and all the rest of the Schoolmen that H. Cavellus has there quoted Durand lib. 3. Sent. d. 14. q. 3. ad 3. q. 4. ad 1. Aquinas 3. par q. 7. art 12. ad 3m. q. 12. art 2. in corp Cajetan and others in loc For the best Commentators in these places understand him as speaking of a real increase in the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace Ames in the place fore-quoted cites Bartholomeus Medina in tertiam partem Thom. q. 7. a. 12. q. 10. a. 2. to this purpose But O me probe lassum juvate Posteri It is time to cry out Claudite jam rivos pueri sat prata biberunt Virgil. If this be not enough to edifie our writer of Scholastical Practical Divinity it is not a Demonstration but a Miracle must do it But before I part with this Section I must advise him for the future to be more wary in his Challenges and to let the Schoolmen in Paul's Church yard and the Library at Oxford alone and rather to intreat the Doctor to alleadge the Testimonies only of such as are in the King of Spains Library of Saint Laurence or the Vatican at Rome where the Inquisition will be sure to keep the Doctor or his Hyperaspist from discovering his ignorance or folly And so farwell my bold Challenger till we meet in the next Section Only let me adde for a close that since I have shewed that you have few or none of the Schoolmen on your side which in your ecstatical passion and Galliardise you called all your own that now I expect with the Graecian Mad-man that in his pleasant dream called all the Ships in the haven his you will cry out as he did after his friends had cured him of his Frenzy and declaim against my cruel Courtesie with a pol me occidistis amici Horace Non sâ—rvastis And so we go on to the next Section SECTION 13. The Refuters Melancholy Phansie his acknowledging the Doctors Innocence The Doctor constantly speaks of the gradual difference in some Acts of Charity never of the Habit. The Refuters Consequence hereupon His Monstrous Syllogism examined The Acts of Christs Love were primariò per se and not only secundariò and per accidens capable of Degrees Demonstrated Actions and Passions intended and remitted only in regard of their Termes The Habits and Acts of Charity in Christ gradually only and not specifically different from those in all other men God by his extraordinary Power may create something greater and better then the habitual Grace of Christ Asserted by Aquinas Suarez and many other Schoolmen and the Refuter himself The Acts of the Habit of Grace in Christ de facto gradually different in themselves and from the Habit. The phrase The love of God variously taken in Scripture Proved In what sense the Doctor constantly takes it Demonstrated The greater good to be more intensely beloved There is an Order in the Acts and Degrees of Love Asserted by the Schooles Of the Order in the Love of Christ The Habit of Love to God and our Neighbours one and the same Quality Proved God and our Neighbours not to be loved with the same equality and degree of Affection Actus efficaces inefficaces what they are That they were in Christ Of the gradual difference between them Hence demonstratively proved that the first great Law of Charity Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart c. does not alwaies oblige us pro hic nunc to the highest degree and noblest Act of Divine Love Of the gradual difference between the free and necessary Acts of Christs Love Phrase Actual Love distinguished The Acts and operations of Grace in Christ were neither intensively nor extensively still commensurate with the Habit. Proved In what sense Aquinas 's Rule urged by the Refuter holds § 1. THe Refuter in a Melancholy Contemplation and Melancholy men are full of Phansie they can create Armies and Castles in the Clouds and Lions and Dragons in the Sielings of their Chambers and the very Curtains of their Beds was pleased to imagine that the Doctor was his Enemy and to raise Objections against his Doctrine a full year shall I say or rather twelve at least before his Mixture had been published to the world For the Passage in the Account against which his Vse of Confutation is addressed is but a recapitulation of what had been more largely delivered to that purpose in the Treatise of Will-worship And therefore the Doctor is willing to undeceive him in this misapprehension also Thus then he Doctor HAMMOND 29. SEcondly he will hear the Doctors Objection and consider of what weight it is Objection against what against the fulness of habitual Grace in Christ Sure never any was by me urged against it And he cannot now think there was The degrees of intenseness observable in the several Acts of Christs Love his praying more ardently at one time then another was all that I concluded from that Text Luc. 22. 24. and that is nothing to his habitual Love § 2. Indeed the Case is so plain in it self and the Doctor in this and the former Sections has so fully cleared his own Innocence that now even our Refuter himself professes his readiness to believe it though his Lucid intervals are very short For thus he bespeakes the Doctor in the very entrance of his Reply JEANES THat this Objection was not intended by you against the fulness of Christs habitual Grace upon your Protestation I readily believe but that by consequence it reacheth it I thus make good c. § 3. But why upon your Protestation why not rather upon your Proof and Reason For has not the Doctor all along demonstrated that his words could be meant of nothing else but the degrees of actual Love Nay is not this expressely and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declared even in that very Passage you quarrel at Are not these the very words as you your self have cited them even in your Vse of
Love of Christ in sincerity Eph. 6. 24. § 30. Thirdly this appears from the several Acts the Doctor instances in that consisted in a Latitude the Love of Adam in innocence the Zeal of the Martyrs and Confessors for Christ in their patience and sufferings the ardency of Christ in several acts of Prayer the different ardency of Prayer in other men which he acquits from sin by the example of Christ and lastly by several acts of Mercy and Liberality to the poor All which as it is plain they are Acts of the infused Grace of holy Charity all rooted in that high sublime Love immediately centred in God himself so clear it is that they are not that Love as thus specially and properly taken but rather fruits and expressions of it § 31. Lastly this will appear from express words in the Doctor § 5. of that Section thus Still it must be remembred saies he that it is not the sinless Perfection we speakof when we say it consists in a Latitude and hath Degrees but Sincerity of this or that vertue I pray mark it good Sir exprest in this or that performance and as this though it excludes 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 for it is certain that I may in an act of Mercy mark it again give as much as any law obligeth me to give and so not sin in giving too little so to this his answer belongs not at all nor shewes any difference or reason why such Sincerity may not in any pious Christian be capable of Degrees as well as in Christ himself I pray good Sir mark it and the lower of them be sinless and all the superiour voluntary oblations more then the strict Law required of us § 32. And thus also was the Doctor understood by Mr. Cawdrey in his instance in Christ himself For whereas the Doctor had urged he was more intense in Praier at one time then another when yet the lower degree was no sin to this Mr. Cawdrey answers That Christ was above the Law and did more then the Law of God required but men fall short many degrees of what is required § 33. Nay the Doctor was understood in this sense by the Author of the Mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity himself For whereas his Theme had been the All-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ from pag. 230. to 256. he there begins to draw out four Vses from that Doctrine so largely before handled The second whereof is a Vse of Confutation of Doctor Hammond thus pag. 258. Secondly this point of the fulness of habitual Grace in Christ may serve for Confutation of a passage in the learned Doctor Hammond against Mr. Cawdrey to wit That Christs Love of God or habitual Grace for it were nothing to the purpose as the Doctor in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we also have already shewed to understand it of any thing else was capable of further Degrees And for proof of his Charge he quotes this very Section § 4 5. p. 222. And in this sense he did oppose the Doctor all along in his Vse of Confutation witness this short passage for all the rest pag. 259. And the falshood of such an assertion to wit that Christs Love of God wa◠capable of Degrees is evident from the point here handled and confirmed the absolute fulness of Christs Grace which by the general consent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was such as that it excluded all intensive growth It was a sequele of the personal union and therefore it was from the very first moment of his Conception The Word was no sooner made Flesh but it was forthwith full of Grace and Truth His Love of God was uncapable of further Degrees unto whom God gave not the Spirit that is the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit by measure § 34. Indeed as it had been nothing to that Authors purpose and his Vse of Confutation had appeared absolutely groundless to have understood the Doctor in any other sense so had it been nothing to the Doctors Argument also if by the Love of God all along in those Discourses he had understood any thing else then the several Acts of that divine Grace of holy Charity which he said consisted in a Latitude For the question in the Treatise of Will-worship was whether that first great Law Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. did oblige every man by way of Duty to the utmost height of perfection possible in every Act of Grace and goodness or to such a Sincerity in the several Acts of this or that Vertue or Grace that consists in a Latitude and hath Degrees The Doctor asserted the latter and Mr. Cawdrey undertook to make good the legal obligation to the former And therefore as it had been a vain and fruitless attempt for the Doctor to have laboured to make good his Conclusion by instancing in that Act of Christ's Love which every Smatterer in Theology and the Schoolmen knowes to be necessary because it is actus Comprehensoris so it had been nothing to the Doctors purpose because this Act being necessary and flowing per modum emanationis as they speak it could not come possibly under the power of a Command or the notion of a Duty Because the Saints in Patria that are Comprehensores that see God face to face love him alwaies to one height and fulness because they alwaies know and enjoy him at that height they love and therefore love him perfectly because they are now perfectly united to him it can be no argument or pattern for us men that are now in via to love God to that height because we can love God but to the height of our Knowledge of him And as they love God necessarily and naturally as I may so speak since their glorification because therein consists the height of Heaven's happiness so we love God freely and by way of Duty in order to that happiness which Duty consists not in one indivisible point and height in every act of habitual Grace but in sincerity that admits of a Latitude of performance in the several Acts of Grace as our Knowledge is enlarged and Occasion does require § 35. No other sense then can rationally be affixed to this phrase the Love of God either in the Treatise of Will-worship or the Vindication of it against Mr. Cawdrey Nor can any other sense be affixed on it in the Ectenesteron also For if I have not miscounted it is but 13. times to be met with in that Treatise and in most of them they are the words of Mr. Jeanes in his Vse of Confutation and are taken up by the Doctor for a necessity of argument rather then choice § 36. Besides it being a vindication of himself from a false imputation in that Vse of Confutation for a denial of the fulness of habitual
But there is and must be a gradual difference and more in respect of the goodness of the Objects of the Habit of Charity or the Love of God in Christ Therefore there is and must be a gradual difference in respect of the several Acts of this Habit of Charity or the Love of God in Christ § 45. The Major and the Minor are both Propositions that are perse notae and carry their letters of Credence in their forehead But because we have met with such an exquisite Schoolman that Souldier-like he is resolved to dispute every inch of Jeans pag. 17. ground with us I shall now with the Readers patience for the Refuters satisfaction prove them § 46. The Major then I thus Demonstrate If Goodness be Vid. Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 2. disp 38. sect 1. p. 524. B. C. the sole proper Object of the Will and the Affections of it and Love be nothing else but a Tendency to a union of the Will with the Object beloved then of necessity it follows that where the greater Goodness is either truly or apparently to be found in the Object beloved there it is the more amiable and lovely and the Will is carryed with a stronger inclination a greater Ardency of affection and a proportionably gradual intension to the Goodness of the Object either real or apprehended But so it is that Goodness is the sole and proper Object of the Will and the affections of it Ergo. And hence it is that the great Philosopher tells us in his Ethicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 8. Eth. cap. 2. §. 3 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again more clearly in the same Treatise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 1. Eth. c. 7. §. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again Ibid. § 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The sum and substance is this That as whatsoever is good is good either absolutely in it self or in order to something else good either as an End or else as a Means in order to that end whether it be absolutely such as the last great End of all or in suo genere in this or that kind in this or that Art or Science or Faculty so every man loves and pursues that which is either thus good as an End or a Means in truth and reality or else only in shew and appearance And that as the good is either in it self or appearance greater so it is more eligible more desirable in it self and pursued by the Will with the greater inclination and stronger ardency of affection and that Happiness because it is the last End of man is therefore by all most desirable and most earnestly pursued though they that follow after it do not run all in the same but most in several Pathes § 47. And indeed if this were not so it would evidently follow that God who is the great and only Good were not to be beloved with an higher ardency of affection with a more intense Act of Love then any other created inferior finite good And what then would become of that first and great Commandement and the second like unto it Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul c. and thy neighbour as thy self God who is the first the greatest Good must still be loved with the most high most noble and most ardent Act of Love and then our selves and then our neighbours as our selves § 48. And therefore the Schools do all after the Mr. of the Sentences resolve that Datur ordo in Charitate and that this Ordo Charitatis cadit sub praecepto That there is not only a gradual difference in respect of Intension in the several Acts of Divine Love but that God himself has so commanded and it would be unreasonable and brutish in us not to observe it And now Sir though I have not read scarce dipped into a quarter of them yet having read Lombard and Thomas and Scotus and Ocham and Durand D'Orbellis and Cajetan and Suarez and Estius and Bonaventure upon the point and the matter being so clear and evident in it self and none found in these several Authors quoted as Opponents in this controversie I dare challenge you in all your great reading in the Schoolmen in Paul's Church-yard or the Library at Oxford to shew me but one instance to the contrary To give the Reader a Tast and yet I am ashamed to be forced to prove things as plain and bright as the Sun at noon Si attendatur gradus in Charitate secundum intensionem remissionem Actus volendi Sic dicendum est quod talis ordo est in Charitate quia intensiùs tenemur diligere Deum quam nos ipsos et majus bonum debemus nobis magis velle vel proximo quam minus bonum sic aequale bonum magisnobis quam proximo caeteris paribus Et de Deo quidem quod sit magis diligendus quam nos ipsi patebit in sequente quaestione De aliis autem duobus probatur hoc ex dictis Arist 8. Eth. ubi dicit sic Bonum simpliciter amabile simpliciter unicuique autem bonum proprium Ex hoc potest dupliciter argui Primo sic Sicut simpliciter ad simpliciter sic magis ad magis Ergo magis bonum est magis amabile maximè bonum est maximè amabile Nunc est ita quod inter bona quae nobis vel amicis optamus est dare minus bonum magis bonum maxime bonum Ergo unum est magis alio amandum magis optandum Secundo potest argui ex altera clausula dicti Arist Unicuique est amabile bonum proprium Sed quod est bonum mihi est magis proprium quam illud quod est proximi quia licet proximus sit alter ipse non tamen est Ego ipse sed alter Ergo aequale bonum debeo mihi magis diligere optare quam proximo ita quod si ambo non possemus habere plus debeo eum velle carere quam me quod est intelligendum semper caeteris omnibus existentibus paribus Et sic patet primum principale So Durand lib. 3 Sentent d. 29. q. 2. art 1. C. D. Onoc more Ratio diligendi alia ex charitate est bonitas Divina primò quidem ut in se existens ac deinde ut ab aliis participata Et quia in hoc est multiplex gradus ideo in Actu dilectionis charitativè est dare multos gradus Durand ibid. art 1. ad primum So again Ad Tertium dicendum quod ordo Charitatis attenditur secundum Actum prout tendit in objecta inquibus invenitur differentia bonitatis per consequens in ipso Actu gradus intensionis remissionis nihilominus Charitas ipsa ante Actum dicitur ordinata in quantum per eam voluntas sic disponitur ut cum opus fuerit exeat in
citat For 1. though the apprehension of the approaching torments was never so great yet he did but only desire the removal of them not absolutely but conditionally and with submission to his Fathers will And 2ly the inferiour faculties were no whit repugnant to the superiour but yielded patiently to it's dictates And therefore 3ly he absolutely submitted himself to God his Fathers will and pleasure And then 4ly God himself was pleased thereby to testifie the truth of his humane nature that these desires should naturally and innocently express themselves in them for our instruction and guidance in such cases All which in every part shall be fully demonstrated in due place § 70. From all which thus considered I thus argue That if our Saviour did truly and innocently because naturally desire the removal of that bitter Cup though with submission to his Fathers will even when so high an Act of divine Charity as the reconciling of the world to God by his death lay before his eyes and his Father had given him a command to perform it and he himself came for no other end into the world then to make it good then he might as innocently have endeavoured by all lawful means his self-preservation upon supposal that no such Covenant had been made nor particular command given and God had left it freely in his power either to reconcile the world to him by his death or to endeavour by just and innocent waies to save himself For plain it is from Scripture that before his hour was come which the Father had appointed for this work when the Jewes took up stones to stone him he withdrew himself to leave us an example what we might lawfully do in such cases And hence it is from the Authority of this great example that though Martyrdome be the highest and most sublime Act of Christian Charity yet all men that profess the name of Christ are not by virtue of that first great fundamental law of divine Charity Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and all thy mind obliged in a time of Persecution to offer themselves to fire and fagot but lawfully may embrace a lesser good and follow a less noble Act of Charity consisting in a lawful endeavour of their own preservation even when an occasion offers of glorifying God by their suffering death or persecution for his names sake Otherwise Saint Paul had sinned when he was let down from the wall in a Basket otherwise the Martyriani that so eagerly coveted Martyrdome for Gods honour had been the best of Christians and are unjustly branded with the name of Hereticks and Tertullians Book against flight in time of Persecution had not deserved the mark of Montanism and Cyprian and great Athanasius had not received the name of Saints but had been enrolled amongst Apostates § 71. From all which it seems to me clearly to follow that as the Doctor asserts sincere Love in the Habit is capable of Degrees in the several Acts either in one man at several times or in two men at the same time and so both may obey that first great Precept of Loving God with all the heart in respect of some several Acts that are gradually different For though that Act that is less intense is comparatively less perfect yet is it not therefore so farre faulty or in vitio because God commands sincerity of our Love which is capable of Degrees in the several Acts as occasion offers and not alwaies pro hic nunc the highest and most noble Act of holy Charity as appears by these so great examples § 72. If it here be said that our Saviour prayed for a removal of this bitter Cup with submission to his Fathers will which alters much the Case § 73. I grant he did so but then I further argue that if it had not otherwise been lawful praescinding still from Gods decree in the present case but the great fundamental law of Charity without any other express and positive command of Gods for the laying down his life had obliged him to it he could not have been excused though he did desire the removal of it with Vide Hooker Ecclesiast Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 280. submission to his Fathers will For what I may not lawfully perform and do as in it self considered that I cannot lawfully desire and pray for though with submission to Gods will For shall I pray to God to bless me in an unlawful Act suppose of Murder or Adultery because I desire it only with submission to Gods will They must be only innocent holy things we must ask and pray for from the most holy God and still we must ask them too with a submission to his holy will and pleasure § 74. And as this was all the Doctor aimed to prove by that instance of our Saviours greater Ardency in this Act of prayer then in another so we shall have anon occasion to clear and further vindicate that instance § 75. I might in the third place demonstrate this Truth from the consideration of the gradual difference in respect of intension between the necessary Acts of holy Charity in Christ and those Acts to which his Will had a most absolute freedome For most certain it is that in the prime and most noble Act of Divine Charity that was immediatly terminated in God the only good he did love necessarily and to the utmost height of intension imaginable and he did alwaies so love him nor could he possibly do otherwise because being alwaies Comprehensor as they speak he perfectly knew him and his Love must of necessity be exactly commensurate to his Knowledge For even the great Philosopher by the light of Reason could discover that Summum bonum and finis ultimus necessariò amatur And then as certain it is that in other Acts of holy Charity he did not love necessarily but freely and his Will had an absolute freedome in them and by reason of this freedome and liberty in the performance of the Acts he was capable of meriting by them And for this our Refuter himself saies that if you please you may see further in Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae dist 39. Jeanes Reply to the Ectenesteron p. 39. sect 4. where the question is debated Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera But because our Refuter has mistaken that Author and he will give us a fitter opportunity of handling this Argument I shall defer the further prosecution of it till that Section § 76. And so I come at last to the examination of the Assumption of your monstrous Syllogism It is this But now this Objection is urged by you against the perpetual All-fulness and perfection of his actual Love the inward Acts of his Love For it is brought to prove that the inward Acts of Christs Love were more intense at one time then at
and the same moment and the Necessity of Nature at least when he slept required the intermission of some of them and as they were of necessity to be interrupted so of necessity also they could not be equal in themselves but some must be more high more intense then others because of the unequal participation of the divine goodness unequally shining in the several Objects of this Love as we have already beyond exception demonstrated This interruption this inequality in the fervour of these several Acts of divine Charity no more derogates from the fulness of that high Act of Divine Love he was possessed with as Comprehensor then the sorrows and anguish of his Soul and Spirit in the inferiour Part and the passible mortal condition of his flesh did derogate from the truth of his Godhead and the fulness of his happinesse which he enjoyed as Comprehensor Nay so far it was from derogating from the fulnesse of his habitual grace that if the Acts of this Love had been all equally intense his Love in the Habit had not been yet perfect because as we have shewn Gods Law requires an Order in our Charity and that we must love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our Soul c. and our neighbours as ourselves § 14. When therefore you say that it is evident that whereas the Doctor avers that the inward Acts of divine love or holy Charity in Christ were lesse intense at one time then at another for so he affirmes in saying they were more intense at one time then at another he denies Christ to be happy and blessed at those times wherein his inward Acts of Love were thus intense and that this is Propositio malè sonans I must return that then also Mr. Jeanes himself is guilty of this harsh sounding proposition Nay not only Mr. Jeanes himself but his own Ames and our Hooker Jeanes mixture c. p. 250. and Field and Vorstius and Grotius and Aquinas and Suarez Estius many more of the Schoolmen are all equally guilty of this ill sounding proposition who all unanimously affirm that Christ did really grow in Actual Wisdom and Grace as well as Stature And so Doctor Hammond ha's very learned Company in this if it be an Errour and our Refuter himself among the number § 15. Whereas then you say in the close of this Argument JEANES Add hereunto that the School-men generally consent as unto a Proposition that is piously credible that the happiness of Christ's soul did even during the whole time of his abode here far surmount that of all Saints and Angels in heaven but if the inward Acts of this Love of God were lesse intense at one time then at another the blisse of his soul would have come far short of that of the Lowest Saint in Heaven for the Actual love of the Lowest Saint was not is not more intense at one time then at another but alwaies full and perfect and therefore uncapable of further and higher degrees This will no whit prejudice Doctor Hammond who never spake any thing of Christs happinesse and Love as Comprehensor in his Soul but only of the Acts of divine Charity or holy Love that belonged to him as Viator as he was in statu merēdi But then let me add that if this assertion of the Schoolmen be so piously credible as indeed it is in their sense it will much prejudice an assertion of Mr. Jeanes his in his very use of Confutation who tells us It is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation Jeanes mixture pag. 261. 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 § 16. Nay I dare undertake in the Consideration of his following argument to demonstrate that this one concession destroyes the very foundation of his Vse of Confutation and all that he ha's replyed against the Doctors Ectenesteron And therefore I hasten to it SECT 20. The Refuters third Argument Reduced to Form The Major denyed His Sophistical Homonymy discovered His confounding the different Acts of Christ's Love as Viator and Comprehensor The true Assertions in his discourse severed from the false inferences Christ impeceable Thence it followes not that the Acts of his Love are all equal but the contrary The great Commandement of Love enjoyns the most ardent Love that we are able to reach to Thence it followes not that the Acts of this Love ought alwaies to be equal Christ as Comprehensor had on earth greater Abilities to Love God then Adam in Paradise or the Saints and Angels in Hèaven Thence it followes not that the Acts of his Lovè as Viator were to be equal or if they increased successively that he sinned This discourse cleared and confirmed from Suarez The several Acts of Charity by which Christ merited Hence the inequality of intention 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 § 1. And here our Refuter is gotten into a very fruitful and advantageous digression Now with all the skil and Artifice he ha's he labours to raise Umbrages and Clouds to obscure the Doctors Reputation and to fill the heads of weak Readers with suspitions and Jealousies as if his tenent did inferr that our Saviour was not impeccable because he loved not God as intensely as he might But notwithstanding he is here so profusely copious yet I undertake that all that is material to the present controversie in his full four leaves may be contained in the compasse of two Syllogismes but I shall give it in his own words JEANES The third and last argument is fetched from Christs impeccability it was impossible for Christ to sin but if the inward acts of his Love of God had been less intense at one time then at another he had sinned for he had broken that first and great Commandement thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy Soul with all thy mind with all thy might and strength Deut. 6. 5. Matth. 22. 37. Mark 12. 30. Luke 10. 27. For this Commandement enjoyneth the most intense actual Love of God that is possible an actual love of him tanto nixu conatu quanto fieri potest i. e. as much as may be what better and more probable gloss can we put on that clause Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength or might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then thou shalt love him with thy uttermost force and endeauour sutable hereunto is that interpretation which Aquinas giveth of those words Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart i. e. saith he ex toto posse tuo with
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
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 denyes Christ to be the meritorious Cause of our Salvation He confounds Christ's naturall liberty of Will with the morall 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 misunderstood What Suarez intends Defenders advise to the Refuter JEANES As for the second sentence that a Tempestuous time a time of Christs affliction was a season for his zeal to pour it self out more profusely then in a calmer season This is not I grant denyed by me if by this more profuse pouring out of his zeal you onely understand the outward expressions of his zeal but I cannot but extreamly wonder that you affirm this to be the utmost that you undertook to demonstrate to M. Cawdrey or to justifie now against me For first in your answer to M. Cawdrey c. § 1. SIr I must here declare to all the world that I am quite tyred with your Impertinencies What The Doctor so weak and shallow as to think zeal and the more profuse pouring it out at such a time to be nothing else but a louder Noise and a deeper sigh and perhaps a Groan Is this all the honour our Refuter will allow to this heightned Ardency of our Saviours Devotion Is this the encrease and all the Earnestness of it was this worth the recording by the Evangelist for our after-instruction No Sir the Doctor knows too too well the difference between true zeal and loud noise He knows this is a Fruit of the Spirit a Flame in the soul that mounts up to the throne of Grace a Flame that is quickned and made active and vigorous by the Wind and Storms of Affliction that blow upon it It is of the heightening these inward Acts of Piety and zeal and fervency in Prayer that the Doctor understands Saint Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the graduall Intention of these and the like Inward Acts the Doctor has not onely justified against M. Cawdrey but I also all along have demonstrated against you And therefore your following Reasons to prove a difference between the Inward Acts and the outward Expressions might have been spared and you lose time to no purpose in evidencing that which was never denyed and is so plain in it self that it needs no confirmation § 2. But let us hear Reason howsoever for now perhaps we shall find it at parting JEANES For first in your answer to M. Cawdrey you affirm by ††If it be not a fault in the Printer Master Jeanes is much mistaken for it should be by consequence if I understand Logick consequent that Christs Love of God was capable of further and higher degrees but Love is predicated of the outward expressions thereof onely analogically Analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas dicitur de urinâ Secondly In this your reply c. § 3. To the first I could wish Sir you had told us the Place for as yet I know not where to find it I remember indeed the Doctor asserts and makes good in his Treatise of will-worship that Christs Ardency in Prayer was heightened in his Agony and M. Cawdrey in his Triplex Diatribe acknowledges Cawdrey Triplex Diatribe p. 116. the Proof and sayes Christ was above the Law and did supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and so in the degree of affection in Prayer it self c. And as this is all the Ardency that the Doctor either directly or by consequence affirms of Christ so this of M. Cawdreys is the very distinct confession of all that the Doctor in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contends for And will you be so cruelly passionate to wound a Friend that you may strike him you count an Enemy because he tells you the truth If M. Cawdrey be Orthodox then surely Doctor Hammond is unjustly opposed and if the Doctors Tenet be erroneous then M. Cawdrey himself must fall under that use of Confutation that was first written in his Defence Either then Sir take in your bloody flagg of defiance that you hang out with such Terrour and Menace in your Title-Page or let the world plainly understand your new and exquisite Policy to confute by an Apology and though you name onely Doctor Hammond yet you also mean M. Cawdrey though as the world now goes you must seem to abet him Compare your Title-Page and this very passage together and see whether it fits best M. Cawdrey or the Doctor But not to intrude upon your secret thoughts and designs you plainly here manifest to the world that you have read the Doctors Account and Answer to the Triplex Diatribe And therefore I must proclaim you inexcusable as well for not understanding if not plainly perverting the Doctors sense so expresly there declared as for not taking notice at all of the Answers he made to many of your Objections before you undertook to Refute his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 4. And therefore what you add But love is predicated by the outward expressions thereof onely analogically Analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas dicitur de urinâ is nothing at all to this purpose § 5. For the Doctor confounds not the Outward Expressions with the Inward Acts but onely à posteriori concludes the heightening of the one by the multiplying and aggrandation and growth of the other As then the Philosopher collects and demonstrates the Cause by the Effect as the Mariner portends the greatness of the storm by the leaps and playing of the Porcpisce and other signs and observations as the Mathematician from the print of Hercules foot in the sand or snow did find out the true dimensions of his Body so S. Gregory has told us that probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis that the performance of the outward work is the true Index and Touchstone and proof of our Love And nature it self teaches us without any other Tutor to conclude the Inward Affection to be greatest where the Outward Expressions of Love are most eminent § 6. Though then Love as you say is predicated of the Outward Expressions thereof onely analogically analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas de urina yet since the Outward Expressions if true and genuine and not hypocriticall and counterfeit are the Fruits and signs of the Inward Affection we may then by the Graduall difference of them conclude the Rise or Abatement of that Love as the Physician judges of the health or sickness of his patient by his urine and other symptomes § 7. And therefore Sir if you will but grant me as you do the Doctor that a Tempestuous time a Time of Christs affliction was a season for his zeal to pour
usuall custome of bad debtors and stewards where they cannot satisfie their Creditors to rail at their demands and when their purses and bills are short to make payment and discount in bad language that so at least they may shame where they find they cannot satisfie and tire and weary where they cannot pay Indeed for an Adversary politickly to rail where he cannot conquer and confidently to undervalue the force of that reason which he is unable to resist or answer is a very easie way of consutation I confess but it is by libell not by book And such pitifull advocates that can onely calumniate and scold in behalf of a client without any solid plea make a bad cause far worse by such manner of defence Now as the Author does not envy this happiness of M. Cawdrey in his auditing of accounts so he is perswaded that if this reply to M. Jeanes could have been published as soon as it was designed for the Press he himself might also have received such an answer as the Doctor has done and been paid in the same coine and so at least had had a more speciall call then now he has to take notice of M. Cawdreys new manner of reckoning and stating of accounts But being not at all concerned in that Treatise he was very willing as yet not to take any notice of it And it was for these Reasons First because he saw that what he had already written against M. Cawd needed not any further confirmation there being nothing at all said in this new Rejoynder to impair any thing here delivered Secondly because if he should have said any thing more to this Reply of M. Cawdrey the work already grown too unweildy would have swelled to too large a bulk And thirdly because it could not well be done without making too large digressions from M. Jeanes to follow a new adversary which would have made the discourse too obscure and intricate by such unnecessary diversions And fourthly because the Author was willing to try how the Doctor and the world would like his present undertakings before he further intermedled with the Doctors business who as he is most immediately concerned so of all men he is fittest to undertake and best able to perform it Howsoever that our Author might not be wanting to the cause he had thus already undertaken though contrary to his first intention during the time that this was under the Press he cast an eye upon M. Cawdreys Audit and by way of Essay to satisfie the Reader of the strength of that discourse drew up an answer to one chapter that he conceived of most strength in the whole book and which had a great influence on all the rest But seeing that this work was big enough already and could not with convenience admit of this Appendix he thought fit to suppress it rather then at first be too troublesome to the Reader especially because he doubts not but that the Doctor himself if there shall be found cause will not be wanting to gratifie the Reader far better then himself could with this which he had already provided Howsoever if the Doctor shall think fit to decline this task and the world shall judge M. Cawdreys Audit to deserve a review this which he intended to have added here by way of appendix may in due time see light with some additions and strictures on the rest and M. Cawdrey may find a Person far inferiour to the Doctor that may call him to a new reckoning before he receives his quietus est or Acquittance The CONTENTS SECTION I. THe Refuters ominous changing the Doctors Title Page and the state of the Question His advantage by it over four sorts of Readers How easily the Doctor concluded against by it Love of God what it commonly signifies to English ears How difficult to defend the Doctor in that sense Not so in the Doctors wary state The Refuters Reply foreseen Answered The phrase The love of God variously taken in Scripture How understood by the Doctor In what sense Prayer an Act of holy Charity Page 1. SECT II. Doctor Hammonds renouncing the Errour charged upon him His civill address unjustly taxed by the Refuter The Defenders Resolution hereupon His reason for it Scurrility not maintained Seasonable Reproof lawfull The Defenders no regret to the Refuters person and Performances His undertakings against the Refuter This Course unpleasing to him But necessary The Doctor not guilty of high Complements and scoffs The Refuters Friends the onely Authors of them The Defenders hopes The Refuters promise The Defenders Engagement p. 7 SECT III. The Refuter acknowledges the Doctor to assert the fulness of Christs Habituall Grace His Use of Confutation and after undertakings groundless hereupon The terms of the Question much altered by the Refuter in his Rejoynder p. 15 SECT IV. The Refuters Argument no ground of the Use of Confutation unless he writes by inspiration He confounds the Immanent Acts of Love with the Action of Loving His Argument concerns not the Doctors Assertion The Acts of Divine Charity in Christ may gradually differ where the Habit is the same His frequent begging the Question and impertinence Scheibler vainly quoted What in that Author seemingly favourable to the Refuters pretences censured Immanent Acts truly Qualities Proved Not to be excluded out of the number of Entities Belong to the first species of Quality why Dispositions when imperfect things The Acts of divine Love in Christ supernaturall Not ordained to further Habits-Grace the sole effect of God Why these Acts called Dispositions The Doctor a Metaphysician The Refuters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His irrefragable Argument broken More ridiculous for the Refuters Confidence p. 19 SECT V. The Doctor innocent of the former Crimination The Refuters new Endictment proved vain by a clear instance His Argument a Parologism of four terms The Doctor affirms the direct contrary to the Refuters Charge Humane lapses doubtfull speeches Three rules of the Civill Law to interpret them All writings subject to obscurity How the Doctor to be understood in the passage arraigned He demonstrates by it the fulness of Christs Grace à posteriori The onely rationall way of proving it Christs Love more intense in his agony then in his suffering hunger Asserted by S. Paul Christs habituall grace alwayes perfect Alwayes Christ against the Sociniant Christs habitual grace not to be augmented Whence The Refuters boldness His adding the word before to the Doctors discourse and second misadventure in this kind His proof foreseen answered Difference in the actings of voluntary and naturall agents Acts of love in Christ howsoever heightned can never intend the habit Proved The Refuters major opposite to Scripture as well as the Doctor The habit of grace in Christ not determined to one uniform manner of acting Saints and Angels love God necessarily and freely So Christ as Comprehensor This not to the purpose The Refuters charitable additions The acts of holy charity of two sorts of which
the Doctor to be understood The Doctors censure of the Refuters additions just 42 SECT VI. The Refuter acknowledges his own ignorance of a generally received opinion Love a genus to the habit and the act Proved for the Refuters instruction His charging his ignorance on Aristotle Aristotle his Master why vainly quoted He speaks not to the present controversie The assumption onely denyed 72 SECT VII The Refuters reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of love into the habit and the act found in the tract of Will-worship and the answer to M. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions referr first and immediately to the inward acts of love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doctor never asserts that love was univocally predicated of the habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a clear truth His third most false In univocal productions the cause and effect still comprehended under the same genus sometimes also in equivocall His assumption of his first reason infirm His second and fourth reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally predicated of the habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor 78 SECT VIII The Refuters tongue-combat He a man of business The pertinency of the Doctors first papers to explain the meaning of the latter Unjustly censured for speaking cautelously The Refuters understanding the Doctor for a critick and a dunce Erasmus's sate the same with the Doctors Critick an honourable title The best Scholars criticks and who The true critick an universall Scholar Sextus Empericus and Crates character of a critick Quintilianus character of the true Grammarian Aristotle the first author of criticisme and grammar Necessary to compleat the Divine The best way to advance learning to unite criticisme and school-learning Pity the Refuter had not been a critick His mistake of the word Salvo what it signifies The method of the Schools in polemicall discourses observed by the Doctor The Refuter saying and unsaying 91 SECT IX The Refuters impertinent referring to former performances His vain pretences of proof The Refuters reasonings with himself inconsequent proved The intention of the act proportioned to the intension of the habit so as not to exceed it unless by accident but not alwayes to equall it Proved by instance of the Lutenist and Painter and Preacher Habits not necessary but voluntary causes unless ab extrinseco determined 104 SECT X. The Refuters saying is the onely proof that actuall love is in the predicament of action The contrary proved by Suarez Smiglecius Scheibler In actuall love the action and the terminus of it considerable The Refuters remarques in Scheibler impertinent His oracles nothing to the purpose The propositions to be proved Immanent acts in what sense qualities Scheibler not slighted Aristotle his character of Eudoxus agreeable to the Refuter His words not home to the Refuters purpose proved from reason and Suarez Habitual and actuall love both qualities and species of the same genus proved from sundry places in Suarez The Refuters further impertinencies Immanent acts of love in what sense dispositions in what not from Smiglecius Aquinas Acts of two sorts 112 SECT XI The Doctors explication from the Refuters concessions The Refuters reply and valiant resolution His first charge answered His second charge answered in three distinct propositions 1. Expressions gradually different may and in Christ alwayes did flow from a love equally intense in the habit This not the question 2. Nothing naturally hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from acts of love gradually the same Proved Gods outward favours and expressions different The inward act of his love still one and invariable Proved against the Socinian Gods love one infinite and substantiall act against Crellius In what sense God in Scripture said to love some more some less The doctrine of the Schools safer then that of the Socinian God by one immutable act dispenses all the variety of his favours Illustrated The variety in Gods outward favours whence it arises Confirmed from Lombard Aquinas Scotus Applyed to the Refuter 3. In men the outward expressions ordinarily vary according to the graduall difference in the inward acts of love Proved by reason and the authority of Gregory Durand Aquinas Estius The Doctors assertion hence proved as fully as the thing requires The Doctor not ingaged to prove that expressions gradually different could not proceed from a love equally intense The third charge answered No mystery in the word proportionably The correspondence between the inward acts of love and the outward expressions to be understood not according to Arithmetical but Geometrical proportion 131 SECT XII The Doctors proof of the vanity of the Refuters use of confutation made good from the Refuters mixture The Refuters reply and endeavour to make good his charge by consequences impertinent The Refuters momentous objection strikes as well against himself and other his friends as the Doctor The weakness of it The intention of Christs actual grace so proportioned to that of his habituall grace as not to exceed it but not so still as to equall it Illustrated by a clear instance The Schoolmen no where say that the Intension of Christs actuall grace is exactly equal to that of his habituall Aquinas of the Refuters not the Doctors ciration He speaks fully to the Doctors purpose What meant by works and the effects of wisdome and grace in Aquinas An intensive growth in the inward acts of wisdome and grace argues not an intensive increase in the habits Asserted also by the Refuter Cleared by a distinction The Chedzoy challenge The vanity of it Christ did gradually increase in the acts of wisdome and grace as he did in stature Proved from the Refuters mixture from Ames Vorstius Grotius Hooker Field Suarez Estius others both Fathers and Schoolmen and reformed Divines The Defenders advice to the Refuter to be more wary in his challenges 171 SECT XIII The Refuters melancholy phansie his acknowledging the Doctors innocence The Doctor constantly speaks of the gradual difference in some acts of charity never of the habit The Refuters consequence hereupon His monstrous Syllogism examined The acts of Christs love were primariò perse and not onely secundariò and per accidens capable of degrees demonstrated Actions and passions intended and remitted onely in regard of their termes The habits and acts of charity in Christ gradually onely and not specifically different from those in all other men God in his extraordinary power may create something greater and better then the habituall grace of Christ Asserted by Aquinas Suarez and many other Schoolmen and the Refuter himself The acts of the habit of grace in Christ de facto gradually diflerent in themselves and from the habit The phrase The love of God variously taken in Scripture proved In what sense the Doctor constantly takes it Demonstrated The greater good to be more intensely beloved There
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
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
the smallest misadventures our Refuter will appear guilty of and therefore I shall not fix upon it especially since it matters not much if the Doctor be proved obnoxious to the Error charged upon him what the Reason was that first did move him to confute it § 3. Yet for his comfort I must tell him that as his first undertaking was altogether groundless so this whole Process is ridiculous and only a great heap of Errors and mistakes § 4. For first he very ignorantly or wilfully confounds the Immanent Acts of Love with the Action of Loving things that are toto genere different For this is a Praedicamental Action and the other are Qualities specifically distinct from the habit of Love as shall in due place be demonstrated And he could not but know that the Doctor positively does maintain it in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore must not by the Rules of Art be supposed to be otherwise without a Pittiful begging of the Question till the contrary has been proved against him This Argument then of which he is so confident that he shall submit it to the Doctors most severe examination at the very first glance appears an empty Paralogism that cannot conclude any thing against the Doctor For the Syllogism let it be put into whatsoever form this Refuter can devise will consist of four terms the Doctor by the Acts of Love in the Conclusion to be brought against him meaning the Quality of Actual Love and the Refuter in one of the Premisses by the Acts of Love understanding the Predicamental Action of Loving and consequently there can be no opposition because it cannot be ad idem § 5. But then secondly suppose we his Discourse were artificial yet it will not at all concern the Assertion of the Doctor For Intension and Remission is properly a gradual heightning or abatement of the same Numerical Form as we shall hereafter prove But the Doctor never affirms as I can find that the self-same Numerical Act of Holy Love in Christ was more intense at one time than at another which this Argument supposes He only affirms that Christ in one Act of Divine Love or holy Charity for this alone the Doctor means as shall in due place be evidenced though this Refuter either ignorantly or wilfully mistakes it for that high and most transcendent Act of Love that was immediately fixed on God as its proper Object was more ardent than in another as in his dying for us than in his suffering Hunger Poverty Nakedness for our sakes or that this inward Act of divine Charity in Christ was more ardent and intense than those other were Now this Assertion as it is a Truth clearly demonstrable and shall in due place be made good so it is not any wayes concerned in this Argument of the Refuter § 6. For though true it is that Actions are not intended but by reason of Qualities yet this nothing hinders but that one individual Action may Comparatively and Respectively be more intense than another even where the gradual height of both is supposed to be still Simply and Absolutely invariable still the same For instance Illumination is a proper Praedicamental Action and yet Sense and experience tells us that the illumination of the Sun and the illumination of any one of the fixed Stars are gradually different and yet the illumination of both is still the same in it self and never varies but by accident in respect of the variety of the Medium or distance because the Original light of the Sun and Stars is still invariable * Aristot li. 2. de Generat corrupt c. 10. text 56. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes the great Philosopher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Causa necessaria ad aliquod agendum determinata est agitque quando quantum potest Burgersdic Log. li. 1. c 17. theor 13. Vid. commentar Agentia pure naturalia recte se habentia ad unum natura sunt determinata ut sublatis impedimentis externis non possunt non id producere ut patet exemplo corporum coelestium c. Wendelin Contemp. Physic Sect. 1. Part. 1. c. 4. p. â—00 So also Scheibler Metaphys l. 1. c. 22. tit 8. art 2. n. 96. For all natural Causes continuing still the same do alwayes work alike because they work by a necessity of nature and to the utmost of their strength and might § 7. And therefore notwithstanding this Refuters Argument I see no reason why also it may not be so in respect of the several individual Acts of Christ's Love and that though they in themselves be supposed to continue still invariable of one equal intension in themselves they may not yet in comparison and respect of one another be said to be more or less ardent and intense § 8. For thirdly to shew this Refuters Discourse yet more impertinent though most certain it is as the Doctor clearly grants and maintains that the Habit of Divine Charity in Christ was de facto alwayes at the height and in its utmost fulness that a finite Nature was capable of yet it is not therefore necessary that every Act of holy Charity should be alwayes in its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and full height nor will it thence follow that every Act of this Habit should be equally intense with the Cause from whence it flowes but may differ in degrees not only from the Habit but also from all other Acts springing from it unless this Refuter can by other Arguments than this prove a necessity of the gradual determination and equality of intensness of the several Acts with the Habit. § 9. Now all things that are any wayes determined must of necessity be determined either ab intrinseco or ab extrinseco from some internal cause and necessity of nature or from some outward bounds and limitations § 10. Ab intra there can be imagined no determination possible as his Master Scheibler may teach him For the Habit or Principle of these Immanent Acts is not necessary and determined in its Operations but an absolute * Of the difference between Natural Voluntary Agents Vid. Scheibler Metaphys li. 1. c. 22. tit 8. art 2. n. 96. De actibus liberis censeo etiam certum nec de potentia absoluta posse liberos esse nisi effectivè fiant à potentia libera cujus sunt Actiones ut in superioribus tactum est Suarez Metaphys disp 47. Sect. 2. §. 9. p. 557. free Cause as the Will it self is wherein it is subjected with which it coeffectively still concurres to the Production of the Acts because as it is confessed by this Refuter in this very Argument it is a Moral Habit that is only seated in the Will § 11. Ab extra the Habit cannot be supposed to be determined in its Operations to one absolute height and degree of intensness without a manifest Petitio Principii till it be proved against the Doctor For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
learning in this point of which he professes himself so totally ignorant I should think fit to referr him to Ruvio's Logica Mexicana as grave an Author as his Scheibler or the Author of the Collegium Complutense § 28. His words most pertinent to this purpose are these Cum omnis motus vel actio sit via in terminum per ipsum productum quaelibet harum actionum sc appetitus sensitivi proprium habet terminum quidem terminus transmutationis corporalis sensu percipitur Terminus vero actionis appetitus non percipitur sensu quemadmodum neque actio ipsa Iram enim nisi aliqua alteratione Corporis ostendatur vel certe verbis aut signis non agnoscimus sed cum sit Actio corporea absque dubio habet proprium terminum nomine ejusdem actionis significatum ut ostendunt Operationes Voluntatis similes Dum enim Voluntas rem aliquam Amore prosequitur Actio ipsa Amandi suum habet terminum in eadem voluntate productum nempe Amorem actualem quemadmodum actio Intellectus verbum mentale sed eodem nomine significamus Actionem Terminum nempe Amoris Actualis Ita ergo de Actibus appetitus intelligendum est Amorem sensitivum Irae Gaudii motus suos habere Terminos inneminatos quos iisdem nominibus ac actus ipsos nominamus nempe actualem Amorem actualem Iram Gaudium Et rursus quemadmodum Amor actualis per Actum Voluntatis productus Verbum mentale per Actum Intellectus sunt Qualitates cum tamen Dilectio Intellectio sunt Actiones pari ratione de Actibus Appetitus sentiendum est c. Ruv. Log. Mexicana lib. Praedicam c. 8. q. 4. in solut dubii 2. p. 1184 1185. § 29. But yet if this Author should seem too obscure and mean for a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinities perusal I shall refer him to that very Suarez whom he himself recommends to the Doctors inspection and yet not so much to his Authority as his Reason though yet oportet discentes credere among whom in this point he confesses himself to be His words are these * Vide Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. Prima erat instantia de Actibus immanentibus quam multi expediunt negantes illas esse Qualitates sed Actiones tantum quae inter Thomistas videtur esse valde recepta opinio ut infra videbimus tractando de Praedicamentis Actionis ut ibi ostendemus tamen negari non potest quin illa actio aliquem habeat terminum intrinsecum qui per eam fiat ut ibidem ostendemus ille autem terminus non potest esse nisi Qualitas ut facile patebit discurrendo per caetera Praedicamenta Item secundum hos Actus verè dicimur Quales nempe boni aut mali scientes Amantes irati c. Item hi actus sunt formae ultimo actuantes ac perficientes ipsas substantias quibus insunt ergo convenit illis communis ratio Qualitatis supra assignata Atque haec sententia est communis inter authores cam tenet D. Thomas opusc 48. Soncinas 5. Metaphys q. 36. Latius l. 9. q. 21. Ferrariensis 2. contra Gentes c. 82. 2. de Anima q. 12. Hervaeus quodlib 9. q. 8. Aegid tract de Mensur Angel q. 10. Et in eadem sententia est Scotus 1 Sent. d. 3. q. 6. § Hic sunt Quodlib 12. § Ad tertium Principale quem sequuntur Scotistae praesertim Antonius Andreas 9. Metaphys q. 4. idem sentiunt Durand Gabriel 1 Sent. d. 27. q. 2. Thus Suarez Metaphys disp 42. sect 5. § 13. § 30. Howsoever though he thinks fit to referr the Doctor because he is a Critick to learn some Metaphysicks from Scheibler yet I will be so civil to him because he is a Schoolman to referr him for his learning in this point to one of the subtlest of those Doctors And let Scotus be the man it is l. 1. Sent. d. 27. q. 3. § 19. ad tertium The place is short but full and not taken notice of by Suarez And the words are these Ad Tertium concedo quod Notitia est proles verè genita sed productio illa non est actualis intellectio quia ut dictum est supra actualis intellectio non est Actio de genere Actionis sed est Qualitas nata terminare talem actionem quae significatur per hoc quod est dicere vel in communi per hoc quod est elicere non igitur Verbum est aliquid productum actione quae est intellectio quia ipsa intellectio non est productiva alicujus sed ipsa est producta actione quae est de genere actionis sicut dictum est supra He here referrs to the place quoted by Suarez 1. Sent. d. 3. q. 6. p. 110. col 2. n. 31. ib. q. ult p. 130. ex edit Cavell where he has very solidly proved it § 31. And thus we have Reason and Authority sufficient to clear this point That Actual Love is a Quality flowing from the Habit of Divine Love that terminates the immanent Action of Loving which for want of sufficient words are both comprehended under the same common name of the Immanent Acts of Charity or Divine Love And therefore to come to his second Argument § 32. Though as he truly sayes Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate yet these Qualities that terminate immanent Acts and are produced by them particularly the Quality of Actual Love that proceeds from the energetical operation and working of the divine Grace of holy Charity of which the Scriptures and Fathers and all Divines are so full must not be excluded out of the number of Entities for this Refuters Grave saying till he can more solidly prove that all immanent Acts and particularly this of Divine Love are purely Actions not terminated in Qualities of the same name with the immanent Acts or Actions themselves And so I come to his first Argument the Forlorn hope of the Cause § 33. If they be Qualities they must most probably be ranked under the first of the four Species c. § 34. To this let the same Suarez to make it more authentick give answer Metaph. tom 2. dist 42. sect 5. § 15. Supposito ergo saies he quod hi Actus sint Qualitates videri potest alicui esse collocandas in tertiâ specie tum quia sunt termini suarum Actionum tum etiam quia Aristoteles Passiones Animae in illâ specie collocat ut Iram Gaudium c. quae tamen Actus immanentes sunt sed hae rationes non urgent jam enim diximus esse terminum Actionis non esse adaequatam vel essentialem rationem illius tertiae speciei Passiones autem animae per se ipsae ut sunt actus immanentes non pertinent ad tertiam speciem sed secundum id à quo accipiunt nomen Passionis nimirum ex alteratione
hanc etiam interpretationem verissimè dicitur nomen seu conceptum Dispositionis genericè specificè sumi posse Nam priori modo idem est quod Actus perficiens actuans potentiam operativam ut abstrahit ab actu primo secundo sic constituit hanc primam speciem Qualitatis quatenus est simplex quaedam species subalterna quae ulterius dividitur in actum primum secundum tanquam in Habitum Dispositionem strictè specificè sumptam § 44. And therefore Ringantur ut ilia Codro I must tell our Refuter that though he count the Doctor but a Critick yet he ha's shewed himself a true Philosopher and an acute Metaphysician and a solid Divine when he asserted that Love was truly a Quality of the first Species which as a Genus proximum was predicated of Habitual and Actual Love and therefore more truly deserves the Title of a School-man then our writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity that confesses himself to be ignorant of such vulgar common Truths which it is impossible a true Schoolman and Philosopher should not perfectly know § 45. And now for a close I shall adde that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first ground of this Refuters mistake all along in this Discourse arises from his misunderstanding of the nature of Immanent Acts which by a mistake and too hasty running over a Passage in Scheibler formerly quoted he makes to be simply Praedicamental Actions toto genere different from Habits and not at all Qualities either not distinguishing or not apprehending how in Immanent Acts the formal operation which is acknowledged to be a Praedicamental Action could be distinguished from the Quality that terminates and is still produced by that Action which as it is the first causa procreans so it is the constant causa conservans of it too For it is with these Qualities as it is with Light the Quality of actual Love that terminates the Action of Loving does still constantly depend on that Action in its being and preservation as Light does on Illumination The vanity and falshood of which Assertion of this Refuter as it hath already appeared so he will instantly give us further occasion to demonstrate § 46. And now for a breathing bait I shall be bold to ask our Refuter what he thinks of this his irrefragable Demonstration which at the beginning he so confidently submits to the Doctors severest examination Let him tell me whether it appear not to himself now as ridiculous as * 1 Kings 12. 11 25. Zedekiahs iron Horns when he fled at the news of the King of Israels rout and destruction Let him tell me whether his boasting and confidence of Success before an Enemy appeared make not his flight and overthrow more worthy to be scorned laughed at then otherwise it would have been Let him tell me how it is possible the first horn of his Dilemma or Captious Argument wherein all the strength and terror lay being broken and destroyed that the Doctor should be in any the least danger of the other What necessity now is there and let our Refuter himself judge that the Doctor must be forced to say that this Quality is a Habit and consequently what will become of his Inference That the Doctor must by consequence affirm what he seems to deny Indeed if the Doctor had asserted that the Habit the Principle of these Acts had been intended he had formally contradicted himself or if he had said that some Habit the terminus of those Acts and produced and acquired by them had been intended he had spoken and affirmed a kind of contradiction in adjecto for then he had affirmed that a pure supernatural Grace that solely depends upon the gift and infusion of God had been acquired by humane Acts and endeavors But then if he had so said this had not been to have contradicted himself He had spoken non-sense indeed but not a Contradiction to himself because he had not said that the all-full supernatural infused Habit had been increased but either a new Habit acquired or augmented by those Acts. And therefore our Refuter was as much mistaken in this attempt as in any of the rest § 47. But let me tell him that as the Doctor had no necessity to lay down such an Assertion so he was too sound and solid a Philosopher and Divine to do it though yet this Refuter does every where decry him for a Dunce and bragge he has so made him And therefore I shall only say that since the Doctor had so often and so early and withall so clearly disclaimed this Opinion in regard of the intensive growth of our Blessed Saviours Habitual Grace of Divine Love the Refuter in my Judgement could have no other aim in the re-doubling this charge in the close of his Argument but only to fill up his Paper and swell it into a volume He was sure at his * Martial aliter non fit Avite Liber or else he was willing to amuse the eyes of weak Readers and fill their heads with vain jealousies § 48. And thus we see * Horat. Suis ipsa Roma viribus ruit Though the Romans counted their City immortal and dedicated to it Temples and Altars with this Inscription Vrbi Aeternae yet Time and Roma Sotterranea has shewed that their Poet was the better Prophet And though our Refuter were so confident of this Argument that he proudly submits it to the Doctors severest examination yet as overladen with its own greatness it sinks into an empty and very impertinent Sophism If he had not put so much trust in it and swelled it with heterogeneous matter to this Bulk the Fall had not been so great But now as he said of Pompeys overthrow * Martial jacere Vno non poterat tanta ruina loco so as if it were not sufficient to have shewed the vanity of it once we shall be forced to hear of it again in very many places of his Pamphlet for there is scarce a Section to be met with where he grounds not his Reply upon this his first great but very unfortunate performance And therefore his Foundation being thus destroyed and not one stone left unremoved I shall with the greater security proceed to the examination of the rest They say of Mahomets Tombe though the more sober reports of later Travailers contradict it that being an Iron Chest it hangs in the Air in the Temple at Mecha drawn up suspended by the Magnetical force of a Load-stone roof that does cover it And such methinks is this following Discourse of our Refuter an empty Castle in the Air that ha's nothing to support it but the Magnetical chains of his own deluded Imagination And so we are come to a more solid building of the Doctors erection For thus he goes on SECT 5. The Doctor innocent of the former Crimination The Refuters new Endictment proved vain by a clear instance His
Argument a Paralogism of four terms The Doct. affirms the direct contrary to the Refuters Charge Humane lapses doubtful speeches Three rules of the Civil Law to interpret them All writings subject to obscurity How the Doctor to be understood in the passage arraigned He demonstrates by it the fulness of Christs habitual Grace à Posteriori The only rational way of proving it Christs Love more intense in his Agony than in his suffering Hunger Asserted by S. Paul Christs habitual Grace alwayes perfect Alwayes Christ against the Socinians Christ's habitual Grace not to be augmented whence The Refuters boldness His adding the word Before to the Doctors Discourse and second misadventure in this kind His proof foreseen answered Difference in the actings of Voluntary and Natural Agents Acts of Love in Christ howsoever heightned can never intend the Habit. Proved The Refuters Major opposite to Scripture as well as the Doctor The habit of Grace in Christ not determined to one uniform manner of Acting Saints and Angels love God necessarily and freely So Christ as Comprehensor This not to the purpose The Refuters charitable Additions The Acts of holy Charity of two sorts Of which the Doctor to be understood The Doctors censure of the Refuters Additions just Doctor HAMMOND § 6. FIrst I said it not in these words which he undertakes to refute These are pag. 258. of his Book thus set down by him This point may serve for confutation of a passage in Doctor H. against Mr. C. to wit That Christs love of God was capable of further Degrees 7. These words I never said nor indeed are they to be found in the Passage which he sets down from me and whereon he grounds them which he sayes is this D. H. p. 222. In the next place he passeth to the inforcement of my Argument from what we read concerning Christ himself that he was more intense in Prayer at one time than at another when yet the lower degree was sure no sin and prepares to answer it viz. That Christ was above the Law and did more than the Law required but men fall short by many degrees of what is required But sure this answer is nothing to the matter in hand for the evidencing of which that example was brought by me viz. That sincere Love is capable of Degrees This was first shewed in several men and in the same man at several times in the several ranks of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one act of Prayer than in another 8. Here the Reader finds not the words Christs Love of God is capable of further Degrees and when by deduction he endeavours to conclude them from these words his conclusion falls short in one word viz. further and 't is but this That the example of Christ will never prove Doctor Hammond his Conclusion unless it inferr that Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees 9. This is but a slight charge indeed yet may be worthy to be taken notice of in the entrance though the principal weight of my Answer be not laid on it and suggest this seasonable advertisement that he which undertakes to refute any saying of another must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable otherwise he may himself become the only Author of the Proposition which he refutes 10. The difference i◠no more than by the addition of the word further But that addition may possibly beget in the Readers understanding a very considerable difference 11. For this Proposition Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees is readily interpretable to this dangerous sense that Christs Love of God was not full but so far imperfect as to be capable of some further Degrees than yet it had And thus sure the Author I have now before me acknowledges to have understood the words and accordingly professeth to refute them from the consideration of the All-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ which he could not do unless he deemed them a prejudice to it 12. But these other words which though he finds not in my Papers he yet not illogically inferrs from them that Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees more intense at one time than at another are not so liable to be thus interpreted but only import that Christ's Love of God had in its latitude or amplitude several Degrees one differing from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in that All-full perfect Love of God which was alwayes in Christ so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees 13. The matter is clear The Degrees of which Christs Love of God is capable are by me thus exprest that his Love was more intense at one time than at another but still the higher of those Degrees of intenseness was as truly acknowledged to be in Christs Love at some time viz. in his Agony as the lower was at another and so all the Degrees which are supposed to be mentioned of his Love are also supposed and expresly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other whereas a supposed Capacity of further Degrees seems at least and so is resolved by that Author to infer that these Degrees were not in Christ the direct contradictory to the former Proposition so that they were wanting in him and the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured as prejudicial to Christs fulness Here then was one misadventure in his Proceeding § 1. TO this so clear vindication wherein the Doctor very evidently declares 1. That neither the Words this Author undertakes to refute are to be found in his Book nor the Sense he draws from them 2. His acknowledgement of the dangerous sense that Proposition which he causelesly charges on the Doctor is readily interpretable to and that he who best knew his own opinions of any man in the world was so far from any such meaning that he expresly declares that the but seeming asserting of that want in Christs habitual Grace is justly censured as prejudicial to his fulness our Refuter returns a very proud answer and nothing to the purpose thus JEANES 1. He that saith that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony than before affirmeth that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further Degrees than yet he had But you affirm the former and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter unto you The Premisses virtually contain the Conclusion and therefore he that holds the Premisses maintaineth the Conclusion I shall readily hearken to your seasonable advertisement that he that undertakes to refute any saying of another must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable but notwithstanding it I shall assume the liberty to charge you with the consequencies of your words and if I cannot make good my charge the shame will light on me 2. If there were any mistake in supplying
the word further it was a Mistake of Charity for I was so charitable as to think that you spake pertinently to the matter you had in hand I conceived that your scope in your Treatise of Will-worship was to prove that there be uncommanded Degrees of the Love of God that those large inclusive words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart withall thy soul c. do not command the highest and most intense degree of the Love of God so that a man may fulfill this command and yet there may be room or place for further and higher Degrees of the Love of God Now this Proposition Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees which you confess to be not illogically inferred from your Papers will never reach this point unless you understand the word further and therefore your censure of my supplying the word further as a misadventure in my proceedings is groundless § 2. You have said Sir And now to which of the former Paragraphs is this answer addressed Have you any where shewed the falshood or weakness of the Doctors vindication of that Passage in his Account from the charge laid in against it in your Vse of Confutation Has he not here clearly demonstrated his Innocence and that neither the Words nor the Sense imposed upon him are his Has he not manifested beyond exception that by your own addition of the word further not to be found in that Passage you have charged him with an Error that he is no wayes guilty of and as heartily abominates as you or any man can Review the Passage you taxed in your Vse of Confutation and compare it with the present Defence and if you can yet find it faulty let us know your reasons in short Do not set a new house on fire that you may run away in the Smoke for that will but aggravate your guilt Remember Sir your Promise and retract what is amiss Do not seek for new Calumnies till the former be made good Howsoever the world must needs see by this your (a) Qui non facit quod facere debet videtur facere adversus ea quia non facit Et qui facit quod facere non debet non videtur facere quod jussus est Digest de Reg. Jur. l. 50. tit 17. leg 121 Tergiversation and hunting after new Cavils to countenance old Aspersions that the Doctor is innocent and that a verse in Machiavels Proverbs which he borrowed from Tacitus Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit was your Text from whence you deduced your second Vse of Confutation § 3. The former Passage then being supposed innocent by our Refuters (b) Qui tacet non utique fatetur sed tamen verum est eum non negare Digest de reg Jur. leg 142. ibid. no reply to the Doctors vindication for all Courts of Judicature in the world absolve the person arraigned when the Accuser either cannot or will not make good his Crimination I shall now proceed to consider whether the Doctor ex post facto may be concluded guilty of the Vse of Confutation by this that our Refuter has anew brought in against him § 4. The Indictment now is The Doctor guilty not directly as before but only by consequence And thus the Accuser endeavours to make good his Charge § 5. He that saith that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony than before affirmeth by consequence you mean Sir that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further degrees than yet it had But you affirm the former and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter unto you The Premisses virtually contain the Conclusion and therefore he that holds the Premisses maintaineth the Conclusion § 6. In good time Sir But then it must be where the Syllogism is (a) Leges communes sunt septem Prima In Syllogismo non debent esse plures termini nec pauciores tribus Haec lex praecipitur l. 1. prior c. 25. just and right and the (b) Secunda lex Non debet esse plus aut minus in Conclusione quam fuit in Praemissis Conclusion logically and artificially inferred from (c) Septima Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem quare cum propositio negans deterior sit affirmante particularis universali si altera Praemissarum negans aut particularis sit Conclusio quoque debet esse negans aut particularis true and unquestionable principles (d) Haec regula se extendit etiam ad conditiones materiae ita ut si altera Praemissarum sit necessaria altera contingens Conclusio debet esse contingens ut docetur l. 1. Prior. c. 24. Burgers dic Log. l. 2. c. 8. otherwise though the Premisses virtually contain the Conclusion yet the inference will be false Unless the matter as well as the form of the Syllogism be true the Conclusion though rightly inferred for all that will be an untruth (e) Cum Conclusio dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessario sequi ex praemissis non intelligitur necessitas ipsius conclusionis quae sequitur quae necessitas consequentis appellatur sed necessitas sequelae sive consequentiae Necessitas enim conclusionis consequentis in solâ demonstratione locum habet Necessitas consequentiae in omni Syllogismo bene formato haec enim necessitas est anima Syllogismi eâ enim sublatâ Syllogismus non erit Syllogismus sed Paralogismus Burgersdic Log. l. 2. c. 6. in Comment §. 3. Follow it may by a necessity of consequence but there will be no necessity in the consequent and the inference will be naught Though you are a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity yet I see I must be forced to read a Logick Lecture to you And therefore to make this evident by an undeniable instance and not to asperse but only to give our Refuter a Vse of Instruction He that saith that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church affirmeth by consequence that he has also power over every particular Congregation But you Mr. Refuter affirm the former and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter to you The Premisses virtually contain the Conclusion and therefore he that holds the Premisses maintaineth the Conclusion I know Sir notwithstanding this Argument you will bid defiance to the Pope and every the least ragge of Antichrist and you will deny that you are any wayes concerned in the Conclusion because the Assumption is false I believe it Sir and accept of your answer and therefore acquit you from the danger of the Inference § 7. But then withall I must ask you in the Doctors behalf And what if there be no less then four terms in your Syllogism and there be more in the Conclusion then the Premisses naturally inferre and that the Assumption also is directly false If these be all true as I shall not fail to demonstrate must the Doctor lay his hand on his
acknowledged it is by the Doctor in this very Paragraph from whence the Refuter draws his Charge that he acknowledges the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured as prejudicial to Christs fulness that I cannot but wonder at the strange boldness of the man that though he saies he would assume that liberty yet for all that he durst lay that to the Doctors charge which he had so clearly so expresly so frequently disclaimed But my wonder must cease when I consider that from a Country-Lecturer he is arrived to be a writer of Scholastical and practical Divinity since he has attained to the Philosophers stone in Theologie and as himself in effect tells us in this Pamphlet he has all the Schoolemen at his fingers end nay just as many no more nor no less then are in Paul's Church-yard the Library at Oxford he may now conclude quidlibet ex quolibet and by his Almighty tincture make an Ingot of a Brass Andiron § 32. And therefore Sir I must again renew my request and desire you in good earnest to tell us where the Doctor does say that Christ's Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before I would you had as carefully observed as you profess you shall readily hearken to the Doctors seasonable Advertisement that he which undertakes to refute any saying of anothers must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable I have carefully read over the whole Section and do not find the very word before in it And yet let me tell you Sir that this word before is the only serviceable word that in probability might seem to infer that Conclusion which you lay to the Doctors charge For he that saies that Christs Love was more intense in his Agony then before does seem to imply that his Love did receive addition and growth in his Agony But this the Doctor saies not nay he frequently and clearly even in this Section disclaimes it This is only your addition and a second misadventure in your proceedings You had formerly added the word further to the Doctors expression and now you will again assume the liberty to adde another word before to it that must conclude the Doctor to mean and speak what he never thought or intended Sir you are a bold man indeed But this is only to cudgel a Jack-of-Lent of your own making And if you make a quarrel and destroy the shadow of the Lion which your self have cast how can you chuse Sir but deserve the Laurel and be cried up for a Conqueror § 33. But perhaps now he is called upon for it so earnestly he will prove his Assumption also by Consequence for he is an excellent Sequele-man thus Whosoever asserts that Christs Love of God was more intense at one time then another viz. in his Agony more intense then in his suffering hunger for us does by consequence assert that Christ's Love of God was more intense in his Agony then it was before But the Doctor asserts the Antecedent Ergo. § 34. Hold you there Sir your Major I deny and there is no connexion and consequence at all in it For though he that saies Christ's Love was more intense in his Agony then it was at another time in another Act suppose of suffering hunger for us acknowledges a gradual difference in respect of the intension of these two several Acts yet he does not acknowledge a gradual heightning or encrease of any one of them For it is not with the intension of these Acts and Qualities that are the issues of the Will as it is with those that are the fruits and effects of Natural Agents The Will here being a free and voluntary Agent may and does (a) Voluntas nostra subitò prorumpere potest in ferventem intensum actum amoris c. Suarez tom 2 Metaph. disp 46. sect 3. §. 15. Si agens sit liberum potest pro sua libertate applicare vim suam ad magis vel minus agendum Suarez ibid. sect 4. §. 14. act how and when it pleases It may instantly produce the most fervent as well as it does a less intense Act or it may heighten the gradual Perfection of the Act by degrees and successively But then (b) Vid. Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 46. sect 3. Natural Agents by reason of the distance of the Agent from the Passum or the resistance of some contrary Quality to be expelled or the weakness of their own virtue must of necessity intend the Quality successively and the higher degree cannot be produced before the lower have been first attained And therefore though one of these Acts in comparison of another is more intense yet neither of them is therefore said to be formally heightned and intended because being the free issues of the Will they might be produced severally in the same indivisible degree of height wherein they after continued and consequently here is no asserting that Christs Love in his Agony was more intended as that signifies a gradual heightning of the same numerical form or Quality then it was before Adde to this that he who saies that Christs Love was more intense in his Agony then in his suffering hunger for us does not by Consequence assert that his Love was now more intense then it was before but only compare two Acts together and notwithstanding this comparison he may yet further assert that Christs Love of God was more intense before his Agony then in it though in his Agony it was more intense then in his suffering hunger for us to wit in that Act of his Love which was immediately terminated in God himself and in which Act of Divine Love all the rest were radicated and planted And indeed of necessity it must be so supposed For though he loved us men and for our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate and made Man and lived and dyed for us yet every step and degree of this Love every one single Act wholly issued from this high transcendent Act of Divine Love the most superlative of all and still he loved us for Gods sake (a) Heb 10. 5 6 7 12. Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure Then said I Loe I come in the volume of the Book it is written of me to do thy will O God By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all And therefore he saies to his Disciples that were troubled when he foretold of his death Joh. 14. 31. But that the world may know that I love the Father as the Father gave me commandement even so I do Though then his Love of God in his Agony and Death was the highest Act of Charity to us men yet this as all the rest was rooted in that higher Act of Love to
his Father because they all issued from it and in every Act though he loved us yet it was only for Gods sake § 35. But yet to make our Refuter's Discourse as strong as he can desire I shall for the present suppose that the Doct. had positively and in termes terminant affirmed that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before what then will be the issue will it then appear that he does the Doctor no wrong and that he is able to infer his Conclusion against him Certainly not For now the Major will be proved altogether as inconsequent as the Assumption has already been evidenced to be false It is this He that saith that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before affirmeth that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further Degrees then yet it had But c. Ergo c. The whole strength and force of it does depend and rest upon this only Supposition That any gradual heightning in the Acts of Christs Love must of necessity infer a gradual heightning in the Habit. But this is most notoriously false For the Acts of Love in Christ howsoever heightned and advanced can never possibly increase the Habit. § 36. For first (a) Habitus infusi non producuntur neque augentur effective per proprios Actus etiam in proprio Subjecto Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. q. 13. disp 31. pag. 416. col 2. 4. Neque Habitus operativi ut charitas aliae virtutes infusae possunt per se producere sibi similes Et ratio reddi potest quia haec est communis ratio Habitùs operativi ut scil non est productivus alterius Habitus sed solum actuum Vel certe dici potest Gratiam esse eminentem quandam participationem Divinae naturae quae propterea postulat ut solum per influxum Divinitatis naturâ suâ participari possit ideo non est qualitas activa sui similis sed à solo Deo ut à principali causa producibilis Suarez ibid. col 1. D E. Infused Habits such as this as they cannot be produced so neither can they physically and effectively be augmented by any Acts or humane endeavours as already it has been proved (b) Dicunt aliqui Christum Dominum per Actus virtutum quos exercebat acquisivisse augmentum harum virtutum sed hoc nec verè nec satis consideratè dictum est nam rationes quae probant habuisse Christum hos Habitus à principio probant similiter habuisse illos in gradu Heroico ut hîc dixit D. Thomas vel ut clarius dicamus habuisse in sua summa perfectione quam habere possunt vel secundum legem Dei ordinariam vel secundum naturalem capacitatem facultatem hominis cui hi Habitus eorum actus accommodantur vel denique in summa perfectione quam in ipso Christo unquam habituri erant Secondly When any Habit already is in the utmost height that the Subject is capable of no Acts howsoever gradually intense can possibly increase it Now it is supposed on both hands that the Habit of Grace holy Charity in Christ was already in him in all fulness in gradu heroico as Aquinas calls it (*) Concedo ergo per hos Actus neque Habitus neque augmentum eorundem Christum acquisivisse quia Actus non intendit Habitum nisi sit intensior illo Christus autem à Principio habuit Habitus vel magis vel aequè intensos quà m futuri essent Actus Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. q. 7. art 3. disp 19. sect 2. p. 300. col 1. C D E F. Aquin. 3. part q. 7. art 2. Suarez commentar in loc Actus nullo modo augent Habitum jam sibi aequalem Vid. Suarez Metaph. tom 2. disp 44. sect 10. §. 14 15 16 17. Habitus sicut generatur per Actus ita etiam intenditur non intenditur autem nisi per Actus intensiores ut infra dicemus Suarez ibid. sect 6. §. 2. pag. 431. col 1. Vide etiam ibid. §. 5. Thirdly No Acts can possibly intend even an Acquisite Habit unless they be more gradually perfect then the habit supposed to be intended by it But in this present case the Habit is not acquired but infused and all the Acts howsoever heightned or intended must also be acknowledged to issue and flow from it And consequently since the Effect cannot be more noble then the Cause they can never advance the Habit or make it gradually more intense then formerly it was But of this again in due place § 37. But then fourthly If there were any truth any Consequence in this Major it will directly strike against the Scriptures as well as Doctor Hammond For do not they every where magnifie this last Act of Christs Love manifested in his dying for us as the most transcendent and superlative and which is not to be parallelled amongst all his other acts of Love towards us (a) Joh. 15. 13. Vide Maldonat Jansen alios in loc Greater Love saies our Saviour has no man then this that a man lay down his life for his friends And the Apostle in Saint (b) Tu majorem habuisti Domine ponens eam etiam pro inimicis Bernard serm Fer. 4tâ hebdom sanctae Rom. 5. 10. Bernards opinion seems to go higher for when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son And again (c) Rom. 5. v. 6 7 8. For when we were yet without strength in due time Christ dyed for the ungodly For scarcely for a righteous man will one dye yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die But God and Christ let me adde for (d) Esay 53. 7. oblatus est quia ipse voluit commendeth his Love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us Well then might Saint John cry out in Contemplation of this Love Ecce quanta Charitas (e) 1 Joh. 3. 1. Behold what manner of Love the Father hath bestowed upon us And again (f) Jo. 3. 16. Sic dilexit So God loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son And again (a) 1 Jo. 4. 9 10. In this was manifested the Love of God towards us because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world that we might live through him Herein is Love not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins This this was Love the height and commendation and full manifesting of it His Birth his Life his Doctrine and Miracles his suffering Hunger and Nakedness and Poverty for our sakes were all high Acts of Love But hereby as Saint Iohn speaks (b) 1 Joh. 3. 16. perceive we the Love of God because he laid down his life for us And therefore the Apostle in the place formerly insisted on to express the
great a Master Go on and prosper in your study of him so long till you rightly understand him and know how better to apply his Maximes to your advantage then you have done in the present Controversie § 9. For what I pray Sir saies Aristotle to misguide you in the case Is this it you mean in the place quoted from his Topicks 1. Top. c. 15. n. 11 Is it this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas alas Sir why should you conjure up Aristotles Ghost to speak an Oracle and Truth that never was yet questioned You might have saved the Printer the labour of troubling his Greek Characters Smiths Elements of Logick had been sufficient to prove that which every Fresh-man in Logick knows to be an undoubted Axiome But you were willing to let us know you had Aristotles Organon in your study and that you could quote him in Greek § 10. But good Sir I pray tell me how could your great Master Aristotle misguide you in the point depending betwixt you and the Doctor Was it ever denied by your Adversary that Entia primo diversa cannot be put in the same Praedicament or has he any where asserted that a word is not ambiguous that is attributed to things that are put in divers Praedicaments To this only speaks Aristotle But by the way give me leave to tell you that either the Printer or your Amanuensis were mistaken in this Quotation For it is not to be found in the 15th but in the 13th Chapter at least in my Edition wherein there are but fourteen Chapters in that Book Howsoever the words I acknowledge and pass by the Lapse as veniall and if you can now prove that Love which the Doctor makes the Genus of the Habit the Act is a transcendental thing and found in several Praedicaments like the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he in that place instances in I shall then acknowledge the force of this Quotation from Aristotle but till you can make this appear and make good your Assumption I cannot take it for an Oracle that the Habit and the Act of Love are Entia primo diversa things put in several Praedicaments because that you have asserted it You may spare your pains Sir in proving Axiomes and your Major should have been granted you for asking without Aristotles authority Till the Minor which is only the matter in debate betwixt you and the Doctor be made good and you can prove that Actual Love is not a Quality but a simple Praedicamental Action I must say that since Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem you have concluded nothing against the Doctor And so I take my leave of this Section with a Nego Minorem SECT 7. The Refuters Reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act found in the Tract of Will-worship and the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions refer first and immediatly to the inward Acts of Love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doct. never asserts that Love was univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four Reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a Clear Truth His third most false In univocal productions the Cause and Effect still comprehended under the same Genus sometimes also in aequivocal His Assumption of his First Reason infirm His second and fourth Reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor § 1. THe Doctor now having cleared the Ambiguity of the Phrase that gave the Captious advantage to the Vse of Confutation and shewed that he spake of another matter then the Author of the Mixture did comes now to shew that this was no new-coined distinction on purpose invented to decline the force of that Vse Doctor HAMMOND 15. THis Distinction I thought legible enough before both in the Tract of Will-worship and in the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey 16. In the former the Refuter confesseth to find it reciting these words of mine It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another Where the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love § 2. To this our Refuter makes a very large reply but nothing to the purpose thus JEANES THe distinction which you thought legible enough before in your Tract of Will-worship in which you say that I confess to find it is such a distinction between the Habits and Acts of Love as that Love equally comprehends them both as Species Now I utterly deny that there is any such distinction in those words of yours which I recite It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then another And the reason of this my denial is because love as a Genus doth not comprehend the expressions of Love equally with the Habit. 1. Nothing can as a Genus be equally praedicated of things put in several Praedicaments but the Habit of Love and expressions of Love are put in several Praedicaments therefore Love as a Genus doth not equally comprehend them both 2. The Habit of Love is formally and intrinsecally Love the expressions of Love that is as you expound your self § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination from the inward acts of Love and therefore Love doth not as a Genus equally comprehend the Habit and expressions of Love Raynaudus in Mo◠discip dist 3. n. 144. makes mention out of Gabriel Biel of a distinction of Love into affective and effective and what is this effective Love but the effects and expressions of Love But now that he doth not take this to be a proper distribution of a Genus into its Species appeareth by what he saith out of the same Author concerning the division Effectivum dicit ipsum illius Amoris eliciti effectum Translato quippe causae nomine ad effectum is dicitur amare effectivè qui non ostentat infertilem ac sterilem amorem sed cum se dat occasio erumpit in fructus dignes amoris Quam esse admodum impropriam amoris divisionem fatetur Gabriel quia amare propriè est in sola voluntate tanquam in subjecto ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur estque actus transiens non immanens voluntatis 3. No one word can as a Genus equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect The Habit of Love is the Efficient cause and the sincere and cordial expressions of Love are the Effect therefore Love is not predicated of them equally as a Genus 4. That which is predicated properly of one thing and tropically of another cannot equally comprehend them both
as a Genus But Love is predicated properly of the habit of Love tropically viz. Metonymically of the expressions of Love by a Metonymie of the efficient for the effect therefore love as a Genus cannot equally comprehend them both § 3. Put the case Sir And what will you thence conclude against the Doctor Will this ever make him guilty of denying the Habitual Fulness of Christs Grace or prove that he never aimed at the distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act in either of these Discourses Suppose you had not found this distinction so clearly laid down in the Tract of Will-worship me thinks unless you had resolved to be captious it might have sufficed you to have seen it in the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey which was the Treatise you quarrelled at For does not the Doctor tell you plainly that he thought it legible enough in both Is there no such distinction in either Tract to be met with either in terminis or by just consequence Let us know your positive answer and run not out into new Controversies Howsoever though the whole that is here replied be a most perfect digression to a matter clearly impertinent not any waies hinted or occasioned by the Doctor yet I am resolved to follow you through all this winding Labyrinth § 4. Thus then you return The distinction which you thought legible enough before in your Tract of Will-worship in which you say that I confess to find it is such a distinction between the Habits and Acts of Love as that Love equally comprehends them both as Species Now I utterly deny that there is any such distinction in those words of yours which I recite It is possible for the same person to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another And the reason of this my deniall is because Love as a Genus doth not comprehend the expressions of Love equally with the Habit. § 5. Well Sir if this be all you aim at your reasons might have been spared It is granted as to the recital and express mention of that distinction in the words by you recited But yet I beseech you deal plainly is it not clearly there intimated For what speak the Antecedents and Consequents Read you not in the two very next preceding lines this distinction very plainly implyed Are not these the Doctors words (a) Treatise of Will-worship Sect. 49. p. 101. edit London which loving God in a more intense degree may be observed amongst the Angels themselves the Soraphin being so called because they are more ardent in zeal then other Angels Nay for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet c. Is it not clearly here evident the Doctor means the height and fervour of the Seraphins actual Love Can their greater ardency in zeal refer to any thing else then that Love which is modificated by it But yet if this be not plain enough what think you of the words immediately following the passage by you recited and which the Doctor added on purpose to prove and explain it Consider what he saies Sir (a) Treatise of Will-worship ibid. Thus we read of Christ himself Luc. 22. 44. who we know did never fail in performing what was mans duty in Prayer or any thing else yet that he at that time prayed more earnestly which is a demonstrative evidence that the lower Degree is not sinful when the higher is acceptable to God What say you now Does not this evidently refer to the height and fervour of the inward Act of Prayer And does not the Doctor expresly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say so in the Recapitulation of this whole passage in the (b) Account of Mr. Cawd trip Diat c. 6. sect 5. §. 5. p. 222. Account to Mr. Cawdrey's triplex Diatribe and in the very words by you cited in your Vse of Confutation This that sincere Love was capable of Degrees was first shewed in several men and in the same man at several times in the several ranks of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another Is not this now plain enough and by you acknowledged also in your Mixture (c) Jeanes Mixt. of Scholast Divin with Pract. treat 2. p. 258. where you have in perpetuam rei memoriam your self recorded it And therefore said not the Doctor truly that he thought this distinction legible enough before both in the Tract of Will-worship and in the answer to Mr. Cawdrey For I hope you will not say that the Doctor in the last passage on which your Vse of Confutation is grounded does refer to the outward sensible expressions and that by Christ's greater ardenoy in this Act of Prayer in his bloody Agony he only meanes a more earnest cry and louder noise and deeper groan § 6. But suppose we that no more had been expressed concerning this distinction then what is intimated in these words rehearsed and by you acknowledged to be recited in your (d) Jeanes Mixture ibid. p. 259. Mixture Yet Sir deal plainly with the world can you think the Doctor a man of so crude raw Judgement as to take the outward sensible expressions for the inward Acts of Love Or can you believe him so weak as not to understand his own meaning or to have lost so much of Christianity with his Ecclesiastical preferments as that he is not fit to be believed and trusted when he professes to declare what was his own meaning One of these you must needs say or this whole Reply is nothing to the purpose § 7. For though it were granted as the contrary has been shewed that the Doctor in that Passage does only mention the Habit of Love and the outward expressions yet plain it is that the outward sensible expressions can refer to nothing but the inward Acts of Love which according to the Doctrine of the best Metaphysicians and Schoolmen as has been declared the Doctor makes specifically distinct from the Habit. For the expressions of Love must first and immediately refer to the Acts and by them to the Habit otherwise your great Master * Aristoteles eum qui tantum habet Habitum comparat dormienti eum verò qui Actum exercet vigilanti Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 9 §. 14. Aristotle had vainly compared the Habit to a man asleep and the Act to one waking The outward expressions in the subordinate inferior Faculties must first denote the promptness and facility in the Act and then this ready nimbleness in the Act must declare the perfection of the Habit. If therefore expressions be expressions indeed and there be a necessary relation between the sign and the thing signified then the expressions of Love the outward sensible expressions must of necessity respect the inward Acts of Love of which alone they are properly and immediately expressions And therefore we may well take the Doctors word when he saies
impertinent referring to former performances His vain pretences of proof The Refuters reasonings with himself inconsequent proved The intension of the Act proportioned to the intension of the Habit so as not to exceed it unless by Accident but not alwaies to equall it Proved by instance of the Lutenist and Painter and Preacher Habits not necessary but voluntary causes unless ab extrinseco determined Doctor HAMMOND 18. BUt the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey which occasioned it was I think as cautious also 1. in the words recited by the Refuter viz. that Christ himself was more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another 2. in the words following in that Answer but not recited by him viz. that the sincerity of this or that Vertue exprest in this or that performance is it we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath Degrees where the this or that performance are certainly Acts of the Vertue consisting in a latitude and having Degrees viz. in that latitude no way implies him that hath Vertue in that latitude viz. Christ to want at present and in that sense to be capable of further Degrees 19. I am willing to look as jealously as I can on any passage of my own which falls under any man's Censure and therefore finding nothing in the words set down by him as the ground of the Refutation which is any way capable of it I have reviewed the whole Section and weighed every period as sufficiently as I could to observe whether I could draw or wrest that Consequence from any other passage not recited by him 20. And I find none in any degree liable except it should be this in the beginning of the Section where setting down the Argument as it lay in the Tract of Will worship I say 't is possible for the same person which so loves God i. e. with all the heart to love him and express that Love more intensely at one time then another as appeared by the example of Christ 21. And if this be thought capable of misapprehension by reason of the and disjoyning Love from the expressions of it and so the expressions belonging to the Acts the Love be deemed to denote the habitual Love I must only say that is a misapprehension for that by loving with all the heart in the first place I certainly meant the sincere habit of Love by Love in the latter place the inward acts of Love and by the outward expressions of Love the outward expressions of those inward Acts and of those Acts only I speak and of those expressions when I say they are more intense at one time then another JEANES I shall here briefly represent unto you that which made me think you guilty of detracting from the All-fulness of Christs habitual Grace and refer you for confirmation hereof unto what I have said in the beginning of this my Discourse The undenyable consequence of what you say in answer to Mr. Cawdrey is as I have proved that Christ's Love of God was capable of further Degrees Now hereupon I thus reasoned in my mind You were to be understood either of the Habit or of the inward Act of Love for as for the outward Expressions of Love it is without dispute that they cannot be said to be Love properly but only by a Trope If you should have said that you spake of the Habit of Love then you would have expresly impugned the All-fullness of Christs habitual Grace and if you should say as now you do that you meant the inward Acts of Love why then you would even hereby impliedly by consequence have opposed the perfection of Christ's habitual Grace because the intension of the inward acts of Love proceedeth from the intension of the habit of Love and is therefore proportioned unto it But of this more fully in the place above mentioned Thus having shewed you what invited me to my Vse of Confutation I shall pass over the three other Sections which you your self I presume would have spared if you had been privy unto that which I now acquaint you with § 1. The Doctor in the four former Paragraphs had truly stated the Question in Debate and clearly set down his own meaning and after the most impartial survey of every suspicious period in the quoted Section had found nothing that with any ingenuity could be forced to speak contrary to his present judgement here expressed And now our Refuter in stead of convincing the Doctor and disproving any thing here said steps in and tells us that he shall briefly represent to the Doctor that which made him think him guilty of detracting from the All-fullness of Christ's habitual grace and refer him for confirmation hereof unto what he has said in the beginning of his Discourse § 2. Say you so Sir I see then your skill in Musick is but little because you are alwaies harping upon one string But good Sir forbear in charity forbear for know you not that Occidit miseros Crambe repetita Magistros Juvenal Howsoever if you can allow us no new Arguments it is not fit nor can you in justice expect to receive any but old Answers And therefore have the Patience to look back and you shall find this your invincible Demonstration proved no better then a ridiculous Sophisme and a Farrago of Mistakes § 3. But he goes on with Triumph and the Galliardise of a Conqueror and saies The undeniable consequence of what the Doctor saies in answer to Mr. Cawdrey is as he has proved that Christ's Love of God his habitual Love he must mean if he speak any thing to the purpose for the Doctor positively maintains a gradual difference in the Acts of Christs Love was capable of further Degrees § 4. But good Sir I beseech you do not talk too much of Proof Where where have you performed this so wonderful Atchievement In good earnest tell us that we may erect for you no less then Bacchus monuments and Hercules Pillars with a Ne plus ultra inscribed for a Motto and a Trophee of your great Acquests For my own part I cannot yet tell where to find it but all along I see that your Proofs and your Conclusions are at far greater distance then your self and Doctor Hammond For little hope there is they should ever be reconciled though in good time you and the Doctor may You seem indeed to speak to you in your own Rhetorical expressions which I hope Jeanes Answer to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 15. will therefore please you most vehemently to assert your Conclusion and to affirm that you have proved it But you must pardon me if I entertain not your vehement Asseverations for solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae Pray Sir review your Proofs again and put more strength into your Arguments If you can make good that they contain any disproof of what the Doctor has said unless begging of the Question and your own 〈◊〉
pingeret poppyzonta retinentem equum Canem ita Protogenes monstravit Fortuna Plin. Natur. hist lib. 35. ca. 10. mihi pag. 346. tom 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist lib. 6. Eth. ca. 4. §. 3. Painters rage casually directs his Pencill to draw the Dogges and Horses foame which all his skill and frequent attempts could not reach to The Perfection of the Act still argues the Perfection of the Habit and the intension here must be derived from the former But then though the Painter cannot limne beyond his skill nor the Lutenist play unless by chance yet I hope the Lutenist and Painter is not morally or naturally bound and necessitated alwaies to play and limne as well as they can § 12. To come closer I suppose Mr. Jeanes to be a good Preacher for I have seen a good Sermon of his in print concerning Abstinence from all appearance of evill and he would do well to think of his own Doctrine but yet I cannot think him bound either by Gods law or man 's to preach alwaies as well as he can Nor do I beleeve he makes his Sermons with the same care and pains and sets them off with the same Learning and Rhetorick when he preaches weekly to his Parish at Chedzoy as when he preaches before the Judges in the face of the Country And yet still the intension of the Act must proceed from the intension of the Habit. A man of lower parts and less learning and Judgement and Rhetorick then himself cannot speak or write so well as he himself can And yet he himself is not alwaies bound to exceed a meaner Scholars performances and many times Prudence Discretion will invite him to stoop and condescend to the weakness and Capacity of his Auditors § 13. For the * Dicendum est ergo quòd Habitus determinat Potentiam ad hoc ut ipsa Habitu perfecta sit proprium principium perfecti operis in quo sua consummatur perfectio Et quoniam Habitus est quo quis operatur cum vult non cum habet propterea est quo quis operatur infra ejus Potestatem quantum vult non quantum potest ut patet in Artificibus ideo non mireris si Actus Potentiae habituatae non sunt semper perfectiores Actibus Potentiae non habituatae Cajetan in 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. pag. 98. col 4. K. Habitus in tantum potest esse Principium Actus Liberi in quantum possumus eo uti cum volumus non ergo dat ipse Habitus libertatem sed potius ut ita dicam illam accipit à Potentia in qua residet quatenus Potentia est quae Habitu utitur ut in ejus facultate positum est illo uti vel non uti c. Vid. amp Suarez Metaph. disp 19. sect 5. n. 8. Dicimus Qualitatem ex se habere talem naturam intensibilem non ratione alterius quamvis quoad existentiam redigatur in actum magis vel minus perfectum ab agente inaequali vel in virtute vel in approximatione vel in voluntate si sit liberum Suarez Metaph. disp 46. sect ◠n. 3. vid. ibid. sect 3. n. 9. n. 15 16. sect 4. n. 14. p. 497. col 1. Suarez disp 19. sect 2. sect 4. n. 8. c. Voluntas ab objecto proposito non semper determinatur ad unum certa est recepta ab omnibus eà mque ex professo probat D. Thomas 1. 2. q. 10. art 2. Nam perinde est dicere Voluntatem non necessitari ab alio quod non determinari ad unum ab illo Sed est certum non necessitari ab omnibus objectis ergo nec determinari ad unum Igitur quoad Exercitium solum in Patria ab infinita bonitate Dei clarè visi determinatur ad unum juxta receptam doctrinam quoad Specificationem verò à Bono in communi aut aliis similibus objectis c. Suarez Metap disp 19. sect 6. n. 9. Vid. ibid. sect 5. n 7. Habits whereof we speak being seated in the Will do ordinarily partake of the nature of the Will wherein they are subjected and concurring still effectively with the Will to the production of the Act must still be free and voluntary causes to act not necessarily ad ultimum virium but how and when and in what manner and measure he that has the Habit shall think fit unless the Will be otherwise limited and determined For instance The blessed Saints and Angels in Patria love God ad ultimum virium necessarily and yet freely as freedome is improperly taken because such is the excellency of the Object God which now they know face to face being Comprehensores and in Patria as they speak in the Schooles that he cannot chuse but most necessarily and most ardently be loved But then this determination is wholy extrinsecal to a Habit ut sic and praecisely considered and only by accident in respect of the Knowledge and Perfection of the Object which cannot chuse but be alwaies most perfectly loved where it is so perfectly known § 14. And Thus to speak in your own Complement which you vouchsafe in the Close of this Section to spend upon the Doctor having shewed you the ground of your mistake that invited you unto your Vse of Confutation I might pass over not only the three other Sections but the rest of your whole Book which you your self I presume would have spared if you had been privy to that which I now acquaint you with But we must attend you in your motion SECT 10. The Refuters Saying is the only proof that Actual Love is in the Praedicament of Action The contrary proved by Suarez Smiglecius Scheibler In Actual love the Action and the Terminus of it considerable The Refuters Remarques in Scheibler impertinent His Oracles nothing to the purpose The Propositions to be proved Immanent Acts in what sense Qualities Scheibler not slighted Aristotle his Character of Eudoxus agreeable to the Refuter His words not home to the Refuters purpose proved from Reason and Suarez Habitual and Actual Love both Qualities and Species of the same Genus proved from sundry places in Suarez The Refuters further Impertinencies Immanent Acts of Love in what sense Dispositions in what not from Smiglecius Aquinas Acts of two sorts Doctor HAMMOND 22. THe word Love as I said is a Genus equally comprehending the two Species habitual and actual Love and equally applicable to either of the Species to the Acts as well as the Habit of Love And so when I say Love is capable of Degrees the meaning is clear The Generical word Love restrained to the latter Species i. e. considered in respect of the Acts of Love gradually differenced one from the other is in that respect capable of Degrees both inwardly and in outward expressions that Act of Love that poured out and exprest it self in the more Ardent prayer was a more intense Act of Love
ratione secundi spectant ad Praedicamentum Qualitatis Smiglec Log. disp 11. q. 3. p. 417. edit Oxon. § 5. Nor must you be ready to take advantage and say that though actual Love be not a predicamental Action yet Smiglecius you see makes it a Patible Quality and so Love as a Genus cannot comprehend the Habit in the first Species of Quality and the Act in the third and therefore hence at least it will appear that the Doctor is mistaken § 6. For the same Smiglecius has sufficiently prevented this Objection when in the beginning of his disputation (a) Smiglec Log. disp 11. q. 1 p. 412. Vid. etiam Suarez Metaph. disp 42. sect 5. n. 15. he layes it down for a ground that eadem Specie qualit as potest induere omnes illas rationes esse simul Habitus naturalis Potentia Passibilis Qualitas And therefore actual Love though as considered with respect to the alteration arising by it it be ranked among Passible Qualities yet as it is Qualitas bene vel malè afficiens subjectum abstrahendo ab hoc quod sit facilè vel difficilè mobilis it belongs to the first Species § 7. Nay which perhaps will raise a wonder in our Refuter I do not think but this Doctrine will also be found in his own Master Scheibler (b) Scheibler Metaph. lib. 2. c. 8. n. 105. p. 918. For whereas it had been objected that Actionis non datur Actio his answer is Respondeo Actus immanentes per quos fiunt habitus posse bifariam aestimari nempe simpliciter in ratione Actionis vel quantum ad intrinsecum terminum suum qualitativum Actio igitur convenit hoc solum posteriori respectu ut Suarez determinat disp 18. Metaph. sect 4. disp 44. sect 8 n. 23. Actionis autem non est actio immediatè ex vi suâ seu in quantum talis est dimisso respectu ad qualitativum terminum Vid. supra c. 6. tit 4. art 3. punct 1. num 37. § 8. Well then in Actual Love two things may be considered the very Action of loving or the Quality of Love produced by that Action which is it's terminus and product Now these two by reason of the narrowness of language are comprehended under the same common name as other immanent Acts are but yet though the name and expression be the same the nature of the things are so different that they are put in several predicaments the immanent act of love considered as in fluxu is in the Predicament of Action but considered as in termino continually depending on the action of Love as light does upon illumination that produces it it is a Quality and in the first Species ranked and placed I have already cleared this Doctrine in the answer to our Refuters irrefragable demonstration § 9. But now we shall hear newes indeed and he will let us know his own Remarques in Scheibler he tells it us as gravely as the Romane Priests were wont to relate the Fate of the Empire from the books of the Sibylls which themselves could only read Never any man without doubt made the like observations § 10. There are I know saies he divers great Philosophers and Schoolmen that make all immanent Acts and consequently all inward acts of Love to be Qualities they are say they only Grammatical actions not Metaphysical actions in the predicament of Action But 1. this opinion is untrue in it self and 2ly no way advantageous to the Doctors cause in hand § 11. For once Sir be it granted And what do you thence conclude against Doctor Hammond I see you are a cunning Angler that having fished long and catched nothing now fall to troubling the stream But En Rhodus en Saltus The Doctor made use of a distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act which all the world for ought I could ever find to the contrary approve of and our Refuter to oppose it tells us that some Schoolmen and Philosophers make all immanent Acts Qualities c. § 12. And is not now Doctor Hammond confuted Sing sing your Io Paean while we look out some Diogenes with his Candle and Lanthorn to find out in what corner our baffled Doctor hides his head Well Sir I see you are so excellent a Schoolman that I must give you my Vote to answer Bellarmine There is nothing can withstand your all-powerful Confutation § 13. But good Sir I beseech you tell us what 's all this to the Doctor or the present dispute Did he ever take part with those Philosophers and Schoolmen I pray what temptation had you then to run into this Digression Truly none but that a book was to be made and Doctor Hammond to be confuted whether he spake right or wrong or say any thing or nothing By this I see Sir you can answer Quodlibets and Ergo you are a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity § 14. But if we will but stay and have patience till the Sun is up this Memnon's head will vent an Oracle First then he saies This Opinion is untrue in it self and to confirm this he shall offer to the Doctors consideration two arguments out of Scheibler which clearly prove immanent Acts to be true proper and predicamental Actions in the Predicament of Action § 15. And have you not told us newes indeed you should have brought us word that the Sun shines at Rhodes or when it is in it's Zenith There is nothing more generally received in the Schools then that is And I dare say scarce any Philosopher or Schoolman of any note has for these hundred years almost delivered any thing to the contrary Why then urge you Scheibler and his reasons as if he being a late writer had discovered a Truth which former Authors were mistaken in If in the next edition of your book or Rejoynder to Doct. Hammond it may any way gratifie you I shall refer you to Authors of a greater Bulk and larger name then Scheibler for the proof of this point I shall refer you to Smiglecius to Ruvio to Suarez and all the Authors they have quoted but especially I shall refer you to Suarez his most excellent reasons which he has urged in the Demonstration of it And give me leave to tell you that your Master Scheibler first lighted his Candle at his Taper § 16. That you may see we will not alwaies be at difference and that it is not love of contention and victory but Truth only that I strive for it is granted to you and your Master Scheibler that Actio immanens verè est actio But then withall let me adde that this is not the question between you and the Doctor The Proposition you must prove is only this that Actus immanentes sunt tantum Actiones nullo respectu Qualitates that immanent Acts are only Actions and in no respect Qualities Soncinas it is true said that Actus immanentes sunt tantum
qualitates and Suarez and your Scheibler and others have demonstrated the falshood of that assertion But then this said not the Doctor and so falls not under the lash of this Vse of Confutation § 17. He said indeed that Actual Love was a Quality specifically distinct from Love that is the Habit. But he never denyed that the Action of loving comprehended under the same common name with actual Love was a predicamental Action § 18. Prove then good Sir if you will acquit your self like a Schooleman either 1. that the immanent act of Love in no respect or consideration is or can be a quality or 2ly that all immanent acts in general or 3ly that this immanent act of Love in particular has no terminus or Quality produced by it which is called by the same name When you shall have done this I shall not then blame you for starting a new Question § 19. If you will be pleased to consult you may find that the same Suarez * Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. n. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. who proves that all immanent acts are not simply Qualities but in some respect also true predicamental actions does also demonstrate †Suarez Met. disp 42. sect 5. n. 13 14 15 that immanent acts are not only actions but also qualities called by the same name with the Actions themselves and that it is de intrinseca ratione Actionis ut sic ut habeat intrinsecum terminum ad quem tendat ut producendum per ipsam and consequently that the immanent Act of Love as well as all other immanent Acts is not only a predicamental action but includes in it's essence a transcendental respect to the quality of actual Love that is it's Terminus and which is that very Quality which the Doctor truly makes the opposite species to habitual Love and equally comprehended under one and the same immediate Genus § 20. Though then true it is that all immanent Acts that are causalities of efficient causes are consequently predicamental Actions which is all Scheibler saies in his first argument yet as true it is as Suarez and others say that all predicamental Actions and consequently all immanent Acts that are truly such must of necessity relate to some term by them produced which in the present case is a Quality called by the same name as the Action is And therefore Doctor Hammond must be concluded to be in the right till you shall answer Suarez his arguments and prove his Doctrine to be in the wrong § 21. Though secondly it be granted to your Master Scheibler that immanent Acts because they terminate active powers must be concluded to be predicamental actions yet it cannot be denied to Suarez and others that immanent Acts because they are predicamental Actions must have some Quality to terminate them As there cannot be an efficient Cause without it's Causality * Suppono quod impossibile est esse motum vel mutationem realem sine termino reali Ex hoc arguo sic c. H. Cavell in Addit ad Scotum l. 1. Senten d. 17. q. 5. n. 3. so impossible it is there should be any Causality where nothing is produced and caused by that Causality As it is impossible there should be an Active power without respect to the Act that terminates the Power * so impossible it is there should be any Action without some product to terminate the Action § 22. And thus I have neither slighted Scheibler nor his reasons but acknowledged that truth which that Author labours to prove by them § 23. But he saies he can yet press us with an Author far greater then Scheibler our great Master Aristotle of whom the Doctor makes somewhere in his writings honourable mention § 24. And do you think Sir the Doctor will cease to give him that venerable respect because you now seem to have borrowed from his writings an argument against him I dare assure you the Doctor is still the same civil man and being himself a Person of great learning and Parts he knows how to give that respect such a gallant man deserves And if you can make good that Aristotle speaks on your side against the Doctor I dare pass my word to bring you his publick Recantation § 25. But what saies our great Master * Arist lib. 10. Eth. cap. 3. He tells us roundly saies our Refuter that the operations of Vertues and even happiness it self are not Qualities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 26. The words indeed I acknowledge but I cannot understand them with our Refuters Comment § 27. The truth is one * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 10. Eth. c. 2. §. 1. Eudoxus as we find in the beginning of the second Chapter of that Book did maintain that Pleasure was the Last End and greatest Good And by the way give me leave to mind our Refuter of his great Master Aristotles †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist ibm §. eod observation concerning this Eudoxus He tells us that though the man's reasons were weak and no waies able to support his Opinion yet because he was looked on as a sober temperate man he gained credit and belief with many For so good and vertuous a man as he could not be deemed by them thus to teach for love of Pleasure but only because it was indeed the very truth And is not this the present Fortune of our Refuter does he not gain many Proselytes and Votaries to the Errors he has vented in this Treatise because he is looked on by some yong men not only as a man of parts and great Judgement but also as a leader and Captain in School-learning But Eudoxus though otherwise never so good was much mistaken in this Point and so is our Refuter though otherwise never so venerable and learned I doubt not but that already this has sufficiently appeared and I shall in the Process also further demonstrate it § 28. For to return to the text in Aristotle whereas Plato had undertook to refute the opinion of Eudoxus his great Scholar though he agreed with him in the Conclusion yet he could not approve of his Masters reasons as sufficient And the first of them gave occasion to this Text that our Refuter has urged It was this as I find it reduced to form by Aquinas (a) Tho. Aquim Comment in loc in his Commentary on the place Bonum videtur ad genus Qualitatis pertinere quaerenti enim quale est hoc respondemus quoniam bonum Delectatio autem non est qualitas Ergo non est bonum To shew the weakness of this Reason the Philosopher replies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It follows not as Plato thought though Pleasure be not ranked among the number of Qualities that therefore it is not good for even the Operations and Acts of Vertues and Felicity it self are not Qualities which no man yet can deny to be good § 29. And now to shew how little
Species unius generis subalterni ut dicantur Dispositiones illae qualitates primae Speciei quibus convenit secundum propriam rationem ut de facili amittantur quia habent causas transmutabiles ut Aegritudo Sanitas Habitus verò dicantur illae qualitates quae secundum rationem habent quod de facili transmutentur quia habent causas immobiles sicut Scientiae Virtutes secundum hoc Dispositio non fit Habitus Et hoc videtur magis consonum intentioni Aristotelis c. Thus he § 48. It will not now for a close of this Section be amiss to tell you the Doctor never takes Acts for Habits but specifically distinguishes them nor yet counts them Dispositions as that word is properly taken but saies only at large that habitual and actual love are both Qualities and Species of the same Genus And now that you may have no opportunity to mistake his meaning I must mind you of the known distinction of Acts some whereof precede the Habit to be produced and effectively concur to the making of it and others follow the Habit now compleat and perfect as effects and issues of it The first are inchoate imperfect things in order to the production of a Habit and so are Dispositions properly so called The other are not so but follow as Effects from their Cause whether the Habit be infused or acquisite and are called Dispositions not specially and properly but generally and improperly taken for reasons formerly alledged And strange it is you should not observe this doctrine in Suarez in Scheibler in Aristotle where it is to be found all which you yet recommend to the Doctors inspection for satisfaction in this kind § 49. And so much at present for our Refuters long-since forgotten Metaphysicks we come now to his Familiars his dear Acquaintance the Schoolmen SECT 11. The Doctors explication from the Refuters Concessions The Refuters Reply and valiant resolution His first Charge answered His second Charge answered in three distinct Propositions 1. Expressions gradually different may and in Christ alwaies did flow from a Love equally intense in the Habit. This not the question 2. Nothing naturally hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from Acts of Love gradually the same Proved God's outward favours and expressions different The inward Act of his Love still one and invariable Proved against the Socinian Gods Love one infinite and substantial Act against Crellius In what sense God in Scripture said to love some more some less The doctrine of the Schools safer then that of the Socinian God by one immutable Act dispenses all the variety of his favours Illustrated The variety in Gods outward favours whence it arises Confirmed from Lombard Aquinas Scotus Applyed to the Refuter 3. In men the outward expressions ordinarily vary according to the gradual difference in the inward Acts of Love Proved by Reason and the authority of Gregory Durand Aquinas Estius The Doctors assertion hence proved as fully as the thing requires The Doctor not engaged to prove that expressions gradually different could not proceed from a Love equally intense The third Charge answered No mystery in the word proportionably The correspondence between the inward Acts of Love and the outward expressions to be understood not according to Arithmetical but Geometrical Proposition § 1. THe Doctor having now truly stated the Question in Controversie between him and his Adversary and shewed that the Acts of Christs Love of which alone he spake were sometimes gradually differenced one from another and in this respect were capable of Degrees though his habitual grace were not he comes now § 23. to explain explain he saies and not confirm or prove this by the Refuters own Confession Doctor HAMMOND 23. I Shall explain this by the Refuters own confession The Death of Christ saith he was an higher Expression of Christ's Love of ut then his Poverty Hunger or Thirst To this I subjoin that such as the Expression was such was the Act of inward love of which that was an expression it being certain that each of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions And from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superiour to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty and so the same Person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely at one time then at another which was the very thing I had said in another instance But this I have added ex abundanti more then the Refuters Discourse required of me § 2. To this our Refuter returns three things in three Sections JEANES IF you had repeated that which you call my confession full and entire as it lay in my Book the impartial and unprejudiced Reader would soon have discerned that there was in it nothing that made for your advantage My words at large are these There may be a gradual difference in the expressions of the same Love for Degree Christs Death for us was an higher expression of his love of us then his Poverty Hunger Thirst c. and yet they might proceed from a Love equally intense Now Sir have you said any thing to prove that they could not proceed from a Love equally intense You seem indeed most vehemently and affectionately to affirm that they could not but you must pardon me if I entertain not your vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae Pray Sir review this Section and put your Argument into some form If you can make good that it conteineth any disproof of what I have said unless begging the Question be argumentative you shall have my hearty leave to triumph over me as you please however untill then I shall take your words asunder and examine every passage in them Doctor HAMMOND TO this I subjoin that such as the expression was such was the Act of inward Love of which that was an expression it being certain that each of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions JEANES THat each of these expressions had an act of inward Love of which they were so many different expressions is an obvious Truth but impertinent to the matter in hand unless you can prove that they were of necessity equal in point of intension and the proof of this you have not hitherto so much as attempted Doctor HAMMOND ANd from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superior to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty and so the same person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely at one time then at another which was the very thing I had said in another instance But this I have added ex abundanti more
the Actual of which you there spake not I am content for the present so to understand you Nor shall I labour by Consequences to rack your words to make them speak and confess that which you would not be thought to mean though this has been your own frequent Practise all along against the Doctor § 9. But then I must adde that Doctor Hammond who understood you in this Passage according to the Current of your Discourse did you therefore no wrong in omitting those words which in the sense he justly conceived he was bound to understand you did no more concern the present Debate then any part of your whole Book For it was a received and acknowledged truth on both sides that the Habit of Divine Grace was alwaies perfect and at the utmost height possible in Christ and therefore though the outward expressions were gradually different in themselves it must also mutually be granted that they must flow from a Love still equally intense in the Habit. But then this being nothing to the present controversie which only concerns the gradual difference of the Acts of Christ's Love it was no whit material whether he took it in or left it out and he might justly use his freedome without any mans offence But be your meaning what you please I shall easily grant you the liberty my good Sphinx Philosophicus to expound your own Oracles and Riddles And what then will be the issue § 10. Why then saies our Refuter and it is his second Charge The Doctor has said nothing to prove that these several expressions could not proceed from a Love equally intense Nay as he addes in the following Section he has not hitherto so much as attempted it unless vehement Asseverations be solid Arguments c. § 11. That I may give a cleer account to this Charge and bring the present debate to some issue it will be necessary to distinguish And couch the Answer I shall in these several Propositions § 12. First then I say That Expressions gradually different may flow and in Christ alwaies did from a Love equally intense as respecting the Habit. § 13. But then this is not the Question and makes nothing to the purpose unless our Refuter can prove That all the Acts of Christ's Love represented by those expressions were equally intense and full as the Habit from whence they proceeded It is true in this Reply he does vehemently and affectionately affirm it that I may retort his own language but pardon me he must if I entertain not his vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae And as he has no where in all this Pamphlet attempted the Proof of it unless begging the Question be argumentative so I know it is impossible for him to make it good and I have in due place demonstrated the contrary And therefore § 14. Secondly I say That nothing Naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that several outward expressions of Love in themselves gradually different may sometimes flow from several Acts of inward Love that are gradually the same § 15. For the outward expressions of Love being Imperate Acts of the Will and under it's command the Will is naturally free and still at Liberty unless it be by some superior cause ab intrinseco determined to one uniform expression to represent its own internal and Elicite Acts how and in what manner it pleaseth § 16. And now because this may be of some importance in this Controversie I shall to gratifie our Refuter endeavour to clear it by some apposite instances § 17. Suppose we then a Father with the same height of Actual love to affect his only Son for some space of time at least Suppose we the same Husbands or Friends to do the like in respect of the Wives of their bosomes and the inmates of Vid. Platonem in Convivio in Phaedro their Breasts We need not run to Plato's School for Examples the world does daily afford us such lovers as well as his Socrates And yet no man will say that these are alwaies bound or do or can express the same equal love after one and the same sort and with the same height and fulness For sometimes they have not the opportunity to do it and sometimes Prudence enjoines them to conceal it and sometimes there may be a necessity to express it beyond what they have or indeed can do at another time § 18. Further yet that I may clear it beyond exception we know that God loves his Chosen his Predestinate in Christ with the same equal Love not only because he loves them as in and for Christs sake but also because this inward Act of his Love is no other but himself And yet Gods outward Love and favour does not alwaies shine on them in it's Noon and Zenith sometimes it looks higher sometimes lower and though it knows no night no going down though the native light be still the same yet sometimes by the interposition of a dark opacous body the light as that of the Sun lies hidden from our sight in a sad Eclipse Sometimes the (a) Cant. 3. 1 2. Spouse in the Canticles was put to seek him whom her soul loved and though she sought him yet she found him not And therefore the Lord her Redeemer saies to her in (b) Esai 54. 8. Esay In little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee Nay it is also true of Christ (c) Matt. 3. 17. the Beloved in whom alone he was well pleased That though he were alwaies Christ alwaies God-man yet the * Leo it is that first said it and all Antiquity allow of it Non solvit unionem sed subtraxit visionem The union was not dissolved true but the Beams the Influence was restrained and for any comfort from thence his Soul was even as a scorched heath-ground without so much as any drop of dew of Divine comfort c. Bp. Andrews Serm. 2. Passion p. 356. Confer Leonem Serm. 16 17. de Passione Domini p. 53 54. humane Nature did not alwaies enjoy the comfortable influence of the Godhead And therefore we find him crying out upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me § 19. And as in respect of the same Person the light of Gods Countenance is not alwaies lift up to the same Degree of Altitude so it shines not equally on several Objects There are as well the sands and stones and desarts of Arabia as the Spices and though the whole Country enjoy the same common name and Climate yet all is not Felix but some part is Petraea and another Deserta Though those that live under the Aequator enjoy a constancy of Sun-shine and equality of Day yet those of Lapland Finland have little else but night and Frost for almost half the year together The case is very plain I believe no man will
say that those outward Acts of Gods Love that appear in his common Providence and whereby he maketh Mat. 5. 45. his Sun to shine and his Rain to fall as well upon the unjust as the just are to be equalled and parallell'd with those more peculiar Acts of his Love whereby he regards his Saints and Chosen For the Apostle hath told us that though God be a Saviour of all 1 Tim. 4. 10. men yet it is with an especially of them that believe His eye and his ear are alwaies open to the Righteous they are not so unto Psal 34. 15 16. the wicked He loves indeed all the Creatures he has made and therefore constantly preserves them But Man he loves more then the rest of the Creatures which he made for Mans use But then his * Deut. 10. 15. Delight is in the Saints those that fear his name For their sakes his Son dyed and rose again for their sakes he made Heaven and there has laid up for them a never-fading Crown of Glory But his Son he loves more then all Saints and all Angels This this is his beloved Son in whom alone he is well pleased § 20. But then though these outward Acts of his favour be thus gradually different yet by reason of the infinite Perfection of his Essence the inward Act of his Love must be still one and the same because it can be no other but himself one and the same Act alwaies infinitely loving and one and the same Object alwaies infinitely amiable and beloved And therefore the Scriptures are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood and in a way that best suites with the Majesty and Excellence of God when speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the manner of men they represent to us this one most simple infinite Act of his Love as if it were many and those in themselves also gradually distinct because among men the inward Acts of Love do usually vary according to the gradual difference of Goodness in the several Objects beloved which the greater it is truly or falsely apprehended to be the more it still allures and draws the affections and inclinations of the Will § 21. And now because the Socinian denies it and it is of great importance in the Christian Faith I shall upon this occasion endeavour to make it good And I hope that our Refuter himself will pardon this Digression that speaks so much for his advantage § 22. Say then Vorstius and Crellius what they will to the contrary those places of Scripture that speak of the different Ea verò attributa sunt Voluntatis Divinae Actus in ipso residentes seu Actiones voluntatis immanentes ut vocant Actus vero illi sunt duplicis generis Alii enim affectuum similitudinem inprimis referunt eorumque nominibus in sacris literis praecipuè designantur alii Decreta sunt Illi sunt Voluntatis Divinae ut ita dicam commotiones praesertim vehementiores seu actus ejusmodi quibus Voluntas vehementius vel in objectum suum fertur vel ab eo refugit atque abhorret Vt ut forte res ad quam affectus incitat non sit firmiter conclusa c. Crellius de Deo attributis apud Volkel lib. 1. de vera Religione cap. 29. p. 295. Vide eund ibid. per tot cap. 30 31. per tot Vorst de Deo Biddle's Catechis c. 4. Degrees of Gods Love cannot properly be understood and as if in God the inward Acts of his Will were gradually different as in men commonly they are For being the First Cause of all things he has no superior to limit him nor will he limit himself because this were to lessen his own perfection neither could he indeed bound and determine his own Being and Excellence if he could possibly will or attempt it because he is the one and alone necessary Being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is | Exod. 3. 14. 6. 3. I am that I am Nor can any Second inferior Cause do it be it of what kind soever because they being the free issues of his Power who * Ephes 1. 11. Vid. Esay 14. 24. 40. 13. Rom. 11. 33 34 35. Ephes 3. 20. Psal 115. 3. worketh all things according to the Counsel of his own Will they must of necessity be supposed to flow from him when now he has his Essence already undetermined And therefore he being the First Cause of all things and consequently infinite in his Essence as well as his Power and Perfection which only flows from the Infinitude of his Essence he must be absolutely simple in this his Essence and most perfectly One as much without all shadow of Parts or Accidents as he is of Change or Alteration For if he were made up of Parts he could not be the First Cause of all things because the Parts are first in Nature at least before the Whole compounded of them And if there were in him any Accidents he could not be the †Malach. 3. 6. Lord that changes not no more infinite in Perfection which the * Accedit quod perfectissimum unicum tantum est Quis vero dubitat supremum Numen primum Naturae Principium esse Perfectissimum quis id aliquo defectu laborare dicat Crell apud Volkel l. 1. ca. 17. p. 113. Haec Dei immensitas atque Omnipraesentia Potentiae Sapientiae Potestatis Perfectionis ut omnium confessione certissima sacris literis testatissima ita nobis creditu utilissima c. Ejus autem Essentiam in quovis pulvisculo latere nondum ex sacris literis discere potuimus viri quidam doctissimi ex Christianorum scriptis ea collegerunt dicta quae vulgarem sententiam de diffusione Essentiae Divinae per res universas vel penitus refellunt vel non â—arùm labefactant c. Crell ibid. cap. 27. p. 277 278. vide ibid. per tot Socinian dares not deny against so many clear express Scriptures then they say he is in his Essence because he stands in need of those Accidents and changeable alterations that must compleat his Perfection Nor could he indeed be that One all-perfect Being from whom all things else flow if he were not absolutely as well without Accidents as Parts because by the Addition of any thing whatsoever it be of necessity he becomes finite and simpliciter per se imperfect because capable of this Addition And therefore it is most rationally determined by the Schoolmen though the Socinian will not grant it that In Deo neque est aliud neque Accidens and Quicquid est in Deo Deus est That God is nothing else but one entire and simple infinite and eternal Act and that nothing can possibly be found or at least imagined in him which is not himself § 23. Hence it necessarily follows that when God in Scripture is said to love he must not be understood properly to love as man does by
the help of (a) Cum autem Actiones etiam Divinae duplicis sunt generis aâ—iae immanentes aliae transeuntes etiam facultates quae earum sunt principia duplicis sunt generis Aliae enim immanentium propria sunt principia aliae transeuntium Facultates quae per se immanentium consequenter transeuntium actionum sunt Principia duae in Deo sunt Intellectus Voluntas quae vitam ejus veluti determinant ac differentiarum instar ad eam restringunt Speciem quae est perfectissima Facultates similiter quae actionum transeuntium sunt principia duae sunt Potentiae quae in efficacia consistit ac viribus Potestas quae in Jure c. Crellius apud Volkel ibid. li. 1. ca. 19. pag. 131. Natural Faculties and Habits but his love is only one and the same infinite and substantial Act which is nothing but Himself And this is it that S. John means when he tells us 1 Joh. 4. 8. That God is Love infinite and essential Love For think (b) De hoc amore loquitur Johannes cum ait Deum Charitatem esse 1 Joh. 4. 8. quod quidem nihil aliud est quam Deum Charitate ut ita dicam plenissimum esse hunc in illo affectum veluti dominari luculentissimis ab eo effectis ac documentis demonstrari Metonymia enim est in qua attributum abstractum ut in Scholis vocant de suo subjecto emphaticè enunciatur vel quod eodem recidit abstractum Charitas pro Charitate plenus ponitur Crell ibid. c. 30. p. 301. Crellius what he will this is no Metonymical Praedication and he is not properly full of Love but Love it self such additional perfections as these are belong to finite Creatures only not to God to whom we can assign no Attribute that is not properly and infinitely himself Nor do I like (c) Hunc in illo affectum Dicitur Deus esse Charitas sive ut Crellius interpretatur plenus Charitatis non per modum affectus sed per modum virtutis perfectionis moralis ad quam nos pro modulo nostro tam saepe invitamur Maresii Hydra Socinianism expugnat Maresius's Animadversion on this place of Crellius much better unless it be very warily understood For as God cannot be said to be Love per modum affectus so neither can he properly be said to be Love or full of (d) Tertio intelligi potest ex dictis eas virtutes quae sunt in Deo propriè non esse cogitandas per modum habitus sicut in nobis sed solum per modum Actus ultimi nam Habitus est quid medium inter Potentiam Actum ubi ergo non est Potentia sed purus Actus non debet nec potest verè concipi virtus per modum Habitus sed tantum per modum puri Actus Loquor autem ex parte rei conceptae nam ex parte concipientis fieri potest ut hae virtutes concipiantur in Deo secundum aliquam rationem Actus primi ac si essent Habitus ad modum supra explicatum in scientia est enim eadem ratio c. Suarez Metaph. disp 30. sect 16. §. 68. Vid. amplius §. 69 70. confer cum §. 59 60. ib. Love * Dan. Heinsius Aristarch Sac. in Prolegom pa. 49. 8vo per modum virtutis perfectionis Moralis God is as well free from all Habits such Moral Perfections or any thing like them as from Passions and if we at any time conceive such things in God this arises only from the weakness of our apprehensions and Intellects there is no such thing in God and when these and the like are attributed to him the Praedication is not Formal but Identical and the Distinction between the Subject and Attribute is only Rational not Real And therefore I rather approve of that in * Heinsius his Prolegomena upon Nonnus Virtutem constat esse Habitum quem in Deo locum non habere inter Scholasticorum Scita est quemadmodum virtutes singulas quae ei tribuuntur eminenter esse in eo ut loquuntur ipsi Sed Ethicorum Primo negat magnus Doctor Deum proprie laudari posse Laudem enim proprie virtutis esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquit quia ut recte ibi interpretes idonei ab ea ad praeclaras actiones fiunt homines quod in Deo locum non habet Et in Magnis Moralibus ab eodem dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deo non convenire virtutem quia melior virtute est Deus neque ex virtute dici potest bonus Quare in Deo locum haec non habent Thus he § 24. I confess this is very hard if not impossible to be understood by us whose understandings are finite as well as our Natures And therefore the (a) Lombard l. 3. Sent. dist 32. B. infra citand Mr of the Sentences said well in this case that Gods Love as well as his Peace surpasseth all understanding because it is infinite as himself is And the Holy Ghost in Scripture does in these and the like expressions condescend to our weakness and in forms of speech borrowed from our selves does rather represent to us some external effects of God then any thing in him who because he is infinite can be only known and comprehended by himself (*) 1 Tim. 6. 16. who only as the Apostle speaks hath immortality dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto whom no man hath seen nor can see to whom be Honour and Power everlasting Amen And for his eternal Honour it is that he can be seen or known by nothing but himself § 25. Now as God's Love is still one and the same substantial Vide Suarez Metaph. disp 30. sect 16. §. 59. Act alwaies equal and uniform as I may so say in it self because alwaies infinite and commensurate with himself so this Love can have no other Object then what is proportionable to it self And therefore the Act being it self infinite the Object of this Act cannot possibly be lesse For between things Finite and Infinite there can be no proportion because the difference will alwaies be infinite between them When therefore God loves he can properly be said to love only himself The (a) Psal 16. 2. goodness of all the Creatures in the world no more then Davids extendeth to him For (b) Job 22. 2 3. Confer c. 35. 7. Psal 50. 9 c. Can a man be profitable to God as he that is wise may be profitable to himself Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous or is it gain to him that thou makest thy waies perfect That goodness alone which is the greatest and no less then infinite which can be nothing else but God can possibly content or satisfie his Love For if God could properly be said to love any thing but himself he could not be infinitely Perfect in
Objecta The one is nothing else but Gods Essence and Being but the other are outward Effects and Communications of his Love and Goodness to the Creature Si vero as (a) Durand l. 3. Sent. d. 32. q. 1. art 3. 1. Durand inaequalitas gradus attendatur ex parte boni voliti sic Deus non aequaliter diligit se omnes Creaturas sed plus se quam Creaturas nec omnes Creaturas aequaliter c. Though then it be most certainly true to make use of the same (b) Durand ibid. in fine Durand quod magis bonum est magis diligendum intensivè à voluntate quae movetur ab objecto yet Voluntas Divina quae ab Objecto non movetur sed bonitatem rerum causat hanc impressionem non recipit ab Objectis sed actu invariabili vult uni bonum quod alteri non vult quibus vult bona sive aequalia sive inaequalia vult aequali voluntate The will of God that is not moved by any outward Object is not subject to these changes and alterations but by one immutable Act does dispence all the several varieties of his outward Love and Favours As the Sun according to the opinion of Copernicus though it continue still fixed in one immoveable center of the world alwaies equally projecting it's Light in an uniform Ray yet by reason of the various posture of the Sphere arising from the triple motion of the Earth it makes Perigaees and Apogaees and at one and the same moment distributes Summer and Winter and Autumne and Spring and Morn Noon and Night to the several parts and Climates of the habitable world So this various participation of Gods outward Love and Favour arises not from any difference and variation in the inward Act of Gods Love but only from the several approximations of the Creature to God in its Essence or additional perfections or as it is fitted and qualified to receive and admit a greater portion of it And therefore most certain it is that when any such change is wrought the Creature varies and not God whose inward Love is eternally one the same infinite and immutable Act that has no other Object but it self alwaies loving and beloved To make this yet more clear I shall prosecute the former illustration We know the Sun according to whatsoever Astronomical Hypothesis continues still invariable in its Light and Heat and Influence and yet the effects of these three are not uniform and equal but vary in regard of the Bodies they work on The Starrs borrow their light from this fountain but then because they are celestial Bodies and as Aristotle determines of a nature Quintessential they are not capable of Heat and such elementary qualities and alterations arising from them The Air because perspicuous transmits its Light and Heat and Influence The Earth because opacous withstands the Light but imbibes it's Heat and Influence and Stones and Minerals in the bowels of it are multiplyed in their kinds by them Plants vegetate and flourish by them and Animals not only encrease and grow but also move and feel and perceive them But Man the Microcosme being himself a little World enjoyes within himself all varieties of effects to be found in any of the Creatures springing from them And yet notwithstanding there be so great a difference and multiplicity of effects this arises not at all from the Sun whose Light Heat and Influence is alwaies the same but only from the several dispositions and tempers and Perfections of the Creature whereby they are qualified and fitted for these Effects and Alterations And now because sic parvis componere magna solemus we may say the like of God The inward Act of his Love as well as his Essence is alwaies one and the same and all the difference in the outward effects of it arises from the various disposition and capacity and approximation of the Creature to him in his Being and Perfection If natural and irrational Creatures partake only of the fruits of his common Sustentation and Providence their natures are not capable of higher advancements If the Carnal man perceives not spiritual Objects it is because he wants a Principle to receive them or he wilfully shuts his eyes and withdraws himself from the Sun-shine If the Angels and Spirits of just men made perfect now share not in those various dispensations and assistances of Grace that the Church militant is partaker of it is because they are above it and are free from all humane Changes and Alterations If the wicked and reprobate arrive not to heaven it is because it was prepared for the Saints and those only that fear Gods name that carefully seek after it § 30. It is true indeed that this variety in the several participation of Gods Love and Favour which is found in the Creature springs originally from the will and pleasure of God which alone gives them Being in that variety and difference that qualifies them for this several reception and approach to him or distance from him But yet his Love is still the same though the Gifts and Graces and Favours be thus different as the Light of the Sun is still the same though the Slime be only warmed and the Plant be quickened from it's seed and the several Births and aequivocal productions of Froggs and Insects and the like brought forth by it are capable of and enjoy higher perfections and advancements from it § 31. And now because we have had occasion often in this Discourse to refer to the Doctrine of the Schoolmen I shall with the Readers Patience endeavour further to clear and confirm this by some passages taken from them And I shall begin with the (a) P. Lombard l. 3. Sent. dist 32. A. B. C. Master of the Sentences Dilectio Dei divina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est eademque dilectione Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus se diligunt nos ut supra disseruimus Cumque ejus dilectio sit immutabilis aeterna alium tamen magis alium minus diligit Vnde Augustinus Incomprehensibilis est dilectio Dei atque immutabilis quâ Deus in unoquoque nostrûm amat quod fecit sicut odit quod fecimus Miro ergo divino modo etiam quando odit diligit nos Et hoc quidem in omnibus intelligi potest Quis ergo digne potest eloqui quantum diligit membra Vnigeniti sui quanto amplius Vnigenitum ipsum De ipso etiam dictum est Nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti Ex his percipitur quod Deus omnes Creaturas suas diligit quia scriptum est Nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti Et item Vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat erant valde bona Si omnia quae fecit bona sunt omne bonum diligit omnia ergo diligit quae fecit inter ea magis diligit rationales creaturas de illis amplius quae sunt membra Vnigeniti sui
decrease so ordinarily do the other there could be no security of any mans Love or Friendship in the world but all things must fall into Jealousie and Confusion For the inward Acts of Love being immanent Acts of the Will it is impossible that they should appear and be discovered to others but only by the outward signs and Expressions And as it is impossible that the inward and elicite Acts of the mind should be discerned and known to others but only by the outward transient Acts so also it is generally received from Saint Austin that mentiri est contra mentem ire and men in Sinceritie are bound as well candidly to express as to speak truth to their neighbours else there will be as much a Lie in the Action as is in the Tongue § 43. If our Refuter shall here reply from the 38th Page that though it be a piece of high dissembling for a man to make great pretenses and shewes of Affection when there is little or none in the Heart yet there is no such matter where either it is not expressed to the height or else totally concealed § 44. To this I answer That as there is no General Rule without exceptions so it has already been granted that it may be lawful sometimes to conceal our Love or not express it to the height and Prudence also dictates that in some cases it is both commendable and necessary to assume and put on even a * Illud hic generatim dici potest Vbicumque Simulatio aut dissimulatio per se nihil habet quod Dei gloriam laedat aut in alterum sit injurium aut nostrae laudi vel commodo nimium aurigetur eam ad breve tempus cum res ita fert adhiberi posse saepe enim ad gubernationem rerum ad consilia perficienda opus est quaedam dissimulare nonnunquam etiam severitas quaedam simulari potest in liberos aut alios qui nobis subsunt ad eos imperio continendos quod tantum abest ut reprehensionem mereatur ut potius laude sit dignum tanquam ad disciplinam servandam vehementer utile Joh. Crellii Ethic. Christian l. 4. c. 27. pa. 517. contrary Passion of Anger and Severity toward those we most tenderly affect and consequently that he is no Hypocrite that in these cases hides his Love or does not fully expresse it But then these being but extraordinary cases and exceptions from general Rules can no whit prejudice the usual contrary Practice and Obligation And hence it is that I said which this Objection no waie strikes at that ordinarily the outward Expressions must and commonly do carry a correspondence and proportionable agreement with the inward Acts of that Love which they are designed to represent § 45. And now for this in the next place I appeal to the Common Notions and general apprehensions of Mankind For all men naturally are perswaded that where they conceive the Passion is not counterfeit there such as are the outward Expressions such also is the inward Love and as the one falls or rises so also does the other I pray Sir do not you your self guesse at your welcome by the freedome and nobleness and height of your entertainment Though the Table be loaded with plenty yet if a Super omnia vultus Accesscre boni if locks Ovid. Metam come not in to grace the entertainment or if others be more friendly accosted then your self you will soon enough descry that you are none of the Guests for whom the Feast was provided and that your room would be better accepted then your company When the Jewes saw our Saviour weeping for dead Lazarus Joh. 11. 35 36. did they not make a just construction of this Action and say truly Behold how he loved him When Mary Magdalene washed Luke 7. 38 c. our Saviours feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair and kissed them and anointed them with pretious oyntment did not our Saviour from thence truly argue the greatness of her Love and prove that it was though she were a sinner far more then that of Simon his entertainer because he neither as the Custome was had offered him a kiss or oyle for his head or else water for his feet And therefore the Schools do generally conclude from Saint Gregory that Probatio dilectionis Gregor Magn. Homil. in Evangel mihi pa. 321. E. exhibitio est operis It is in his 30th Homily upon the Gospels Such as is the Expression such is also the Love and the one is the Index and Touchstone to manifest the other § 46. Indeed true Love is a very fruitful and operative thing and it cannot chuse but be communicative Like Mines of Gold and Silver in the Bowels of the Earth it manifests the rich treasure by certain Signes and Indications And though we would our selves yet it cannot will not lie hid Every Concealment laies Shackles and Bonds upon it and shuts up that in a most tedious imprisonment which was born to be free and cannot long live restrained Like the natural heat in the Body it must have its vent and therefore if the Pores be shut up it puts all in a Flame till the Passages be opened Every Tree saies Luke 6. 44 45. our Saviour is known by its fruit and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh And again If ye love me keep my Joh. 15. 21. commandements He that hath my commandements and keepeth them he it is that loveth me and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father and I will love him and manifest my self to him Indeed true Love does as naturally manifest it self by the outward Expressions as Springs of water discover themselves by the verdure of the grass they run under It 's excellence consists in doing good and being communicative and like Light it was as well made to shew it self as comfort others and it has this Property also of Light that the greater or lesse it is still in the Fountain the stronger or weaker it alwaies is in the Ray. Nay it is altogether uselesse unlesse it be working and manifesting it self and a Love concealed is altogether as if it were not What Saint James saies of Faith may be as well said of this As Jam. 2. 26. the body without the Spirit is dead so Love without works is dead also § 47. This then being the nature of true Charity the Christian grace of sincerity requires that our Love be not only such as it seems but that it appear in the effects to be such as it truly is And therefore saies S. John My little Children let 1 John 3. 18. us not love in word neither in tongue but in deed and in truth From which place Tolet in his Commentary on Rom. 12. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let Love be without dissimulation observes that Tolet. Commentar in Epist ad Rom. c. 12. p. 527 528. there are
Doctors Conclusion will rationally and clearly follow though he never attempts to prove that which you so eagerly require and though indeed it is impossible for him to perform it in respect of every Act. And so much for your second Charge § 64. And now because you profess and it is your third Charge that the reason of the Doctors Consequence is to you invisible and that you shall never acknowledge his Inference legitimate untill you be driven thereunto by reducing his Enthymeme unto a Syllogisme I shall once for your better satisfaction perform it Thus then If ordinarily there is and must be a proportionable agreement in respect of Intension and Remission betwixt the inward Acts of Love and the outward Expressions then that Act of internal Love expressed by Christs Dying for us was superiour to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty c. But the Antecedent is true as we have shewed from Reason and Experience and the Authority of Gregory and the Schoolmen Therefore also is the Consequent § 65. And thus you see Sir that there was no Mystery but a plain and obvious Truth in the word proportionably Not as if the Doctor thereby had meant as you descant that these different expressions in regard of their Intension must be proportioned exactly unto their inward respective Acts of Love equal or parallell unto them but only thus That the greater or the less the outward Expressions are the greater or the less commonly are the inward Acts of Love For here I must mind you of a known Distinction There is an Equality of Proportion and an Equality of Quantity and it is made use of by Estius to Estius 3. Sent. d. 29. §. 5. p. 104. col 2. E this very purpose For whereas among other Passages this also had been urged out of Austin for an Equality of Love where the Expressions were different Quis est inquit qui non judicat personaliter qui diligit aequaliter Dilectio aequalis facit non acceptari personas Nam cum homines diverso modo pro suis gradibus honoramus tunc timendum est nè personas accipiamus Augustin tract 30. in Joan. To this Estius there answers Non aliam hîc requirit aequalitatem quam quae personarum acceptionem excludit Itaque aequalitatem intelligit Proportionis non Quantitatis So say I is the Doctor to be understood as speaking of an Equality of Proportion betwixt the outward Expression and the inward Act and not as you would have him to mean an Equality of Quantity Sufficient it is if as the inward Acts of Love increase or diminish the outward Expressions do so too though the increase and decrease in both be not parallel and exactly equal § 66. But in case that Distinction should be quarrelled at yet I hope this of your great Master Aristotle shall be allowed He tells us in his Ethicks of a twofold Proportion and it is approved of as most undoubted by all Mathematicians in the world for ought I ever could find to the contrary The one * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist li. 5. Ethic. ca. 3. §. 8. Vid. l. 5. Eth. c. 4. §. 1 2. Et l 2. c. 6. §. 2. Quod proportionem Arithmeticam observat eodem modo semper se habet ubique atque omnibus unum idemque est quod proportionem observat Geometricam hoc non ubique aut omnibus aut semper est idem sed pro rerum diversitate varium l. Crellii Eth. Aristotel par 2. c. 5. p. 42. Arithmetical Proportion is when divers numbers differ according to equal reason that is have equal differences Geometrical Proportion is when divers numbers differ according to like reason c. Wingate's Arithmetick Natural lib. 1. c. 9. §. 4. 17. he calls from them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the first the Proportion Arithmetical the increases are alwaies equal as in 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. in the other the Geometrical they are like as 2. 4. 8. 16. 32. When therefore the Doctor saies that there is a proportionable difference between the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love and that as the one increases and decreases in respect of Intension and Remission so also do the other he is to be understood that the increase or decrease between them is not according to Arithmetical Proportion so as the Intension in the outward Act is still equal to the Intension of the inward but only according to Geometrical Proportion and that as the inward Act increases so in like manner also does the outward though the Intension be not equal and parallel in both § 67. And thus you see Sir though the Doctor added it ex abundanti more then your discourse required of him that even from hence from hence I say he did justly suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by Christ's Dying for us was superiour to those former Acts expressed in his Poverty c. And so the same Person that loved sincerely did also love and expresse that Love more intensely at one time then at another quod erat demonstrandum and was the very thing he had said in another Instance And so I proceed to the next Section SECTION 12. The Doctors proof of the vanity of the Refuters Vse of Confutation made good from the Refuters Mixture The Refuters Reply endeavour to make good his Charge by Consequences impertinent The Refuters momentous Objection strikes as well against himself and other his friends as the Doctor The weakness of it The intension of Christs actual Grace so proportioned to that of his habitual Grace as not to exceed it but not so still as to equal it Illustrated by a clear instance The Schoolmen no where say that the Intension of Christs actual Grace is exactly equal to that of his habitual Aquinas of the Refuters not the Doctors citation He speaks fully to the Doctors purpose What meant by works the effects of wisdom and Grace in Aquinas An intensive growth in the inward Acts of wisdom Grace argues not an intensive increase in the Habits Asserted also by the Refuter Cleared by a Distinction The Chedzoy Challenge The vanity of it Christ did gradually increase in the Acts of wisdom and Grace as he did in stature Proved from the Refuters Mixture from Ames Vorstius Grotius Hooker Field Suarez Estius Others both Fathers and Schoolmen and Reformed Divines The Defenders advise to the Refuter to be more wary in his challenges Doctor HAMMOND 24. IT now only remaines that I consider whether this Refuter have in the process of his Discourse added any thing wherein I may be any whit concerned 25. And 1. saith he the falshood of such an Assertion is evident from the point there handled and confirmed the absolute fulness of Christs Grace which by the general consent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was such as that it excluded all
of necessity be gradually different from one another § 17. And now because our Refuter seeks for Refuge under Vide Crellii Ethic. Christian infra citat the Ambiguity of this phrase the Love of God and to bring the debate between the Doctor and him to a final issue it will be necessary in the first place to distinguish that Term that so every thing may be clear before us in the present Debate and the Truth and the Doctors Innocence may be evidenced to the world and the Sophismes and mistakes of this Refuter be discovered § 18. First then this phrase the Love of God which the Refuter alwaies construes in a different sense from the Doctor and only for his advantage may be and is commonly taken in a threefold sense First more generally as it signifies the Divine Grace of holy Charity as the Schooles call it from Saint Paul 1 Cor. 13 the greatest of the three Theological Graces and that alone which never faileth that Grace which the Apostle there most excellently describes and the Schoolmen treat of l. 3. Sent. d. 27. 2. 2. q. 23 24 25 26 c. the Grace that in its latitude or amplitude conteins the whole duty of man towards God and our Neighbours whatsoever is good and excellent in him And therefore the Master of the Sentences defines P. Lombard 3. Sent. dist 25. B. Vid. Aquin 2. 2 q. 25 art 1. it thus Charitas est dilectio quâ diligitur Deus propter se proximus propter Deum vel in Deo and it is approved by all his Scholars for ought that I can find to the contrary § 19. Secondly more specially for Piety and Holiness and Devotion towards God and the Duties of the first Table § 20. Thirdly most strictly for that most sublime and perfect Love immediately terminated and concentred in God the only Good in which alone all the Acts of Piety and Charity are founded and from whence alone they stream and flow This is that which Aquinas frequently calls Charitas ut finis the other Vid. Aquin. 2. 2 q. 44. art 3. in Corp. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 44. art 1. in corp Aquin. ibid. art 3. ad 2. he calls Charitas propter finem Finis saies he spiritualis vitae est ut homo uniatur Deo quod fit per Charitatem ad hoc ordinantur sicut ad Finem omnia quae pertinent ad spiritualem vitam unde Apostolus dicit 1 Tim. 1. Finis praecepti Charitas est de corde puro conscientia bona fide non ficta c. And now because as the same Aquinas that alii actus Charitatis consequuntur ex actu dilectionis sicut effectus ex causa hence is it that by a Synecdoche generis or a Metonymy of the Efficient Tropes familiar in all Writers all the Acts of Piety and Mercy and Charity and Vertue are called the Love of God because they flow from it § 21. And now that this is no new-coined distinction invented on purpose to salve the present sore will appear from the Scriptures themselves where we have it in express termes § 22. For though to English eares this phrase The Love of God seems especially to import the prime and more principal Love that has God for its immediate Object yet in Scripture-phrase Tertull. cont Marcion l. 4. c 27. p. 548. A. B. ex edit Rigalt Vide Bezae major Annot. in loc Luc. Brugens tom 2. in Evangel p 802. Piscator Maldonat Theophylact. alios in loc it frequently does not And therefore saies our Saviour as we find it S. Luke 11. 42. Woe unto you Pharisees for ye tithe Mint and Rue and all manner of herbes and pass over Judgement and the Love of God these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone It is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judicium charitatem Dei. So Beza and the Vulgar Latine But in the vulgata vetus in use in Tertullians daies it is vocationem dilectionem Dei and accordingly we translate it the Love of God The true meaning of the place Tolet methinks has fully reached Majora mandata praeteritis nempe Judicium Charitatem Judicium quidem nocendo aliis rapiendo aliena contra leges Justitiae Charitatem verò non miserendo proximi nec eleemosynam pauperi conferendo Non solum ergo rapinas injustitias non recompensatis eleemosynis sed illas perpetratis contra judicium eleemosynas non facitis contra charitatem quae sunt majoris momenti quam decimas dare tales Addit Dei quia charitate Deus diligendus est proximus Pharisaei autem nec Deum nec proximum diligebant qui enim non diligit proximum non diligit Deum 1 Jo. 3. Qui viderit fratrem suum necessitatem habere clauserit viscera sua ab eo quomodo Charitas Dei manet in illo 1 Jo. 4. Qui non diligit fratrem quem videt quomodo Deum quem non videt diligere potest Tolet. in Luc. 11. 42. p. 690. in Commentar I know the place is otherwise expounded by * Vide Erasm in loc H. Grot. in Annot. ad Matth. 23 23. divers and we have no need of doubtful places S. John the beloved Disciple whose argument is Charity and the Love of God whose Text and Sermons were as Ecclesiastical Story testifies nothing else but this does in one short Epistle afford us instances sufficient beyond all exception 1. Ep. John 2. 5. But whoso keepeth his word in him verily is the Love of God Charity as Saint Paul or Love as the same Apostle and Saint John himself often indefinitely and generally stile it perfected Hereby 1 Cor. 13. Rom. 13 10. Gal. 5. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 5 14. know we that we are in him It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So again 1 Joh. 3. 17. But whoso hath this worlds good and seeth his Brother hath need and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how dwelleth the Love of God in him So again 1 Joh. 4 20. If a man say I love God and hateth his Brother he is a lyar for he that loveth not his Brother whom he hath seen how can he love God whom he hath not seen And therefore in the close of his Epistle 1. 5. vers 3 thus he describes the Love of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is the Love of God that we keep his Commandements and his Commandements are not grievous Plain then it is that in Scripture-language the Love of God is put for the Grace of divine Charity in general extending it self to that Love that is immediately centred on God himself and on our neighbours for Gods sake This is that Love which the Apostle tells us is the fulfilling of the Law Rom. 13. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 5. and the end of the Commandement § 23. And therefore sure it can be no
tergiversation if we say that Doctor Hammond does take this phrase the Love of God or sincere Love wheresoever he uses it as Saint John does in the general notion for the Grace of Divine Charity and holy Love which to distinguish from all other Loves he calls the Love of God 1. because he is the giver and the alone infuser of it by his holy spirit and 2ly because he also is the prime and principal Object of it and for whose sake alone we love our Neighbours and 3ly because this alone is the root on which all the other parts and branches of holy Charity are grounded and from whence they all spring and without which they are nothing worth § 24. And that I shall prove by such clear Arguments as the Doctors writings afford If then as the great Philosopher tells us that Words are but the images and expressions of the Thoughts of the mind and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 1. de interpretatione c. 1. §. 1. Writings are the pictures and indications of Words then if the meaning of any word be questioned as doubtful the best way to unfold it is by considering the subject matter of the Discourse and the scope and purpose of it § 25. And now I doubt not but it will appear obvious to the most ordinary capacity that the subject matter of the Doctors discourse could not possibly tempt him to make use of this phrase the Love of God in any other sense then what we have given of it and that the cause he undertook to defend had utterly been betrayed and lost not supported by the meaning that the Refuter puts upon it For the main business and scope of the Treatise of Will-worship and the defence of it against Mr. Cawdrey is only to shew that there be certain Degrees and Acts of Piety and Charity and Vertue that no particular law enjoines which yet God accepts of as free-will Offerings from the Christian when performed For this we shall not need further proof then what one short Passage affords wherein the Doctor has briefly summed up his Opinion in both Treatises so largely insisted on It is in his Preface to the Reader prefixt to the Account § 5. And besides these there is somewhat of more sublime consideration on occasion of that of Will-worship the free-will Offerings which will very well become a Christian to bring to Christ rewardable in a high degree though they are not under any express precept such are all the Charities and Devotions and Heroical Christian Practices which shall all not only be degraded but defamed if every thing be concluded criminous which is not necessary if all uncommanded Practise be unlawful § 26. And now though this in the general might suffice to clear the Doctors meaning from any possible mistake unless to the wilfully perverse yet because the remainder of the Refuters Reply is wholy built upon this abused Notion of the Phrase and what he calls his threefold Demonstration so industriously placed in the Frontispiece of his Pamphlet to amuse vulgar Readers and those that look not beyond Titles has no other Basis and Foundation I shall with the Readers patience descend to a more particular confirmation of it § 27. The task I confess would be endlesly tedious to search for Proofs as they lie severally dispersed in those Treatises And therefore for brevity sake I shall confine my self to that very Section in the Account that first occasioned the Vse of Confutation § 28. In the very first § of that Section the Doctor tells us Doctor Hammond's Account to Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe cap. 6. sect 9. p. 221. that those large inclusive words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. denoted only two things 1. the sincerity of this Love of God as opposed to partial divided Love to which I now adde for further explication that what we do according to the precepts of Gods Law we do out of Love towards God not hypocritically or as by constraint and 2ly not admitting any thing else into competition with him this sincere Love of God mean while being capable of Degrees so that it is very possible for two men to love God with all the heart and yet one to love him more intensely then another as was exemplifyed among the very Angels nay for the same person which so loves him to love him and express that Love more intensely at one time then another as appeared by the example of Christ Luc. 22. 44. To this I shall subjoin the very words upon which the Refuter grounds his Charge in the Vse of Confutation § 5. of that Section But sure this answer is nothing to the matter now in hand for the evidencing of which that example of Christ was brought by me viz. That sincere Love is capable of Degrees This was first shewed in several men and in the same man at several times in the several ranks of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one act of Prayer then in another wherein what is affirmed of Christ is common to Angels and Men c. And now I appeal to our Refuter himself and desire him to tell me whether the Doctor can possibly mean any thing else by this Phrase the Love of God and sincere Love in these places then the grace of holy Charity that in its general comprehensive notion contains in it whatsoever is holy good or vertuous for kind or degree that the Christian out of a sincere Love to God either freely or by way of Duty performs Can he possibly here mean by Christs Love of God in these places that Beatifick Love of God which was alwaies in termino and was proper to him as Comprehensor Does he not expresly adde in the Close of those words that what herein is affirmed of Christ is common to Angels and Men And do not his several instances speak as much Let our Refuter himself judge what other Love can the Doctor mean that is common to Christ to Angels and Men except that Love and Charity which the Doctor constantly makes a Genus to habitual and actual Love § 29. That this and no other was the Doctors meaning will 2ly appear from Mr. Cawdrey's Reply and the Doctors answer to it § 2. For whereas the Doctor had affirmed that this Grace of holy Love or Divine Charity consisted in a sincere endeavour after perfection Mr. Cawdrey now returns that it consisted in an absolute sinless Perfection such as was that of Adam in innocence and therefore perfect Love such as did cast out fear 1 Jo. 4. 18. Now to this the Doctor returns 1. that that perfect Love of Adam in innocence consisted not in an indivisible point in the several Acts 2ly that S. John 's Love was not that of Adam in innocence which is confessed not to be attainable but that other which is in every Confessor and Martyr which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Grace in Christ he knew it was not necessary so precisely to distinguish that phrase the Love of God which the whole subject matter of that argument must needs clear to be understood as parallel and aequipollent to habitual Grace and the Acts of it § 37. Besides the Doctor in the very entrance of that Treatise § 2 3. had so fully cleared his own and the Refuters meaning saying expresly that the Refuters meaning was this that he had affirmed Christ's Love of God meaning thereby the habitual Grace of divine Charity to have been capable of further Degrees so as that capacity of further Degrees is the denial of all fulness of that habitual Grace already in him and accordingly in that Treatise he makes answer to that Charge that no other sense could by any ingenuous man be affixed unto that Phrase § 38. Adde to this that the Doctor expresly denies that he ever said these words That Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees And now I shall desire our Refuter to shew me so much as the very subject of it Christs Love of God in terminis either in the Treatise of Will-worship or the Defence of it against Mr. Cawdrey The truth is the Proposition is none of the Doctors and all that the Refuter pretends to is that he rightly inferred it from these words in the Account That Sincere Account to Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diat c. 6. sect 9. §. 5. Love is capable of Degrees as appears among other instances from the Example of Christ more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another and therefore in all equity must have no other meaning and signification then what the place from whence it is pretended to be deduced does admit of which can be no other then what we have given of it And though the Doctor here acknowledge that those other words not found in his Papers are yet not illogically inferred from them viz. That Christ's Love of God was capable of further Degrees more intense at one time then at another yet he that best knew his own meaning there expresly declares that they only import that Christs Love of God or holy Charity in the general Notion as he distinctly expresses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 12. it § 14. had in its Latitude or Amplitude several Degrees one differing from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in that full all-perfect Love of God which was alwaies in Christ so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees Besides that this and no other could be his meaning is evident from his instancing in that Place whence the Proposition is pretended to be inferred in the different Ardency of Christ in several Acts of Prayer which is rather an Act of Religion then Charity And though it be founded in Charity and flowes from it yet Prayer that is Deprecation or Petition such as that of Christ's then was is rather an effect of that Love of God which the Schooles call Amor Concupiscentiae a love of God for our own sakes then that which they call Amor Amicitiae a love of God purely for himself Vid. Durand l. 3. Sent. d. 28 q. 1. art 1. B. and nothing else Beseech God indeed we do to help us because we believe he is the fountain of all goodness which makes the Act formally an Act of Religion and rather to be radicated in Charity then formally and immediatly an Act of Love the Effect and issue of Charity rather then it § 39. Adde to this that the Doctor expresly saies that the Vide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 14 15 16 18 21 22. word Love in that Passage was to be taken by a Synecdoche generis for the Acts of holy Charity and not for habitual Love § 40. And then he explains his meaning by an instance taken from the Refuters own Confession thus The Death of Christ §. 22. saith he was an higher expression of Christ's Love of us of us but for God's sake then his Hunger c. To this I sub join That such as the expression was such was the Act of inward Love c. And so the same person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely then at other times Love but what God as the immediate Object no that was neither the meaning of the Refuter nor the Doctor But us he loved and expressed that Love to us more in his Death then any other Act of holy Charity and Love to us An Act of Charity Love of God this was without doubt which he bestowed on us but us in these Acts he loved immediatly for Gods sake § 41. This will further appear by the several other Phrases he uses as aequipollent to this of the Love of God For sometimes nay most commonly he rather uses the word Love absolutely then the Love of God sometimes he expresses it by Graces sometimes by Acts of vertue sometimes in the Concrete thus a sincerely-pious man a true lover of God c. § 42. I confess I have been over tediously curious in this part of the Reply But I conceive it necessary to shew how beyond all possibility of defence this Refuter is unjust in affixing that other sense to the Doctors words which he never meant nor could possibly serve his turn But so it was that the Doctor had so fully acquitted himself from the Vse of Confutation that nothing now but Consequences and new-devised meanings of words and phrases would help him and he was forced of necessity to prevaricate otherwise it had not been possible to have found out a Medium to have confuted Doctor Hammond a second time And as the Reader will see a necessity of this Travel before the Discourse is ended so I doubt not but the ingenuous will therefore pardon it § 43. Well then it being plain that this phrase the Love of God may be taken generally in confuso as they speak in the Schooles and as it prescinds or abstracts from this or that particular Act or else specially as it relates in particular to the prime and most noble Act of Divine Charity that is immediatly terminated in God and it being as plain that Doctor Hammond takes it in the first sense when he saies that The Love of God or the Acts of that Love do consist in a latitude and if we compare them one with another are more intense at one time then another it now remains that I make good the Assertion for the full and absolute acquitting of the Doctor Which I do by these Arguments § 44. Where there is and of necessity must be a gradual rence and more in respect of the goodness of the Objects of the Habit of Charity or the Love of God there is and of necessity there must be also a gradual difference in respect of the several Acts of this Habit of Charity or the Love of God
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
For since the * Vide Estium l. 3. Sentent dist 27. §. 5. p 92. col 1. D. E. F. unity and distinction of Habits arises from the Formal unity and distinction in the Objects it necessarily follows that where two things materially different such as God and our Neighbours are beloved for one and the same formal reason and respect to be found in them that the Habit of Divine Love towards them must be one and the same But now that infinite goodness which is alone found in God is the first and most proper and immediate Object of Divine Love and this Habit of holy Charity carries the Soul on to love other things but secondarily only and in regard of the participation of that goodness which infinitely shines in God As for Gods sake we only love them because they share and partake of his goodness so it is in order only to God and his goodness and glory that this our Love aimes And therefore since we love our Neighbours only for Gods sake and his goodness shining in them is the sole Object of our Love it evidently follows that though the material Objects are different yet the Habit of Divino Charity and holy Love is altogether one and the same And therefore saith Aquinas Dicendum est quod charitas sicut dictumest est quaedam amicitia hominis ad Deum Diversae autem amioitiarum species accipiuntur quidem uno modo secundum diversitatem finis alio modo secundum diversitatem communicationum in quibus amicitiae fundantur Neutro autem istorum madorum charitas potest dividi in plura nam charitatis finis est unus soil divina bonitas Est etiam una communicatio beatitudinis aetennae super quam haec amicitia fundatur Vnde relinquitur quod charitas est simpliciter una virtus non distincta in plures species Aquin. 2. 2. q. 23. art 5. in Corp. So again Dicendum quod virtus specificatur ex objecto suo secundumillam rationem quâ-principaliter in ipsam tendit unde cum Charitas diligat Deum principaliter omnia alia non diligit nisi in quantâ—m sunt Dei constat quod ex Vnitate divinae bonitatis quam charitas primo respicit unitatem respicit est una virtus Aquinas l. 3. Sent. d 27. q. 2. art 4. in corp primae quaestionis To this purpose may be seen Scotus l. 3. d. 28. q. unica and those that H. Cavellus there quotes Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 27. § 5. and the rest of the Commentators on the Sentences and the Summes § 56. Since then the Habit of Divine Love or holy Charity iâ— one and the same both in respect of God and our Neighbours it must of necessity follow * Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self As truly as thy self sincerely though not without some inequality of degrees as John 17. 21. Acts 3. 22. Assembly Notes Annot. in Matt. 22. 39. that the several Acts of this Love respecting God our neighbours for Gods sake must differ in regard of height and intension according to the variety of Goodness to be found in the several Objects beloved And therefore your own †Suarez in 3 part Thom. tom 1. disp 40. sect 2. p. 549. col 2. D. Suarez will tell you Verissimum est Christum Dominum magis amare velle gloriam suam quam nostram quia juxta Charitatis ordinem ita amare debet quia illud bonum in se excellentius est magis conjunctum Deo Christo And it is agreeable to the determination of Saint Austin who in his book of Christian Doctrine expresly discoursing on this very Theme tells us * August de doctrina Christiana c. 27. Ille justè sanctè vivit qui rerum integer aestimator est ipse est autem qui ordinatam dilectionem habet ne aut diligat quod non est diligendum aut non diligat quod est diligendum aut amplius diligat quod minus est diligendum aut minus vel amplius quod aequè diligendum est § 57. And so notwithstanding this Answer our former Argument holds good and stand unshaken § 58. If our Refuter shall make use of the second as sometimes in this Reply he referres to it as when he saies that nothing hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from Acts of Love gradually the same § 59. To this I return that though some in Peter Lombards time did seem to maintain quod pari affectu omnes diligendi sunt sed in effectu id est in exhibitione obsequii distinctio observanda sit and did ground this their assertion on some mistaken passages of Saint Austin yet he and generally the Schoolmen after him have resolved the contrary and they have great reason and authority on their side as we have already demonstrated and it were vain to trouble the Reader with the repetition of what we have already delivered so largely to this purpose § 60. But then secondly suppose it were granted as is pretended that all men are to be loved with the same equal affection though our expressions and outward observances may be different yet this will not conclude that therefore God and our bours are so to be loved with the same equality of affection as all other men are and even these very men that referred this order of Charity to the different outward respects to be shewed to Parents and Children and Kindred and Strangers did also maintain that God was to be loved with an inward affection answerable to his own goodness and not only in hand and tongue but also in the heart Deum verò say they as I find it in the Master of the Sentences tam affectu quam obsequii exhibitione ante omnia diligendum § 61. And so I proceed to a second Argument It cannot be denied but that there were in Christ during the state of his Humiliation those Acts of the Will that the Schools call efficaces and inefficaces such Acts of holy Love that were compleat and perfect in themselves and in the issue and accomplishment and such other Acts of holy Love that were imperfect in themselves and also ineffectual in the event The first are sometimes called Absolute acts of the Will the second are called conditionate Quia Actus efficax saies †Suarez in 3. p. Tho. tom 1. disp 38. sect 1. p. 524. col 1. E. F. Suarez absolutus est in ordine ad executionem est enim talis Actus principium operandi solet explicari hâc voce Volo Actus verò inefficax est complacentia quaedam seu displicentia ut bene explicuit Scotus in 2. dist 6. q. 1. Et dicitur Actus conditionatus non quia ut est in voluntate conditionem includat id enim intelligi non potest cum sit simplex quaedam affectio re ipsâ adhaerens voluntati simpliciter absolute sed quia ex parte objecti conditionem
made of the Proposition by any man that understands the nature of Intension and Remission Nor is the Minor less evident to any that considers the nature of these efficacious and inefficacious Acts of Christ's Will holy Love De actibus efficacibus voluntatis Christi saies Suarez Suarez in 1. p. Thom. disp 38. sect 2. p. 524. c. 2. A. B. quod in illo fuerint perfectissimi nulla est difficultas aut dubitandi ratio constat enim per hos actus operatum esse omnia virtutis opera divinae voluntati ac jussioni obsecutum esse ac denique mortem ipsam suscepisse So again for those Acts which they call inefficaces Scio nonnullos authores non admittere hos actus imperfectos nisi in voluntate ut naturâ est c. Suarez ibid. p. 525. col 1. F. Voluntas seu desiderium inefficax Christi non semper habuit effectum seu impletum fuit Et ratio ex ipsis terminis constat quia si actus est inefficax non est cur semper habeat effectum imo tunc tantum per hujusmodi actum Christus aliquid volebat quando simpliciter nolebat illud fieri sed potius contrarium Suarez ibid. sect 4. pag. 530. col 1. D. § 68. Secondly I thus argue That Act of Christ's Will whereby he laid down his life for his sheep was more high and gradually intense then those other Acts of his Will when he prayed for a removal of the bitter cup of death if it had been possible or then the other Acts of his will and endeavour of the Jewes conversion by his three years preaching and miracles among them But these were Acts issuing from the Habit of Divine Charity and holy Love in Christ Therefore Some Acts that issue from the Habit of divine Charity were more high and gradually intense then other Acts of the same Habit. § 69. From whence further it seems to me at least most unavoidably to follow that though by that prime fundamental law of Divine Charity we are bound to love God with all our heart with all our soul and with all our mind yet this only obliges us to love him so as to prefer nothing before or above him so as in every Act we desire nothing but what is holy just and honest and quoad specificationem as they speak conformable to his holy Will as himself has revealed in his holy lawes and precepts and what also tends to his honour and glory and not in every Act pro hîc nunc quoad exercitium as they speak to the most high most noble and intense degree of holy Charity For otherwise I see not how these inefficacious conditionate desires of our Blessed Saviour can be excused from the breach of this Law because they had neither the most noble immediate material Objects nor were so gradually intense as other Acts of holy Charity were And yet most assured we are that all his desires and inclinations as well as his actions were holy just and good and conformable to Gods Will and were the true and genuine fruits of the Habit of Divine Grace But now most certain it is that though he came into the world for none other end then to reconcile the world unto his Father by his Death though he had received an express command from him and also voluntarily contracted and covenanted with him to perform it and though it was in it self the most high and transcendent Act of holy Charity to his neighbour imaginable yet for all that he truly and really and not in shew and complement only declined the bitter cup though still with submission to Gods will For first he prayed not only prolixius but intensius also as shall in due place be proved he prayed thrice and he prayed also more Ardently then at other times for the removal of this bitter Cup the apprehension of the approaching torment and the horror of his Fathers wrath made his soul sorrowful even to Death and it cast him into such an Agony that he sweat great drops of blood through his cloathes down to the ground so sad and so grieved he was that an Angel was sent to comfort and support him against the present conflict and approaching torments which he did by proposing the joyes set before Proprius ut ego existimo magis ad rem exponitur Angelum confortâsse Christum proponendo rationes quae possent ejus tristitiam lenire inferiorem partem confortare unde non fit Angelum docuisse Christum non enim propterea ad illum eum sermonem habuit quia Christus eas rationes ignoraret vel illas per se considerare non posset sed quia it a per rationem superiorem illas considerabat ut nullum inde solatium communicari permitteret inferiori parti ut magis constaret veritas Passionis ejus voluit Angelico ministerio rationes illas proponi quasi in memoriam revocari Et hoc modo dicitur Angelus quantum in se erat confortâsse Christum quanquam ipse neque illud consolationis genus acceptare visus sit statim enim factus in Agonia prolixius orabat Et hanc expositionem magis indicat D. Thomas hic quam ex Beda refert Luc. 22. sed etiam Hieronymi Dialogo 2do contra Pelagianos Hilarii lib. 10. de Trinitate Cyrilli Alexandrini Epist 9. Damasceni l. 3 de Fide c. 20. Bernardi sermone 1. de Sancto Andrea Suarez in 1. par Thom. q. 12. art 4. in Commentar p. 398. col 2. B. C. Vide Jansen Concord in loc H. Grot. in Annot in loc him the short and fading sharpness of those bitter torments Gods glory and the enlargement of his own Dominion over men and Angels and the freeing and the reconciling of a world of sinners unto God his Father Not that he himself was ignorant of them or did want a monitor now to mind him and bring them to his present consideration but only that his superiour intellectual part did so wholly now affix and dwell upon them that he would not suffer any comfort to be thence administred to the inferiour faculty that now did naturally therefore innocently abhor these cruel sufferings And hence it was that so the truth of his humane nature and sufferings might appear that he made use of an Angels ministry and support to strengthen him As therefore the inferiour sensual part in him did truly because naturally abhor and dread the approaching torments as destructive to it 's Being so our Blessed Saviour did innocently because naturally in compliance with these apprehensions desire and pray for a removal of them though still with a submission in the superiour part of these desires to his Fathers will Nor was there here as shall in due place more fully be declared any repugnance or contradiction of the inferiour faculties to the superiour or of his sensual will to God his Fathers * Vide Suarez in 3 p. Thom. infra
nature or the heaven happinesse of his Soul which he enjoyed as Comprehensor not only pray to God for his assistance but blesse and magnifie him for it As Comprehensor indeed and one already fully possessed of heaven happinesse and the sight of God there was no reason he should pray since in this he could not want but was already perfectly possessed of whatsoever he was capable of But then as he was yet in some respects truly in the state of a Viator one subject to miseries and infirmities and bodily wants and not yet possessed of that glory and those * Heb. 12. 2. joyes set before him and therefore being a frail man well as an all-powerful God that not only might but did truly stand in need of Gods aid and protection and having also a humane will that naturally and innocently prompted him on to desire those things he stood in need of and yet by that will of it self without Gods assistance was not able to accomplish his desires pray he might for Gods assistance as also praise him for it as well as he might also stand in need of Gods assistance § 26. But what though Christ as man were in capacity to petition at the Throne of grace for those things which as man he might need and was not able to perform will it therefore follow that as man being also God it was fit for him to pray For all things are lawful for me sayes the Apostle yet all things are not expedient § 27. To this I answer that whether we consider his transcendent love to God or his particular necessities in the humane nature or his Charity and Love to man for whose sake he became man there could nothing be more decent or that could better become him For first if we shall consider his present state and condition as now he was in the form of a servant obliged he was in duty to give God that Religious homage and Reverence which the Creature could pay to his Creator such worship and veneration that was due to the most high God that heareth prayer unto whom all flesh shall come Psalm 65. 2. Secondly If we consider his transcendent and superlative Love to God his Father that would still prompt him on by this best and noblest Act of worship to magnifie him since it is impossible but we should endeavour as much as in us lies the advancement of their honour whom we truly love and affect Thirdly If we shall consider the natural law of Charity that obliges us to endeavour by all lawful waies the relief of our wants the ease of our miseries and the advancement of our happiness that would also engage him to Prayer that is the best means to procure them at his hands that is the Father of lights from whom every good and perfect gift proceeds Fourthly If we shall consider the Religious Piety and transcendent goodness in the Act of Prayer it self that gives to God the honour due unto his name that magnifies him in his best and noblest attributes of Knowledge and Power and Mercy and Goodness and Justice and Faithfulness that owns him as the Author and fountain of all good the father of Mercies and the God of all consolation there could be no Act more becoming him that was so every way holy and so abundant and fruitful in every good work And therefore saies God in the Prophet Psal 50. 15. Call upon me in the day of trouble and I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorifie me Fifthly If we shall consider the great end of his coming into the world which was to work out our Salvation we shall find it fit and expedient he should accomplish it by all waies whatsoever not only by satisfying Gods Justice and meriting our Salvation but also by his Prayers and Intercession and leaving us an example in all the noblest Acts of Vertue and instructing us in the way and means how we should behave our selves in this part of divine worship and also how we might procure a supply of our wants from him who alone is able to relieve and help us § 28. And therefore no wonder since it was every way so fit and expedient for Christ to pray that God himself did also decree and ordain that he should use it not only for our example and an exercise of vertue but also as a necessary means for a procurement of those blessings which it was fit he should desire § 29. For though as God he was able to effect all things and therefore when Martha that esteemed him only as a man though a holy Prophet sent of God said unto him Lord if thou hadst been here my Brother had not dyed But I know that even now whatsoever thou wilt ask of God God will give it thee He to instruct her in the truth of his Godhead and that he had Vide Chrysost homil 61. in Joann no need to pray as Elijah and Elisha did for those they raised but could restore him by his own power saith unto her Thy Brother shall rise again And when she yet understood him not he said unto her I am the resurrection and the life c. and though as man being Comprehensor in the superiour part of his soul he saw all things in verbo by virtue of the hypostatical union that God had decreed should come to pass at least all things whatsoever that concern'd himself in the state of humiliation and the work of our Redemption And therefore he praies Father I thank thee that thou hast heard me and I knew thou hearest me Joh. 11. 41 42. alwaies But because of the people which stand by Chrysostomus homil 63. in Joan. Euthymius ibi Ambrosius lib. 4. de Fide c. 3. ita exponunt illa verba quae Christus subjunxit Ego autem sciebam quia semper me audis ut illa ad divinitatem Christi referant unde ita exponunt Gratias tibi ago non quia indigeam precibus coram te scio enim unam voluntatem me tecum habere ideoque semper velle quod ego volo sed propter Populum qui circumstat c. Et Theophylactus advertit Christum antequam orasset vel aliquid petiissâ—t dixisse Gratias tibi ago quia audisti me quia enim non opus habebat oratione non fuit Oratio audita sed voluntas iâ—pleta hoc fuit Christum exaudiri juxta Phrasin Scripturae juxâ—ae illud Desiderium paâ—â—â—um exaudisti Psal 6. et Deâ—â—â—â—â—ium meum audivit Omnipotent Suarez in 3. p. Thom. disp 4◠〈◊〉 1. p. â—93 col 1 2. Vi 〈…〉 3. part q. 21. art 3. in Corp. I said it that they may believe that thou hast sent me where we see as Theophylact well observes that he gives thanks before he prayes or asks any thing yet for all that God in his all-wise providence had decreed and ordered that as he should want somethings to testifie the truth and frailty of his humane nature
verò fuit hic metus quod veriti sunt Christum tanto dolori subjicere ne ejus gloriam minâ—erent c. Calvin in Commentar ad Psal 22. vers 2 3. p 9â— Quod si primo conflictu elicitae fuerunt sanguinis guttae ut opus fuerit Consolatore Angelo non mirum est si in ultimo Agone confessus est tantum dolorem c. Calvin ibid. were not only for a shew and to be taken notice of by men but they came from the heart the heightned outcries the streams and flouds of tears and strong clamors were true and real symptomes of a more then ordinary fervour a more intense ardency then formerly he had accasion for And therefore we may well conclude that as his now approaching torments made a stronger impression on his humane Nature then at other times so now on this occasion he prayed the more earnestly then at other times As the occasion was weighty for the inflaming of his zeal so it cannot be denyed but his fervency was advanced to a proportionable degree And so as the Doctor saies his bloody Agony may well testifie but it cannot prejudge the ardency that by this occasion was heightned § 73. And therefore †Non ergo sine causa ipse quoque Dominus quum precibus incumbere vehementius vellet in secessum procul hominum tumultu se conferebat c. Calvin Institut lib. 3. c. 20. §. 29. Mr. Calvin not only acknowledges that our Blessed Saviour did sometimes pray more ardently then at other times but also demonstrates that times of trouble distress are fit opportunities for the heightning of our fervour and ardency in Prayer and that then Vide Calvin in Matt. 26. 39. Institut lib. 2. c. 16. §. 11 12. more especially God calls upon us for it His words are these Si quis objiciat non semper aequali necessitate urgeri nos ad precandum fateor id quidem atque haec distinctio nobis à Jacobo utiliter traditur * Jac. 5. 13. Tristatur quis inter vos oret qui laetus est canat Ergo dictat ipse communis sensus quia nimium pigri sumus prout res exigit nos acrius à Deo pungi ad strenue orandum Psal 32. 6. Et hoc tempus opportunum nominat David quia sicuti pluribus aliis locis docet quo nos durius premunt molestiae incommoda timores aliaeque species tentationum ac si nos Deus ad se accerseret liberior patet accessus Calvin Institut l. 3. c. 20. § 7. So again to this purpose § 29. Sed enim istud nihil obstat quo minus unaquaeque Ecclesia cum subinde ad frequentiorem precationum usum se extimulare tum majore aliqua necessitate admonita acriore studio flagrare debeat § 74. And therefore since as Mr. Calvin most truly a time of great affliction is a fit season for the heightning our zeal and devotion and God then more signally calls upon us for it Our Saviour all whose actions especially of this nature were for 2 Pet. 2. 21. our example and instruction did now in this his Agony pray more earnestly to teach us what we should do in such cases and that we might learn from his practise that a Time of affliction is a season for the growth of our inward ardency and devotion and intenseness in Prayer as well as for the outward clamors and outcries Quoderat demonstrandum § 75. And therefore though it is evident that now it will be lost labour to make any reflections upon the former part of our Refuters second Answer yet to gratifie him in these his injunctions I shall cast some light strictures on it though the Doctor did not because it was needless § 76. Whereas then our Refuter saies in the application of the first branch of his second answer That if we consider Christs prayer in reference unto the Object unto whom it was made God the religion and inward worship of his Prayer was for degrees alwaies alike equal His trust and dependance upon God love of zeal and devotion towards God from which all his Prayers flowed were not at one time more intense then at another § 77. To this I answer First 1. That if these be considered in the Habit without doubt they were alwaies alike equal they were not at one time more intense then at another because habitually they were alwaies in him in the full height and Perfection But then this is not the question between him and the Doctor 2. But then secondly if these be considered in their several Acts and if we shall compare them one with another there must of necessity be a gradual difference in them according to the present exigence and occasion The reason is one and the same in these and all other Acts of vertue quod scilicet as Cajetan truly si homo exercet Cajetan in 2. 2. q. 38. art 12. in respons ad terlium eos tenetur eos exercere cum debitis circumstantiis A man is bound to perform them with all due and lawful circumstances And therefore though the Habit of divine Charity of Religion and Devotion c. be alwaies full yet the will of Christ did perform the several Acts of those graces according to those due measures and circumstances that Gods Law required His love to God in the Act I mean in that high that transcendent Act of divine Love immediately terminated on God was at the height his own glory and exaltation in the Humane Nature he loved in a proportionable degree next to that and then the Church and then his own life which yet he laid down for the redemption of the Faithful So also in the Acts of Prayer and Devotion they were alwaies performed with that fervency as the present occasion and the things that he prayed for did require This already has abundantly been demonstrated and therefore needs no further proof § 78. Secondly I answer That if we shall consider Christs actuall Love as immediatly terminated on God and the Acts of his trust and dependance upon him his Acts of Love and Zeal and Devotion towards him that immediatly flowed from his all-full and perfect knowledge of Gods absolute soveraignty and goodness which as Comprehensor and also by the Habit of infused knowledge of God he enjoyed those were alwaies one and the same he could not love him more then he did or reverence him more then he did or trust in him more then he did because it was impossible he should know or enjoy him more then he did But these being the spring and fountain from which all Christs Prayers flowed as our Refuter expresly acknowledges were not the Acts of that holy Love and Zeal and Devotion that are now in controversie between himself and the Doctor and therefore their constant fulness of intensive perfection makes nothing to this purpose § 79. But then there are other Acts of Love and Charity
Charitatis est summum bonum igitur perfecta Charitas est quae in summum bonum fertur in tantum in quantum est diligibile The Habit of Love is then perfect when 't is carried towards God as the chief when God is loved so far forth as he may be loved to wit by a Creature when God is not loved thus inintensely the Habit of Love as Aquinas thought was imperfect With Aquinas also Scotus accords l. 3. dis 13. q. 3. Possibile est animam Christi habere summam gratiam ergo summam fruitionem Consequentia probatur quia actus naturaliter elicitus ab aliqua forma aequatur in perfectione illi formae Vnto these two great School men I shall add the testimony of a Philosopher of great subtility and repute Pet. Hurt de Mendoza De anim dis 16. sect 8. pag. 672. Intensio actus secundi supponit aequalem intensionem in actu primo cum actus secundus supponat primum § 8. But what Sir if not one of these Testimonies any more concern the present controversie then any thing else in their whole writings and that Thomas and Scotus directly assert what Doctor Hammond maintains and you oppose must you not appear to be a rare School-man and that you quote Aquinas and Scotus to purpose For your credit Sir I doubt not but I shall demonstrate both these § 9. But First I pray Sir why cite you not Aquinas from his own writings why do you quote him twice from Capreolus For what if Capreolus has misquoted Aquinas or not rightly understood him what if he onely made use of those words that might best serve for his present purpose and left out those that might clear the present difficulty or what if he quoted Aquinas only to refute him as usually the latter School-men do the former Now as these may be possible so if either of them be certainly so what then I beseech you is become of your proof from Aquinas You should therefore like a man that would write solidly and as becomes a Master of Controversies have referred us to the place it self in the Author that so we might by the Antecedents and Consequents rightly have considered whether you have not mistaken the meaning of your Author § 10. But for the present we will suppose that these are the words of Aquinas or that which I rather beleeve because I find some things tending to it in that Author Capreolus has given us the ful meaning of the place And therefore I shall now consider how they serve to our Refuters advantage § 11. The Sequel or Enthymeme to be confirmed by the Testimony of the School-men is this That seeing the Habits of all Vertues and in particular that of divine Grace and holy Charity in Christ were all fully and most intensively perfect in him therefore the inward Acts of those Vertues and Graces must be all as full and equally perfect in themselves and with the Habits But do any of these Testimonies speak to this purpose For shall I therefore conclude because an Infant in swadling cloathes cannot naturally exceed the stature of a man that therefore he equals it Or because the Act cannot possibly exceed the Habit from whence it issues in gradual Perfection that therefore of necessity it must be still as perfect as the Habit I grant indeed as Hurtado has it that Intensio Actus secundi supponit aequalem intensionem in actis primo that the second Act cannot possibly exceed the first in gradual perfection quia Actus secundus supponit primum because it issues from the first as the Effect from the Cause and the †Sed contra est quod effectus non excedit virtutem causae c. Aquin 2. 2. q. 24. art 6. §. Sed contra Effect cannot possibly be more noble then the Cause because all its perfection flows from it Aquinas therefore thought truly as you tell us from Capreolus that a greater vehemency in the operation of Love argued a greater participation in the subject of the Habits of Love The holier Acts that any man does perform without doubt the more holy he is And where the Lutenist plays excellently I may justly conclude that he is a skilful Musician But shall I vice versâ conclude that therefore of necessity he must always play to the very height of his skill This this is to be proved and nothing else Tell us not therefore from Aquinas that Charit as essentialiter est virtus ordinata ad actum unde idem est ipsam augeri secundum essentiam ipsam habere efficaciam ad producendum ferventioris dilectionis actum This without controversie is an undoubted truth And I shall help you with a reason from Suarez Propter necessariam proportionem inter Habitum Actum non potest habitus remissus per se efficere actum intensiorem se quia habitus non inclinat nisi ad actus similes ill is à quibus fuit genitus teste Aristot 2. Eth. c. 1. teste etiam experientiâ ita enim facile operamur sicut consuevimus tam in specie operum quà m in modo Et ratio est quia Habitus non est nisi veluti impulsus quidam seu pondus relictum in potentia ex vi praecedentium actuum actus autem praecedentes non habent vim inclinandi potentiam ad motus perfectiores sed ad summum ad similes alias si iidem actus efficcrent inclinationem in potentia ad actus intensiores pari ratione dici posset aequales actus intendere ipsum habitum neque ulla superesset ratio ad oppositum probandum Denique etiam in habitibus infusis docent communiter Theologi ex vi illorum non posse potentiam efficere actus intensiores ip sis habitibus quamquam in eis posset esse major ratio dubitandi vel quia tales habitus sunt PERFECTIORES SVIS ACTIBVS mark that Sir vel quia non solum dant facilitatem sed etiam potestatem Nihilominus quia revera sunt habitus dantur cum debita proportione ad actus ex vi illorum fiant actus connaturali modo ideo quantum est ex intrinseca virtute talium habituum non valet potentia efficere intensiores actus ip sis habitibus sed si eos interdum elicit est ratione alterius auxilii divini de quo alias Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 6. § 4 5. § 12. But let us view the place at large as it lies in Aquinas The question is Vtrum Charitas augeri possit The answer is affirmative In corpore Respondeo Dicendum quod Charitas viae potest augeri c. And then in his answer ad tertium he sayes Dicendum quod quidam dixerunt charitatem non augeri secundum suam essentiam sed solum secundum radicationem in subjecto vel secundum fervorem sed hi propriam vocem ignoraverint Cum enim accidens sit ejus esse est inesse unde nihil est aliud
first to the Perfection of Charity ex parte diligibilis and so does also Capreolus But your argument concerns the Perfection of Charity ex parte diligentis which yet in the places quoted Aquinas does deny of all but only God whose Love is only commensurate to the Object beloved § 18. But the truth of it is since your Argument concerned the Habit and the Acts of Divine Grace in Christ you were ill advised to look for any thing in the * Author intendit de augmento charitatis secundum statumviae tantū non de augmento charitatis absolute ratio est quia de augmento charitatis absolutè loquendum erat in tractatu de gratia animae Christi qui fuit verus Comprehensor ab initio non est ei data gratia ad mensuram c. Cajetan in Commentar 2. 2 q. 24. art 7. §. Ad secundum dubium principale Secunda secundae of Aquinas Summes where ex professo he disputes only of Charity as considered according to that imperfect state and condition of Travellers that are now in the Way to heaven-happiness As for the habitual grace of Christ which was all full and perfect and belonged to him as Comprehensor that he treats of only I mean ex professo in the third part of his Summes and there you should have sought for proper Mediums and not elsewhere § 19. If you shall here reply that the Charity of Christ is Charitas Patriae and Charitas Comprehensoris and that Aquinas sayes of that quod totum cor hominis actualiter semper feratur in Deum and therefore the Acts of his love must be always uniform and at the height § 20. To this I answer The Charity of Christ or Love that we now speak of is not actus Comprehensoris as shall instantly be shewed but belonged to him as Viator in its own general Notion contained in it all Vertues and Graces whatsoever The Acts of this Love though they were always perfect in their kinds yet of necessity they could not be equal in themselves in gradual perfection because of the gradual difference in the Objects of this Love much less could they equal the all-full perfection of the Habit whence they issued § 21. And thus we have seen that our Refuters two first testimonies from Aquinas and his last from Hurtado make nothing to this purpose § 22. As for his third from Aquinas I must observe that he has either grossely prevaricated or most ignorantly mistaken his Author For whereas Capreolus and Aquinas in the place cited speak only of the perfection of Charity ex parte diligibilis and in order to the Object beloved he renders it to the Reader as if they had meant it of Charity ex parte diligentis and in order to the person loving The words in Capreolus as himself cites them are Cum Actus Habitus speciem habent ex Objecto oportet quod ex eodem ratio perfection is ipsius sumatur Objectum autem Charitatis est summum bonum igitur perfecta Charit as est quae in summum bonum fertur in tantum in quantum est diligibile Which our Refuter thus renders at least to the sense The Habit of Love is then perfect when 't is carried towards God as the chief when God is loved so far forth as he may be loved to wit by a creature when God is not loved thus intensely the Habit of Love as Aquinas thought was imperfect § 23. In good time Sir But if it had been your good fortune to be a Critick as well as Dr. Hammond and you had been so happy to know the difference between Participles ending in ens and ending in bilis you would have otherwise understood Capreolus and not have made use of a Testimony that is so utterly a stranger to your Argument And so I am come to consider whether Scotus his Testimony be any whit more material § 24. With Aquinas he sayes Scotus accords and therefore I conclude he speaks as little to the purpose § 2. The place in Scotus at large is this Contra possibile est illam animam habere summam gratiam ergo summam fruitionem Scotus l. 3. Sent. dist 13. q. 3. §. 2. Consequentia probatur quia Actus naturaliter elicitus ab aliqua forma aequatur in perfectione illi formae Fruitio est Actus supernaturalis per consequens elicitus à causs supernaturali quae est gratia patet quod naturaliter quia Gratia non est formaliter libera Ergo secundum quantitatem gratiae potest esse quantitas fruitionis § 24. The truth of it is that Subtile Schoolman does there dispute four questions Primò utru Christo potuerit conferri summagratia quae potuit conferri creaturae Secundò utrum de facto fuerit collata animae Christi summa gratia possibilis conferri creaturae Tertiò utrum possibile fuerit voluntatem animae Christi habere summam fruitionem possibilem naturae creatae From whence this passage of our Refuter is taken Quartò utrum anima Christi potuerit summè frui Deo sine summa gratia The resolution of the three first questions he defers to the fourth His answer to the third whence this testimony is taken is this Ad tertiam Quaestionem dico quod animam posse summè frui potest dupliciter intelligi vel formaliter vel effectivè hoc est vel quod summa fruitio informet istam voluntatem à quocunque causetur vel quod ipsa voluntas efficiat summam fruitionem sit causa acttiva ejus Primo modo possibile est summam fruitionem creabilem conferri animae Christ quia ipsa est receptiva cujustibet accidentis convenientis sibi in summo quia non determinat sibi certum gradum istius sicut fuit probatum in prima quaestione de gratia et fruitio est quoddam accidens absolutum possibile creari à primo Causante immediate sine actione voluntatis creatae Secundo modo videtur probabile quod cum illa voluntas non possit tantam vim activam habere quantam voluntas creata alia potest habere ut Angelica non potest it a perfectè elicere fruitionem sicut alia voluntas potest Licet enim possit summam gratiam habere quae ut causa Partialis respectu fruitionis aequè causaret fruitionem in ipsa Angelo si haberet eam tamen alia causa partialis erit inaequalis ut voluntas altera autem causa partialis sit aequalis modo tamen de facto est maximè elicitiva quia licet non sit voluntas ejus ita perfecta sicut voluntas Angeli tamen ipsa cum summa gratia ut aliâ causâ partiali activâ potest ferri in perfectiorem fruitionem quam voluntas Angeli cum minori gratia quia excedentia gratiae excedit in ea essicientiam voluntatis Angeli The sum in short is this that God de facto has bestowed on
as high a degree of actual love as thou art able to reach unto Deus est totaliter diligendus potest intelligi ita quod totalitas referatur ad diligentem sicetiam Deus totaliter diligi debet quia ex toto posse suo homo debet diligere Deum quicquid habet ad Dei amorem ordinare secundum illud Deuter 6. Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo 2. 2. q. 27. art 5. But now Christ-man had in him as great abilities for the actual Love of God as Adam in Paradise as the Saints and Angels in heaven for an all fulnesse of the grace and virtue of Love dwelled in him and therefore if the inward acts of his Love were less intense at one time then another then sometimes when he actually Loved God he did not Love him as intensely as ardently as fervently as he could he did not Love him with all his might and strength ex toto posse suo and so consequently he fulfilled not all righteousnesse for his obedience unto this commandement would have been by this your opinion imperfect and sinful which to imagine were blasphemy But you will be ready to tell me c. § 2. This is your Argument and the most specious of all but yet as little to the purpose as any of the rest And that it may so appear I thus reduce it into Form He whose love of God in the inward Act is more intense at one time then an other breaks that first Commandement that enjoynes the most intense Love of God Possible But Christ that was impeccable could not did not break that Commandement Ergo Christ's Love of God in the inward act was not more intense at one time then another Or thus He that had greater abilities for the Actual Love of God then Adam in Paradise or the Saints and Angels in Heaven and yet does Love God in the inward Act more intensely at one time then an other he does not alwayes love God ex toto posse suo and as much as the Law requires But Christ had alwayes greater abilities for the actuall Love of God then Adam in Paradise or the Saints and Angels in Heaven and yet as you say his Love of God in the inward Act was more intense at one time then another Ergo By consequence according to your saying he loved not God ex toto posse suo and as much as the Law requires which consequence because it makes him sinful but to imagine were blasphemy § 3. Chuse you which Form you will the force and evidence of the Argument is the same and one answer will fit both And I shall give it you in brief and it is no more then by a denyal of your Proposition or Major in both § 4. The truth is all the seeming strength of this Discourse lies in the ambiguity of the phrase The Love of God which is differently understood by our Refuter in the premisses and Doctor Hammond whom he opposes in the Conclusion And consequently the Syllogismes consist of four termes and so are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phantastical paralogismes like the Colours in the Rainbow they make a fair show Arist Elench l. 1. c. 3. indeed to the eye but when we come to search what they are they are nothing but shew and without any solidity § 5. They are both guilty of that Sophism which the Philosopher calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first of the six in Voce For whereas Doctor Hammond as we have most demonstratively proved and as is also acknowledged in our Refuters first argument takes the Phrase The Love of God for the Acts of Divine Charity or holy Love in the General Notion our Refuter here takes it in a more restrained sense for that eminent Act of holy Charity that is immediatly terminated on God and is contradistinct from these other Acts of Charity whereby we love our selves and our neighbors as our selves And this will appear from the Tenor of the first Commandement and the places that himself has quoted Matth. 22. 37. Mark 12. 30 Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy Soul and with all thy mind This is the first and great Commandement and the second is like unto it Thou shalt Love thy neighbour as thy self Though then it were granted that all the Acts of our Love immediately fixed on God must be equal because alwaies by virtue of that Commandement we must Love God as highly as intensely as we can yet it will not follow that all the Acts of Divine Charity or holy Love must be therefore equally intense Nay because it was impossible for the Saviour of the world to sin I must conclude that the Acts of this his Love were not could not be equally intense For then he should have loved himself and his Neighbour the Finite goodness of the Creature with the same equal fervency and ardor as the infinite goodness of the Creator contrary to the Tenor of these Commandements and the fulness of our Saviours wisdom and grace § 6. But then this is not all the misadventure of our Refuter For in the latter part of his Discourse he confounds that Act of our Saviours Love of God belonging to him as Comprehensor with that other Act of Love that belonged to him as Viator and which alone is enjoyned in that first and great Commandement Now these two though the Objects be the same yet differ as really as heaven in possession from heaven in hope and expectation The one is a Free Act of the Will issuing from the Infused habit of Charity the other a necessary Act of the Will that flowes per modum emanationis from the beatifical vision as Light does from the Sun To the one he had a proper freedome and the Act by way of Duty fell under the authority and guidance of the first and great Commandement To the other he had no more freedom then now the Saints and Angels in heaven have who because they are already possessed of heaven and all that heaven can afford are not under any Law but as Naturally as Necessarily they love God as since their being made perfect they see him there § 7. And now though this be sufficient to demonstrate the weakness of our Refuters Discourse yet for the full satisfaction of the English Reader who is most likely to be deceived with these False Lights and empty shewes I shall take his whole discourse asunder that so I may sever Truth from Falshood and vain aerial shapes and Appearances from solid Bodies § 8. First then I grant that it was impossible for Christ to sin For such a high Priest became us who is holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners and made higher then the heaven Heb. 7. 26. When not only Pilates Wife calls him that just man but even his very adversaries and accusers were not able to convince him and his Judge does publickly acquit him
because he did alwaies love God ex toto posse suo with all his might and strength which strength did differ according to the variety of his several states and conditions as Viator and Comprehensor § 15. But then lastly let me add to prevent all mistakes that this is not by me applyed to any but onely our Saviour that was still holy harmlesse undefiled For God is not cannot be unjust if by virtue of this Law he should require us to love him according to the Abilities he gave us and we have wilfully lost and squandered away nor can we be said to love God with all our might and with all our strength though in this lapsed depraved condition we love him as well as we can with this body of sin we carry about us because it is by our own default that we can now love him no better and we our selves by our own sin and wilful default have disabled our selves that we cannot love him so well as we ought and as Gods Law requires and which we might have kept if Adam and we his off-spring had continued in our first innocency But then also let me add that we and Adam in innocency should not have loved God with that height and ardor as now the Spirits of just men made perfect do love him because Adam they knew should have known him only by Grace and Revelation but now they know him face to face and their love is inlarged by the greatnesse of their happinesse and the fulnesse of their glory § 16. I shall clear all this by the Testimonies of some Schoolmen of great note and worth in themselves and of great repute with our Refuter I begin with Suarez § 17. He in his first Tome on the third part of Aquinas Summes disputing of the Merit of Christ laies it down for a ground that Christ in the dayes of his flesh and in the state of a Viator was truly in statu merendi and that all the conditions requisite to make an Action meritorius and the Person that performes it to merit by it were to be found in him And if this be not granted he could not be the Meritorious cause of our Justification Ex his ergo omnibus sufficienter concluditur omnes conditiones ad perfectum meritum requisitâ— in Christo Domino inventas esse atque adeo potuisse mereri ac denique de facto meruisse Quae assertio de fide certa est quam ex Scripturis melius infra demonstrabimus c. Ratione etiam patet ex dictis quia omnis Viator gratus Deo illi obediens studiosè operans propter ipsum ex gratia ejus meretur coram ipso haec est una ex magnis perfectionibus viatoris sed Christus assumpsit statum Viatoris erat gratissimus Deo optime operabatur c. ergo meruit coram Deo sine causa enim assumpsisset statum Viatoris hâc perfectione seipsum privasset Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disp 39. sect 1. p. 539. col 2. C. D. § 18. And now having proved that Christ as Viator was in statu merendi he proceeds in the next section to determine by what Acts Christ merited and this he layes down distinctly in four conclusions I shall give them here ordine retrogrado beginning with the last first Dico quarto meruisse Christum per omnes actus liberos suae voluntatis etiam si illi fuerint ordinis naturalis ut sunt amor naturalis Dei actus aliarum virtutum mortalium acquisitarum Probatur quia omnes illi actus erant honesti à Christo refebantur in spiritualem finem quam vis non referrentur sola dignitas suppositi deificantis illos satis esset ut haberent omnem proportionem valorem ad meritum c. Dico tertio meruisse Christum per actus omnes virtutum infusarum quos liberè exercuit Est certissima sic enim meruit per actum obedientiae ut testatur Paulus per actum religionis ut orationis c. Et ad eundem modum meruit per Passionem suam c. Dico secundo meruisse Christum per actum Charitatis proximorum Est communis Theologorum certa quia in illo actu concurrunt omnia necessaria ad meritum solum est notandum hunc amorem proximi non solum potuisse esse meritorium ut consesequentem scientiam infusam quod indubitatum est sed etiam ut consequentem scientiam beatam ut Alexander Alensis Scotus supra docuerunt And then for the clearing the latter part of this Conclusion he adds two things that will give light to our present Controversie Voluntas Christi non majorem necessitatem habuit perseverandi semper in illâ actuali dilectione proximi quam habendi illam in primo instanti quia neque ab Objecto neque a Deo ipso necessitatem patiebatur Referre autem hanc necessitatem in solam naturam illius actus est gratis dictum est quaedam petitio Principii nam cum ille actus sit quid creatum ex hâc parte non est immutabilis in quo differt multum ab actu increato voluntatis cum alias sit actus potentiae liberae versetur circa objectum quod non infert potentiae necessitatem neque etiam ex sua specifica ratione immutabilis est non est ergo naturâ suâ immutabilis Deinde quia si Christus in primo instanti liberè dilexerit proximos illo actu ergo potuit non diligere demus ergo sustinuisse pro aliquo tempore illum actum seu extensionem ejus nonne peterat postea in ipâ—re diligere proximos illo actu certe non videtur id probabiliter posse negari quia si in principio id potuit cur non postea cum ille actus capax sit illius augmenti ipsa potentia semper retineat vim libertatem ad efficiendum illum Quod si potuit Christus pâ—st aliquod tempus incipere proximos diligere per illum actum ergo ille actus de se mutabilis est secundum illud augmentum ergo pari ratione mutari posset per cessationem ab actuali proximorum dilectione Denique ille actus prout terminatur ad proximos non pertinet ad essentialem beatitudinem neque habet necessariam connexionem cum actuali amore Dei potest n. perfecte amari Déus quamvis proximus non semper actu ametur sed interdum tantum in habitu non est ergo inconveniens admittere hujusmodi mutationem possibilem in illo actu And when it had been objected quod iste actus non sit meritorius quia non est actus Viatoris ut Viator est cum fundetur in scientia beata He answers Dico igitur ut actus sit meritorius satis esse ut sit bonus liber in persona grata in via existente unde supposito eandem personam simul
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
very large Digression that is purely an extravagance and not at all concernes the present Question For though all were granted that he labours to prove and that Christ did love God ex toto posse suo with as high a degree of actual love as he was able to reach to as I most readily grant yet for all that it will not follow that even this Act of divine Love was or could be equal in gradual perfection with that other Act of his Love that he exercised as Comprehensor much lesse will it follow that all the other Acts of holy Charity and Vertue and Grace were equal in Gradual Perfection among themselves or with this high transcendent Act of Love immediately fixed on God as we have evidently demonstrated § 27. Howsoever that he may not say that any part of his Reason and skill in School-learning is neglected I shall gratifie him so farr as to consider this also But then I cannot chuse but observe that since these three following Leaves are nothing at all to the enforcement of his Argument but only tending to prove that which was never yet denyed him at least in this controversie our Refuter could have no other design in this extravagance but only to amuse the Reader and to bring the Doctor in suspicion as if this his Assertion and consequently the whole Treatise of Will-worship and the Defence of it against Mr. Cawdry were Popishly affected and that the main Pillar of it was borrowed from Bellarmine whom Ames and Chamier and our White have already confuted and that Aquinas and Scotus St. Austin and Bernard and Reason and Scripture were all opposite to Doctor Hammond as well as Bellarmine in this assertion But if the contrary be proved I doubt not but the Reader will no sooner discover then abominate such Artifices wheresoever he finds them though masked under never so specious and sanctified shapes of Zeal and Reformation To go on then in this disquisition and Adventure SECT 20. As the Doctor needs not so is it not his Custom 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 it censured Mr. Cawdry 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 shall make for himself against a Socinian Anabaptist Quaker c. will secure the Doctor His five very false and proofless Criminations in his next reason mustered up His hasty oversight in citing Chamier JEANES BVt you will be ready to tell me that you have prevented this Charge by that exposition of those large inclusive words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy soul c. Which you have given in your Treatise of Will-worship which I shall transcribe and briefly examine Once more if it be objected c. § 1. But how know you the Doctors mind Sir that he will be ready thus to tell you For suppose he could give you another answer to your argument as you see I have done What need then had the Doctor to borrow this answer from his Treatise of Will-worship Sir though you are so barren of Invention that in every leaf almost of this Reply you give the Reader the same argument yet he that shall peruse the Doctors writings will find that this is not his custom and that if he be forced to speak to the same subject he still enriches his discourse with New Observations to the profit and contentment of his Reader But you as if you write only to children feed us still with chewed meats And yet if in a scarcity of better Provision you had as the Cook in Livy made us twenty several dishes out of one single Porkâ—t you had shewed your self a Master in your Art and the Reader might have judged what you could do if your matter had been more copious But when like Aesops Master you every day invite your guests to a new Feast and yet every day like Aesop his Caterer you feed them only with Tongue what other thanks can you expect then he met with § 2. The truth is Sir that as the Doctor has no need to make use of that answer here so there he gave it to farr different purposes namely to shew that he who loves God with all his heart may yet have room left for a Voluntary Oblation notwithstanding that precept And therefore I must conclude that as this is brought in by the head and shoulders so it is not an answer to Doctor Hammond's Ectenesteron but a fling at the Treatise of Will-worship which yet like Canis ad Nilum you but touch at and instantly you are gone for fear a Crocodile should meet you § 3. You tell the Doctor you shall transcribe his answer from the Treatise of Will-worship and briefly examine it But the truth is you have briefly transcribed it and very largely and altogether besides the purpose examined it like those that write the Sermon in short-hand and read it at length and not in figures making more at the Repetition then either the Preacher delivered or intended JEANES ONce more if it be objected that whatever is thus performed is commanded by those large inclusive words Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart with all thy soul c. nothing being of such latitude as that the with all should not contain it I answer that that phrase denoteth two things only 1. Sincerity of this Love of God as opposed to partial divided love or service 2. The loving him above all other things and not admitting any thing into Competition with him not loving any thing else in such a degree Treat Will-worship p. 24. Here you barely dictate that that phrase Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy soul c. denoteth only those two things you mention whereas your Reader hath just cause to expect a confirmation of what you say § 4. I thought Sir you had wholy engrossed this office of Dictator to your self And the Doctor of any man will not intrench upon it But if you had been pleased to have dealt impartially with your Reader and acquainted him with the grounds and occasion of the answer and reported it full and entire as it lay in that Treatise he could have had no Reason to expect a further confirmation then what the Doctor there delivered § 5. So satisfactory indeed the reasons were that Mr. Cawdry himself in his Exercitation on that very Treatise and Paragraph acknowledges and yields all that is now in contest betwixt the Doctor and you For let it be supposed saies he yea granted that sincere Love is capable of Degrees whether in the same
man at several times or two men at the same time and so both obey the praecept yet these degrees and growth of Love do argue Love not to be perfect and so not strictly answerable to the law and is so farr faulty in vitio as Hierome § 6. This latter clause is added only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might seem to say somewhat when the whole cause was yielded And indeed it carries its own confutation in its forehead because one part to use the Doctors own words is directly contrary if not contradictory to the other For sure if those of Dr. Hammond's Account of Mr. Cawdrey's triplex Diatribe pag. 222. §. 3. whom the supposition is made do both obey the precept then they do not offend against it and if they do not offend against it then is not this faulty or in vitio for sure every fault or vice must be a transgression of the Law And if as he saies that Cōmandement require of all men that Perfection of Love that is absolutely sinless then evident it is that the utmost Sincerity of Love that as himself grants implies Degrees and therefore necessarily supposes Imperfection and sin cannot be the fulfilling of it nor would Adam's sincerity supposing his Fall have ever been accepted or prevented the Curse and his eternal damnation if no new Covenant had been made And if sincere Love that is capable of Degrees be a fulfilling of this law and the same man at several times or two men at the same time that are only thus sincere and not perfectly in love do both obey this precept as he expresly supposes and grants then manifest it is that this sinless Perfection he speaks of is not required to fulfill it For it is impossible the same Law should at one and the same instant be both obeyed and transgressed by one and the same Person in one and the same respect And if he speak of several respects and according to several Obligations and Covenants he doth but confusedly beat the Ayr and deceive himself and his Reader and what he grants with the one hand he takes away with the other § 7. And then to the example of Christs ardency in Prayer he saies Christ was above the Law and did more then the Law Mr. Cawdrey's Diat of Will-worship page 116. §. 47. required did supererogate in many of his Actions and Passions and so in the degree of affection in Prayer if not in the Prayer it self c. yet thus much that example holds forth that greater pressures and necessities call for enlargement of affections not as voluntary Oblations but as Duties § 8. And therefore Sir you did very much prevaricate and impose upon the Faith of your confident Reader when you labored to perswade him that he had just reason to expect a confirmation of that exposition which the Doctor had given You should first have attempted to give a more solid answer to those reasons then Mr. Cawdrey had afforded before you had call'd for more Or else you should have been so ingenuous as he was to have yeilded to the force of that truth which you could not withstand § 9. But why has the Reader just cause to expect a confirmation of what the Doctor sayes JEANES BEcause this very answer is the shift of Papists in several controversies between them and us Bellarm tom 2. De monachis lib. 2. cap. 13. tom 4. de amissione gratiae statu peccati l. 1. cap. 12 c. And was it not fit that you should acquaint us what those cogent reasons were that necessitated you unto this compliance with Papists § 10. Well Sir I promise to acquaint you with the heads at least of those Reasons that induced the Doctor to make use of this Interpretation though not to a compliance with Papists if you will also acquaint your Reader what those cogent reasons were that necessitated you to make use of that Objection that not only opposes Doctor Hammond in this particular but equally overthrows the whole Christian Religion that destroyes the Doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity the Godhead and Satisfaction of our Saviour and the Immortality of the Soul and hell fire and eternal Torments that blowes up as well the Office as the maintenance of Ministers and opens a broad gap for the Socinian and Anabaptist the Ranter and Atheist to come and invade all that is sacred amongst us § 11. And now that the Reader may see that I do you no wrong I shall for the present suppose that the Doctor had borrowed this exposition from Bellarmine and consider the force of your argument against him upon this supposition I reduce it thus into form that the strength of it may appear Whosoever makes use of any argument or Tenent or exposition of Scripture that is to be found in Bellarmine or other Popish writers is guilty of a compliance with Papists But Doctor Hammond makes use of this very exposition which is to be found in Bellarmine Ergo Doctor Hammond is guilty of compliance with Papists § 12. What say you Sir Is not this your present argument can you give us any other Proposition to reduce your Socratical Enthymeme into a Syllogism If you cannot pray tell me then what strength is in your Major And what answer will you give to it when a Socinian an Anabaptist a Ranter or Atheist shall press you with it For does not Mr. Biddle in the Biddle's Catechism preface to the Reader preface to his Catechism upon this very score and argument decry the expositions and determinations of all Councells and Convocations and Assemblies of Divines that are opposite to his Doctrine Does he not in that very preface call those expressions of God's being infinite incomprehensible of his being a simple Act of his subsisting in three Persons of an Eternal generation of the Son and Procession of the Holy Ghost the Incarnation and Hypostatical Vnion Original sin and Christ's taking our nature on him of Christ's making satisfaction to God for our sins and purchasing Heaven for us c. as well as Transubstantiation a Babylonish confusion of language and monstrous Terms And does he not upon this very score plead for a necessity to reform Religion beyond such a stint as that of Luther or at most that of Calvin by cashiering those many intricate and devised Formes of speaking And may he not nay does he not justifie this his Crimination by this very Argument For are not all these very formes and the Tenents couched under them to be found in Bellarmine's Controversies as well as in Calvin's Institutions Are not all those expositions of the Scriptures that any Reformed Writer gives in these Socinian Controversies to be found in Bellarmine and other Popish Writers that maintain the same common truth with us What shall these also be condemned as well as Doctor Hammond for a compliance with Papists May not the whole fifth and sixth Books of Volkelius de vera Religione
Ex toto sunt etiam duae Patrum expositiones una Sancti Augustini Bernardi Thomae locis notatis qui docent illud Ex toto significare imperari nobis hoc mandato omnes gradus Charitatis quos vel in hoc mundo vel in alio habere possumus it a ut semper Deum amemus non sit in nobis ullus motus cupiditatis neque voluntarius neque involuntarius cum Dei amore pugnans ex quo recte deduc unt hoc mandatum in hac vita perfecte impleri non posse Quae sententia non pugnat cum sententia nostra de consiliis Evangelicis c. quia Patres supra-citati existimant hoc praecepto simul imperari medium indicari finem ideo docent non posse impleri perfectè hoc praeceptum in hac vita tamen non esse praevaricatorem qui non perfectè illud implet c. Quo circaremanet jam suus Consiliis locus etiam circa hoc praeceptum nam etiam si nihil possim addere huic praecepto quatenus indicat finem tamen possum addere quatenus indicat medium si non pecco ex sententiae S. Thomae si non amem Deum nisi vno gradu amoris certè non teneor in rigore amplius amare implicat enim contradictionem quod non peccem non faciendo quod facere teneor ergo si addam alterum gradum amoris amo plus quam teneor atque eo modo facio actum supererogationis consilii c. Est igitur alia Sententia illud ex toto Corde non significare omnes actus Cordis vel omnem intensionem possibilem ità ut imperetur ut nihil corde agamus nisi Deum diligere idque summâ vehementiâ amoris sed solum ut amemus Deum praecipuo amore nihilque illi in amore anteponamus vel aequemus ac proinde solum in hoc praecepto contineatur id quod faciendum est non etiam finis ob quem faciendum est ex quo sequuntur sex quasi Corollaria Primum est Huic praecepto adversari omnia peccata mortalia quia in omni peccato mortali anteponitur Creatura Creatori Secundum Huic praecepto non adversari amorem honestum affinium amicorum licet non roferatur actu in Deum quia non tenemur Deum solum amare sed eum praecipue Tertium Non adversari peccata venialia eidem praecepto quia peccata venialia non mutant ultimum finem Quartum Non adversari eidem praecepto motus involuntarios concupiscentiae etiam si rerum alioqui gravissimarum ut infidelitatis blasphemiae adulterii c. Nam cum charitas Dei sit in voluntate non adversantur ei nisi motus voluntarii Quintum Hoc praeceptum perfectè in hac vita servare posse quia non exigit nisi ut amemus Deum plus quam Creaturas Sextum Posse Deum ex toto corde magis minus diligi qui enim propter Deum abstinet se à licitis magis diligit quam qui solum se abstinet ab illicitis tamen uterque diligit toto corde Quod autem haec explicatio sit verior Scripturae conformior quam superior multis modis probari potest c. Bellarm. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 13. col 343 344 345 346. § 4. The Doctors answer stands thus I answer that that Phrase Thou shalt love the Lord thy Treat of Will-worship §. 49. God with all thy heart with all thy Soul c. denoteth two things only First the sincerity of this love of God as opposed to Partial divided Love or Service Secondly the loving him above all other things and not admitting any thing into competition with him not loving any thing else in such a degree and in neither of these respects excluding all other things from a subordinate place in our Love Which being supposed it will be easie to discern that this sincere Love of God above all is capable of degrees and that it is possible for two men to love God with all their hearts i. e. sincerely and above all things and so both to obey the praecept and yet one to love him in a more intense degree then the other doth which may be observed amongst the Angels themselves the Seraphims being so called because they are more ardent in Zeal then other Angels nay for the same Person constantly to Love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another Thus we read of Christ himself Luke 22. 24. who we know did never fail in performing what was man's duty in prayer or any thing else yet that he at that time prayed more earnestly which is a demonstrative evidence that the lower degree is not necessarily sinful when the higher is acceptable to God which when it is granted there is no doubt but these free-will-offerings will be reconcilable with that Command and he that loves God with all his heart may have some possibility of loving God better then yet he doth and so some room left for a voluntary oblation § 5. To this for a further clearing and unfolding his mind the Doctor thought fit in his Reply to Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe to add these two things To the first branch of his answer The sincerity of this Love of God as opposed to partial divided Love I now add saies the Dr. Hammonds Account of Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe c. 6. sect 9 §. 1. p. 221. Ibid. §. 5. p. 222. Doctor for further explication that what we do according to the precepts of Gods Law we do out of Love toward God not hypocritically or as by constraint 2ly He sayes Still it must be remembred that it is not the sinless perfection we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath degrees but sincerity of this or that vertue exprest in this or that performance and as this though it excludes 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. For it is certain that I may in an Act of Mercy give as much as any Law obligeth me to give and so not sin in giving too little § 6. To which let me now add what the Doctor had before delivered in his Treatise of Will-worship Sect. 16. When in the service of God a man out of a pious affection of hope and gratitude inciting to do things acceptable to God as well as of fear deterring him from all that is prohihited shall in conformity to Gods general commands and the Doctrine of the Gospel do any thing else besides what God hath commanded by any particular precept this Action of his is to be accounted so much more commendable and acceptable to God Piety being one of those vertues quarum tantae sunt amplitudines ut quanto auctiores sunt tanto sunt laudatiores which have
such width of compass that the larger they are they are also so much more commendable and withall the more voluntary and spontaneous the more acceptable 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 farr enough i. e. how farr soever you exceed the particular command you are yet within the compass of the general 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 § 7. Lastly I shall add one thing more from the Doctors Annotations on this commandement Matth. 22. 37. and then I doubt not but his exposition will appear so full and compleat that it will be beyond all exception Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy soul and with all thy mind that is sayes the Doctor with all thy Will and Affections and Vnderstanding § 8. And thus having represented the Doctors answer full and entire and given his true sense and meaning of it from other parts of his writings I shall now be so bold as to challenge our Refuter to make good any one of those severe Criminations he has laid to the Doctors charge And if he cannot prove them as without doubt he cannot he is bound in Justice to make the Doctor reparations for the injury he has done him by a publick Recantation And as this is most equitable and Christian so he has under his hand promised it in the very entrance Jeanes p. 2 of this Reply § 9. But now I undertake to demonstrate that you have notoriously abused the Doctor and laid that to his charge he is no way guilty of and therefore I expect that you make good your engagement otherwise I must accuse you not only of unchristian dealing but also of breach of promise § 10. You tell us this very answer is the shift of Papists in several controversies between them and us and for this you cite Bellarmine But who is there that shall compare the places in Bellarmine you have quoted with the Doctors Exposition that will not clearly perceive the vast difference between them It is true indeed that whatsoever is good in Bellarmines exposition the Doctor approves of and for this he has the Authority and allowance of the learned Chamier and our Ames and the Fathers and Reason and Scripture to justifie him But then secondly whatsoever is justly wanting in Bellarmine's answer and is so taxed for his defect by Chamier and Ames is supplied in the Doctors And thirdly whatsoever is purely erroneous and Popish in this answer of Bellarmine's is either not to be found in the Doctors answer or ex professo declared against § 11. The sum of Bellarmine's answer consists in this That to love God from the heart is to love him truly and without dissimulation and that the other words were added for the heightning of the expression 2ly that to love God with all our might and strength and heart is to love him pro virili with might and main so that God may have the chief place in our Love so that nothing may either be preferred before him or equalled to him in this our affection And this is all he allowes to be required in this Commandement And consequently from thence he inferrs 1. That none but mortal sins are inconsistent with that Love that is required in this Commandement 2. That venial sins and the Involuntary motions and temptations to the grossest sinners of Infidelity Blasphemy Adultery c. are not opposite to it 3. That it is possible to fulfil this Commandement perfectly in this life and keep all the Commandements of God implyed in it and depending on it so that a man may in Justice not only merit from God but also supererogate and do more then this or any Law of God else does require and therefore upon this score may deserve and expect a brighter aureola and Crown of glory at Gods hands then if he had done no more then the Law does require And as this was the only venome of Popery to be found in Bellarmine's answer so for the maintenance of these errors is Bellarmine's answer artificially framed And as these are the shifts of Papists in the several controversies between them and us so the Doctor is so farr from any Compliance with Bellarmine or any other Papist in the world in these and the like shifts that his answer and exposition does not only overthrow them but he has expresly declared his opinion against them and fully vindicated his exposition from having any thing to do with them as is plain to be seen in the Treatise of Will worship in the Sections immediately following the Doctors answer and ex prosesso added to prevent this Calumny § 50. 51 52 53. as also in the Doctors vindication of it from the exceptions of Mr. Cawdrey in his Account of the Triplex Diatribe c. 6. sect 10. pag. 223 224 225 226. And therefore it had been very equitable that our Refuter should have taken notice at least of the Doctors praeoccupation and Apologetical defence carefully affixed to prevent this and the like Calumnies before he had so injuriously defamed and aspersed him § 12. If our Refuter shall here reply Does not Bellarmine say That this Commandement enjoynes us to love God sincerely that is truly and from the heart not seignedly and without dissimulation Does he not also say that we must love God with the chiefest Love not preferring any thing above him or admitting any thing into competition with him And does not Doctor Hammond say the same And was it not fit that he should acquaint us with those cogent reasons that necessitated him to this compliance with Papists § 13. I answer It is true Doctor Hammond and Bellarmine both say so and so does Ames and Chamier and the Fathers and Reason and Scripture say the same § 14. For as to the first does not the Apostle expresly command and enjoyn that Love be without dissimulation Rom. 12. 9. does he not commend the Romans because they had obeyed from the heart the form and doctrine which was delivered unto them Rom. 6. 17. Is not this truth and simplicity and purity and singleness of heart every where required and counterfeit and hypocritical shewes every where condemned Eph. 6. 5 6. Heb. 10. 22. 1 Pet. 1. 22. § 15. And then as to the second Does not our Saviour expresly say Matth. 10. 37 38. He that loveth Father or Mother more then me is not worthy of me and he that taketh not his Cross and followeth after me is not worthy of me Does he not also say Luke 14. 26. If any man come to me and hate not his Father and Mother and Wife and Children and
Brethren and Sisters yea and his own life also he cannot be my disciple § 16. And therefore what saies Mr. Cawdrey Saies he not Cawdrey Trip. Diatribe p. 114. Ames Bellar. enervat tom 2. p. 154. Chamier Panstrat tom 3. lib. 11. c. 14. § 6. expresly But we say that both these are noted and required we grant Does not Ames in the place quoted by our Refuter say Hoc aliquid est sed non totum quod his verbis praecipitur Does not the very learned Chamier say first Imò ultro concedimus non prohiberi alia quaedam praeter Deum amari quia manifestum est alterum illud mandatum simile primo in Ecclesia nihil frequentius fraternâ dilectione Concedimus ergo nihil amandum contra Deum supra Deum nihil aequè cum Deo Omnia igitur infra Deum propter Deum So again in the same Chapter Ibid. §. 17. Itaque sic concedimus significari id quod Bellarminus dicebat diligere verè sincerè non fictè non simulatè And therefore if this be to be guilty of a compliance with Papists the Doctor has good company and he had been an Enemy to Truth if he had not thus complied All then is not Popery we see nor so censured by our Writers against Bellarmine that is to be found in him § 17. But do not Ames and Chamier say that this is not all that is required in this precept †Ex his quis non videt olim Christianis persuasissimum suisse debere se ita Deum amare non tantum ut ei nihil anteponatur quod Bellarminus tanquam in Deum iâ—eralâ—ssimus concedit sed etiam ut totus in amore Dei occupetur Quod si est quis non videt sequi illud etiam ut nulla vitiosa cogitatio obrepere possit quod Bellarminus negat c. Chamier Panstrat tom 3. l. 6. c. 12. §. 34. Vide §. 35 c. p. 91. Yes and justly they say so And therefore though Bellarmine for the securing his cause is forced to maintain that these two only are meant and nothing else yet Doctor Hammond addes a third which satisfies all the defects that Chamier and Ames or any man else can justly find fault with in Bellarmine's answer For does he not say That Precept does also enjoyn sincerity of this our Love as opposed to partial divided Love or Service § 18. But before I come to demonstrate the fulnesse of this answer I shall crave leave to demand of our Refuter wherein is this answer of the Doctor guilty of the least compliance with Papists I mean in their Errors which we justly condemn For does the Doctor any where say that lukewarmnesse in our Love is acceptable to God or that he who loves God only with one degree has so perfectly satisfied the obligation of this precept that he may sit down contented and if he will vouchsafe to love God more intensely he then does a work of supererogation And yet this is directly and in terminis to be found * Si non peccem quando amo Deum nisi uno gradu amoris non teneor in rigore amplius amare Ergo si addam alterum gradum amoris amo Deum plusquam teneor atque eo modo facio actum supererogationis consilii Bellarm de Monach. l. 2. c. 13. in Bellarmine and is justly charged upon him by our Ames and †Vide Davenant de Justit habit act c. 43. p. 496 497. ibid. c. 44. p. 503 504. our worthy Bishop Davenant § 19. Does the Doctor any where say that this precept bindes men no further then to an unfeigned and sincere love of God and the observance of his Commandements without breach of friendship and that therefore it bindes us not to the shunning of venial sins And yet this and more is to be found in Bellarmine and it is justly charged upon him and disproved by our learned and reverend Bishop * White against Fisher pag. 525. White from St. Austin and Bernard and also by Chamier and Ames and †Davenant de Just habit act c. 48. p. 535 536 c. our most learned Bishop Davenant § 20. Does the Doctor any where say that these words The heart the soul the mind the strength and might are here put to signifie one and the same thing and are added only for the greater expression And yet this is charged upon Bellarmine's exposition by the learned Chamier And yet Vide Davenant de Just habit act cap. 42. p. 485. § 21. The truth is that learned man could not deny but there was some probability and truth in this part of Bellarmine's assertion And therefore he sayes At nè nos quidem serupulo si sumus in singulis voculis numerandis appendendisque sed non habere maximum pondus tam sollicitam enumerationem nemo nos persuadebit Nihil habere mysterii quia non eisdem vocibus non eodem ordine apud omnes legamus nos negamus nec ipse Bellarminus seriò dixit qui concessit majorem expressionem quae nobis satis est nisi ab his enervatur Concedimus idem posse significari per totum cor etiam si reliqua non exprimantur Sed negamus propterea nihil esse mysterii Hoc igitur nos magnum pondus esse dicimus hujus enumerationis quae omnia complectitur quibus homo moveri potest intra se inde prorumpere in opus externum c Chamier Panstrat tom 3. l. 11. c. 14. § 11 12 13. § 22. And saies not also the Doctor the same in his Annotations on Matthew Sayes he not expresly there that the Law requires that we love God with all our Will and Affections and Vnderstanding And saies not the Apostle the same when he bidds us to glorifie God in our bodies and our spirits which are Gods 1 Cor. 6. 20. Nay though the Chaldee Paraphrase which renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Riches does not so properly express it as the LXX do that translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet there may be some good use made even of that interpretation also For Solomon advises us Prov. 3. 10. That we honour the Lord with our substance also The truth is that all that is within us and all that is without us must most readily be at Gods service and praise him we must not only with the best member we have but with every part and faculty both of soul and body and our lives and our liberties and wealth and honours must be all at his Devotion But then it cannot be denied what the learned Grotius has observed Illorum supervacua diligentia qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nimium subtiliter hic distinguunt as will be evident to any that shall consider the subtilties of the Antients in their Commentaries on this place as is acknowledged also by the learned Chamier cum vocum multarum cumulatio
the two first Criminations and plain it is that he has not borrowed his exposition from Bellarmine nor made use of any of their shifts nor is in the least guilty of any Popish compliance SECT 24. The Refuters third and fourth Charges The Doctors exposition parallel to that of Bishop Andrewes Davenant Downham White Hooker Field Grotius Ainsworth praised Assembly Annotations Ursin Calvin Victor Antiochenus Imperfect work on Matthew Theophylact Theodoret Zacharias Austin Chamier The Objections from Calvin Ursin answered Chamier's conclusion against Bellarmine examined Concernes not the Doctor Advantages not the Refuter State of Innocence a state of Proficiency Proved from Mr. 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 Evangelical Learned Protestants agree with him against Chamier The Falsehood of Chamiers Inference as understood by the Refuter and Mr. Cawdrey demonstrated How to be understoood Haeresie 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 Mr. Cawdrey's concessions Mr. 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 diverse 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 § 1. The third and fourth charges are That these Protestants that have dealt in the Controversies betwixt us and the Papists have proved the Doctors sense too narrow And withall have given an other sense of the words which they have confirmed and vindicated from the exceptions of the Papists and for this the Authority of Chamier is avouched in the margin though the figures of the Chapter be mistaken § 2. And now for the acquitting the Doctor from these Criminations I suppose it necessary and must therefore crave the Reader 's patience to compare the Doctors exposition with that of the Prime Reformers and those beyond suspicion of any Popish compliance especially with that of the Greek and Latine Fathers whose authority Chamier does so powerfully press against Bellarmine in this very Chapter And if it appear that the Doctor speaks home to them and is not defective in any thing that Chamier does require in that very passage our Refuter hath quoted in the Margin I then shall hope that he himself will acquit the Doctor from this aspersion and will be the first that shall blot it out in a publick Recantation according to his promise § 3. The Doctors answer is That Phrase denoteth two things only First sincerity of this Love of God as opposed to partial divided Love or Service Secondly the loving him above all other things not admitting any thing into competition with him not loving any thing else in such a degree and in neither of these respects excluding all other things from a subordinate place in our Love To these in his Reply to Mr. Cawdry he addes for further explication that what we do according to the precept of Gods Law we do out of Love towards God not hypocritically or as by constraint § 4. That all these are required by the precept there is no Question and acknowledged it is by all Protestant Writers whatsoever for ought I yet can understand The Doubt is whether only these are required Let us therefore consider the full scope and purpose of it § 5. First then when the Doctor addes That we must love God not hypocritically or as by constraint this implles the freeness Rom. 6. 17. Ephes 6. 6. 1 John 3. 18. Rom. 12. ◠2 Cor. 6. 6. and 8. 6. the cheerfulness of our Love in opposition to all compulsion and constraint Secondly the truth and sincerity of our Love in opposition to that which is only in shew and outside hypocritical appearance This is that which the Apostle calls love and obedience in truth and from the heart § 6. Secondly when he saies we must love God above all other things not admitting any thing into competition with him not loving any thing else in such a degree this denotes more then Bellarmine's amor praecipuus or chief Love it implies the Ardency and Fervour and intensenss of our Love as that is opposite to a remisness and lukewarm affection which yet Bellarmine approves of as a fulfilling of this Law And therefore saies the learned Chamier Concedimus nihil amandum contra Deum supra Deum aeque cum Deo omnia igitur infra Deum propter Deum Sed addimus voces eas esse in praecepto quae non hanc tantum Dei comparationem cum reliquïs creaturis includunt sed etiam emphasin habeant praeterea significandi amoris divini per se considerati Chamier tom 3. lib. 3. cap. 14. § 6. § 7. And therefore the Doctor saies thirdly That we must love God in sincerity as that is opposed to partial divided love And this makes up all that is or can justly be desired for the full sense and meaning of this Precept For this sincerity which is opposed to partial divided Love implies First that we love God toti for he that loves not God withall his soul his mind and strength that does not labour to glorifie God in his body and in 1 Cor. 6. 20 his spirit which are Gods that does not all he can for the Love of God is partial in his Love he loves not in sincerity as that is opposed to partial divided service because he divides himself and imployes not all his strength and what ever belongs to him in Gods service Secondly it implyes that we love God totum that we love every thing in God and all that belongs to God that we have a delight as David speaks to all Gods Commandements otherwise Psal 119. 6 10 127 128. we are partiall in our Love and affect him by halves Thirdly it implies that we love God toto tempore that we constantly and alwaies love him otherwise our Love is not sincere but broken and divided And this is that which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love of Christ in Sincerity Eph. 6. 24. § 8. This then Sir being the true meaning and full purport of the Doctors exposition I come now to parrallel it with that which the most eminent of the Reformed writers have given of it § 9. And I shall begin with the most incomparable Bishop Andrews The second thing saies he required in every law so in this Bishop Andrews Pattern of Catechist Doctr. at large Introduct 15. p. 64. is the manner how it must be done which by learned men is much dilated we will reduce them all to three things We are to do it 1. Toti 2. Totum 3. Toto tempore or semper 1. Toti as Jacob said to Rachel
find a Man that hath opened the Pentateuch in any language with more exquisite Judgement and profound learning and skill This work of his as it is very much for the honour of our Nation so there be very few writers that do equall it and scarce any that exceed it And yet such is our Refuters ill fortune that the Doctors exposition and his are almost one and the same in themselves and with that of the most excellent Grotius § 17. But yet if Ainsworth because too much Independent in his Judgement should be of as little value with our Refuter as the former I shall now annex the exposition of those that without doubt are of greater authority with him § 18. And first I shall begin with the Annotations of the Assembly of Divines Matth. 22. 37. Thou shalt love the Lord Deut. 6. 5. Luke 10. 27. With all thy heart with all the faculties of thy Soul With all thy Mind This is here added to Deut. 6. 5. and with all the strength or might lest out here is added Mark 12. 30. Luke 10. 27. Verse 38. The first in order for God must be loved before and more then all men So again on Mark 12. 39. Love the Lord thy God see on Matth. 22. 37 38. Luke 10. 27. with all thy strength As much as possibly thou canst the measure of love to thy Neighbour must be thy self but the measure wherewith we must love God must be to love him without measure So again on Luke 10. 27. Thou shalt love c. See Deut. 6. 5. with all thy heart as much as thou canst modus diligendi Deum est sine modo diligere Bernard The measure of our loving God is to love him beyond measure On Deut. 6. 4 5. Thus God though but one must be loved with all the heart Soul and might of every Man as in the next verse and all that is too little for so great and so good a God though it be a great deal more then we can perform Cap. 4. 35. Zach. 14. 9. Mark 12 29. Joh. 17. 3. 1 Cor. 8. 4 6. Ephes 4. 5. Verse 5. with all thy heart See the precedent Annot. and the Annot. on cap. 4. 29. Gen. 31. 6. The Annotations they refer to for the fuller explication of their meaning are these Deut. 4. 29. All thy heart Not without word or shew or Ceremony but with a true confession of thy faults and a sincere desire of his Favour The other is Gen. 31. 6. with all my Power A faithful and religious Servant will be as intentive and laborious in his Masters affaires as in his own serving him as Jacob with all his might and more then that he cannot do for himself and as he could not do more so could he not endure more for himself then for his Master he did see Verse 40. Which good Servants will take for a pattern of paines and patience to the bad who are sleight and slothful in their Masters business minding their own ease and pleasure more then their Masters profit though bad Masters as Laban was it may be brought for a Rebuke § 19. To these I shall adjoyn the interpretation of Vrsin as I find it in his Catechism of Paraeus's edition and castigation Diliges Dominum Deum tuum Diligere Deum ex toto corde c. est ex agnitione infinitae bonitatis Dei reverenter de Deo sentire pro summo bono Deum habere ideo Deum sumè amare nec non in Deo laetari acquiescere omniaque Dei gloriae postponere adeo ut ne minima quidem cogitatio vel inclinatio vel appetitio ullius rei in nobis sit quae Deo displiceat ac potius omnia etiam charissima amittere vel durissima perpeti velimus quam à Dei communione avelli aut Deum ulla in re offendere Denique omnia eo dirigere ut Deus solus celebretur Ex toto Corde tuo Cor Hebraeis significat affectus appetitus inclinationes Deus ergo cor nostrum requirens vult se solum agnosci haberi pro summo nostro bono se solum supra omnia amari in se solo cor nostrum acquiescere nec partem ejus sibi partem alteri tribui ita ut nihil sit quod ei aequale nedum autem apponere vel in amoris partem admittere velimus Hoc vocat Scriptura perfecto corde ambulare coram Deo cujus oppositum est ambulare coram Deo non toto non perfecto sed diviso corde coram Deo hoc est claudicare nec se totum Deo dedere Object Solus Deus est diligendus Ergo non proximus c. Resp Fallacia accidentis à negatione modi ad negationem rei Solus Deus est diligendus summè supra omnia hoc est sic ut nihil prorsus sit quod ei vel praeferamus vel aequemus quodque ipsius causâ amittere non parati simus Proximum verò alia debemus non summè non supra omnia nec ita ut malimus Deum quam parentes offendere sed infra Deum propter Deum non supra Deum Ex tota Anima tua Anima significat partem volentem motus Voluntatis quasi dicat totâ voluntate proposito diliges Ex tota Cogitatione tua Cogitatio significat mentem seu partem intelligentem quasi dicat quantum de Deo cognoscis tantum etiam eum diliges Omnes vero cogitationes tuas intendere ut Deum recte cognoscas sic etiam amabis quantum enim cognoscimus tantum diligimus Nunc imperfectè diligimus quia ex parte tantum cognoscimus In altera vita perfectè cognoscemus ideo perfectè etiam diligemus id quod ex parte cessabit Nunc cognoscimus in speculo tunc videbimus eum à facie ad faciem 1 Cor. 13. 10. Ex omnibus viribus tuis Intelligit omnes actiones simul internas externas ut cum Dei lege sint congruentes Thus Vrsin Explicat Catechis part 1. de Miseria hominis q. 4. Explicat p. 23 34. § 20. And now for a close of this very tedious task I shal appeal to those very places in Mr. Calvin that Chamier himself has quoted against Bellarmine in the present Controversie Eam vim Calvinus ita expressit Tunc ritè compositam fore vitam nostram si Dei amor omnes nostros sensus occupet solidè amandum esse Deum huc conferri debere quicquid facultatis inest hominibus Deum legis praeceptis non respicere quid possint homines sed quid debeant Et in harmonia Mosis ad summam Legis Jubemur Deum amare ex toto corde anima totisque viribus Quamlibet enitamur mutilum est ac debile nostrum studium nisi omnes sensus nostros occupet amor Dei ad ipsum penitus ferantur vota nostra cogitationes ad eum quoque se applicent omnes nostri
in alterum externum Amandum ergo dicimus Deum totis viribus naturae non tantum totis viribus corruptionis Et quia scimus hanc corruptionem obstare quo minus ametur totis viribus naturae ideo negamus impleri posse legem Denique omnes gradus comprehendimus amoris qui obtineri possunt vel in hac vita vel in altera si quid sit minus id peccato deputamus Chamier tom 3. l. 11. c. 14. § 13 14 15 16 17. § 24. And thus we have brought in evidence sufficient as well Antient as Modern to acquit or condemn the Doctors exposition And now I desire no mercy from our Refuter let him use the utmost severity of his Logick and in his most Tyrannical Mood bring it to his Procrustian Bed there let him torment and rack out or lop off whatsoever is defective or redundant in it § 25. If now it be here replyed that Vrsin sayes that to love God with all the heart is Deum summè amare omniaque Dei gloriae post ponere adeo ut ne minima quidem cogitatio vel inclinatio vel appetitio ullius rei in nobis sit quae Deo displiceat c. I answer that the Doctor sayes the same He that wittingly and wilfully commits the least sin that holds any the least confederacy and correspondence with the enemy of God is not truly sincere but is partial and divided in his love he sets not the highest price upon his God but admits something into a society and fellowship in his affection True Love and that which is sincere indeed is a very sollicitous and careful thing it will harbour no thought it will cherish no desire it will be guilty of no Act that may any way distaste or offend the party that it loves But then though to will be present with us yet how to perform this we know not and therefore the very best of us all have need to say Dimitte nobis debita nostra And though as St. Paul said we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us yet if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and there is no truth in us Nor does God now measure the height and Perfection of our Love by the exactnesse of our performance but by the truth and sincerity of our endeavours The Love may be still equal though the Successes may not § 26. But does not Mr. Calvin say Deum in Legis praeceptis non respicere quid possunt homines sed quid debeant c. I grant it and so does the Doctor The holy God frames not his Lawes according to the abilities of our corrupt debauched natures but commands what is most agreeable to his own purity He regards not quid possint homines in statu corrupto viribus naturae peccandi consuetudine prostratis sed quid debeant But then though of our selves as of our selves we can do nothing yet I can do all things at least necessary to salvation saies St. Paul through Christ that strengthens me He that has promised a Crown of life to those that love him has also promised to assist and enable us by his grace to perform what he requires in the Gospel for the attainment of this promise And thus we love him sayes St. John because he first loved us 1 John 4. 19. § 27. If it be further replyed that Calvin sayes Quamlilibet enitamur mutilum est ac debile nostrum studium nisi omnes sensus nostros occupet amor Dei c. I grant it and so does the Doctor * Haec regula dilectionis divinitus constituta est Diliges inquit proximum sicut teipsum Deum vero ex toto corde ex tota anima ex tota mente ut omnes cogitationes tuas omnem vitam omnem intellectum in illum conferas à quo habes ea ipsa quae confers Cum autem ait Toto corde totâ animâ totâ mentê nullam vitae nostra partem reliquit quae vacare debeat et quasi locum dare ut aliâ re velit frui sed quioquid aliud diligendum venerit in animum illuc rapiatur quo totus dilectionis impetus currit quae nullum à se rivulum duciextra patitur cujus derivatione minuatur Augustin de Doctrin Christian l. 1. c. 22. Vide Chamier Panstrat tom 3. l. 6. c. 12. §. 34. p. 191. Supra citat For he that employes not all the faculties both of Soul and Body and all his thoughts words and Actions and all things that belong unto him in Gods service he loves not God above all things but is partial and divided in his affection And therefore sayes the Apostle whether ye eat or drink or whatsoever ye do let all things be done to the glory of God 1 Cor. 10. 31. We must not suffer the least Rivulet to be driven backward like Jordan or to empt it self as that does into a dead Sea but it must constantly run and poure all it's streams into that boundlesse Ocean of goodnesse from whence it was derived § 28. But does not Mr. Calvin say Id ut fiat anima prius omni alio sensu cogitatione evacuanda Yes he does so and so does the Doctor For he that cherishes any thought or desire that is opposite and contrary to this Love or admits any thing into competition with God and a Coordination in his affection is not truly sincere but is partial and divided in his Love But then this is so far from excluding all other things from a subordinate place in our Love that we cannot truly love God from the heart if according as he commands us we do not love our Neighbours as our selves This present state and condition which we now enjoy in the body does require that other things besides God have a place in our affection For as he is worse then 1 Tim. 5. 8. Heb. 13. 1. 1 Joh. 4. 20. an Infidel that provides not for his Family so Brotherly Love must continue among us For how can he love God whom he hath not seen that loveth not his Brother whom he hath seen But then God as he is the sovereign good so he must have the supreme the royal place in our hearts For if any man loveth Father or Mother or any thing else more then me sayes our Saviour he is Matt. 10. 37. not worthy of me § 29. If he shall yet further object that Chamier goes higher for sayes he not Amandum ergo dicimus Deum totis viribus naturae non tantum totis viribus corruptionis Et quia scimus hanc corruptionem obstare quo mimus ametur totis viribus naturae ideo negamus impleri posse Legem Denique omnes gradus comprehendimus amoris qui obtineri possunt vel in hac vita vel in altera si quid sit minus id peccato deputamus Is not this the Perfection that St. Austin and Bernard and Aquinas
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
a debtor to the Law be done above it And if any man shall assert the contrary I desire either his Reason or Scripture to make it good § 39. And then secondly as to the Perfection of the Love of the blessed Saints and Angels in Heaven it is easily demonstrable and the Doctor has in part done it in his Treatise of Will-worship that though they all love God Naturally and Necessarily and ad ultimum virium yet they do not all love God in the same indivisible degree of Perfection and Point of fervour and intensenesse which to use the Doctors Dr. Ham. Treat of Will-worship sect 49. p. 101. edit Londin Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. cap. 45. p. 514 527. Jeanes p 27. words to this purpose may be observed among the Angels themselves the Seraph in being so called because they are more Ardent in Zeal then other Angels For if it be true that God rewards every man according to his works and that there be different degrees of happinesse in Heaven proportionable to the Saints proficiency in Grace here on earth it must necessarily follow that if our Refuters observation from the Schoolmen be any whit considerable and that the Scotists do rightly place the very formality of happinesse solely in the love of God or if at least Suarez and others think truly that it is essential to happinesse though the very Essence of happinesse consists not wholly or chiefly in it or if at least the rest of the Thomists who hold that the Essence of happinesse stands only in the beatifical vision yet truly make this Actual most intense Love of God a natural and necessary consequence of the beatifical vision it must I say necessarily follow that the Love of the Saints must be proportionable to their happinesse and that they cannot love God more then they see and enjoy him § 40. But to wave these speculations of the School-men Plain it is from the Scriptures and our Saviour tells us that in his Fathers house are many Mansions Plain it is from the John 14. 2. 1 Cor. 15. 41 42. Scriptures and the Apostle has told us that as one star differeth from another star in glory so also it shall be in the Resurrection of the dead Plain it is from the Scriptures and our Saviour has made it good from the Parable of the Talents that the enlargement Matth. 25. 15 c. Vide Tertul. Scorpiac c. 6. p. 622. Augustin Tract 67. in Joan. p. 171. col 1. D. col 2. A. Tract 68. p. 172. col 2. A. Gregor M. Homil. 16. in Ezech. fol. 282. B. Dialog l. 4. c. 35. fol. 238. C. F. Cyrill in loc A Resurrectione diversos fore honoris gloriae gradus Verissimum est aliisque Scripturae testimoniis probatur c. Calvin in 1 Cor. 15. 41. p. 2â—0 Nos ut profitemur quod antea diximus varios fore gradus gloriae Chamier tom 3. Panstrat l. 25. c. 4. §. 7. Vide cap. 3. §. 8 9 10. ibid. l. 21. cap. 21. §. 58. Sed nec in ipsis Comprehensoribus est haec plenitudo summa omnium gratiarum quae est in Christo Nam si stella à stella differat luce magnitudine tum multo magis differt à Sole Habent omnes beati illam gratiae gloriae mensuram quam capere potest maximam mens vniuscujusque sed non habet illam capacitatem vel gratiae vel gloriae mens cujusvis purae Creaturae quam habet anima Christi Davenant Expos in Colos 1. 19. p. 100. n. 3. Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. cap. 44. p 516 517. Quod autem visio Dei plena dicitur non efficitur inde aequalem fore omnium Sactorum visionem fruitionem Nam in domo Dei multae sunt mansiones uti inter Stellas alia alii praefulget ita inter Sanctos diversa erit gloria Dan 12. Quisque tamen quantum maxime pro doni sui capacitate Lambert Danaeus in c. 5. Enchirid. Augustin as I find him cited and approved by Chamier tom 3. Panstrat l. 25. c 3 §. 9 10. Vide Sculteti Idea Concion p. 1097. alios of our Crowns of glory shall bear some proportion with our improvement of those Graces that God has here bestowed upon us And therefore it seemes to me most undenyably to follow that a gradual difference in the Participation of the Beatifical Vision must of necessity inferr a gradual difference in the height and Fervour and intensenesse of our Love For though all the Saints and Angels in Heaven shall love God to the utmost of their might and ability there being nothing there to interrupt it nothing there to mingle with it and this because they naturally and necessarily love him and their happinesse consists in this Love and this sight and this enjoyment of God yet because all do not equally enjoy God because their capacities are not the same they cannot therefore all love him in the same height and degree All the Stars of the firmament are full of the Suns light yet all are not of the same brightnesse and lustre because they are not of the same Magnitude We see there is one glory of the Sun another of the Moon and another glory of the Stars For one Star differeth from another Star in glory And yet the Sun the Fountain of light does equally shine on all This gradual difference in their lustre and brightnesse arises from their different Capacities If all were of an equal Bignesse and Magnitude and Distance from the Sun their sight would be the same The Essence the Form of Fire is as truly in the weak lambent flames of spirit of Wine or Straw as in red hot Iron or moulten Brass or Nebuchadnezars fiery fornace and yet they do not heat and flame and scorch alike This difference does arise from the variety of the Combustible matter now enkindled For though Natural agents do alwayes work uniformly because they work necessarily and to the utmost of their power yet the intenseness of their operations is alwaies proportioned to the vigour and efficacy and virtue of the Causes from whence they do flow Otherwise the light of a Candle would be equal to the brightness of the Sun which yet we see is lost and swallowed up by the Sun-beams And therefore Mr. Cawdrey as we have already observed without scruple grants to the Doctor that sincere Love is capable of Degrees whether in the same man at several times or two men at the same time and so both may obey the precept though yet with Chamier he maintains that the utmost height and Point of Perfection possible is required and that whatsoever is short of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and indivisible point of Perfection is so far faulty How rationally and consequently we have already declared § 41. And therefore fifthly though it be granted that Mr. Cawdrey and our Refuter and * Vide
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
though I very much reverence and value the Learning and Judgement of that excellent man yet I have long since learned from a great Master of Morality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristoteles l. 1. Ethic. c. 6. §. 1. edit Ricobon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Truth is more sacred and venerable then any the greatest Names and that it is the honour and the duty of a Philosopher much more then of a Divine to retract or oppose an error whether in himself or any other for the preservation of this Jewel § 52. Thus therefore I should with our Refuters leave chuse to understand the words though I must confesse with a little streining because thus understood they are more agreeable to truth and other Protestant Writers and his own more sober expressions and the whole scope of that Chapter namely That all the degrees of Love to the utmost height that are possibly attainable either in this life or the next are in that commandement either proposed to our Endeavours or our Hopes and our Aimes and it is purely through our own fault if we do not attain unto it Not that any lower degree of love were a sin in us but that it is through our fault if we do not grow in grace and the love and knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ § 53. I remember that Cajetan in his Commentary on that question in Aquinas vtrum charitas augeatur in infinitum tells us of a sort of Hereticks condemned in the Council of Vienna by Clement the fifth and some such we have now among us at this day or else the world is much mistaken in them that maintained That man in this present life may attain to that height and degree of Perfection that might render him altogether impeccable Vide Concilium Viennense in Clement in c. Ad nostrum de Haereticis Vbi de nova secta dicitur tenens asserens doctrinâ suâ sacrilegâ perversâ inferius designatos errores Primo videlicet quod homo in vita praesenti tantum talem perfectionis gradum potest acquirere quod reddetur penitus impeccabilis amplius in gratia proficere non valebit Nam ut dicunt si quis semper possit proficere posset aliquis Christo perfectior inveniri Haec ibi c. Cajetan in 2. 2. q. 24. art 7. p. 61. col 2. E. and unable to grow and increase to any higher degree of grace then he had already obtained For they said if a man might alwaies grow in grace some man at least might be found more perfect then Christ himself I shall not say that learned man did any waies countenance those errours yet it cannot be denyed but this assertion of his as understood by our Refuter will very easily and advantageously be managed to countenance that assertion since it is easie to make good that God requires nothing of us by or under the Gospel as necessary to salvation which he gives not Grace and strength to perform And some not long since have undertaken to maintain Perfection as a duty even upon this very score § 54. But then plain it is that those words construed in the sense I have given of them do no whit favour that opinion Yet be this as it will and let our Refuter make what use he can of them Sufficient it will be to the Doctors Vindication if the same learned Chamier speaks to the Doctors purpose in his Recapitulation and summary of all that he had formerly delivered And it is that very place which our Refuter has in his Margin quoted against the Doctor The words are these Nimirum huc tandem res redit ut sciamus ita imperari nobis amorem Dei ut nullus sit amoris gradus cui quisquam debeat acquiescere Summum autem dico non tantum comparatè ad res alias quae sub amorem cadunt sed etiam quidem praecipuè comparatè ad nos ipsos ut ne ultra possimus amare ita enim verè totum cor nostrum crit tota anima mens tota vires omnes nec erunt tamen quamdiu aliquis motus concupiscentiae malae vigebit in nobis quod Augustinus dixit Bellarminus negare non potest a Patribus assertum Chamier tom 3. l. 11. cap. 14. § 22. pag. 345. That is The matter at length comes to this or this is the short and summ of all That we know and take notice that the Love of God is so injoyned and required of us by this Precept that there can be no one degree of Love beneath the highest with which any man may lawfully sit down and rest contented as a fulfilling of the Command The highest I say not only in respect of all other things that fall under our Love and within the compasse of our affection but also and more especially in regard of our selves so that we cannot possibly love more or go beyond it in our affection For then and so only will truly the whole heart the whole Soul the whole mind and all our stength be placed upon this Love which yet shall not fully be accomplished in this life so long as any motion of sinful lusts and concupiscence reignes and flourishes or springs up in us And this is that which Austin hath also said and Bellarmine cannot deny to have been affirmed and maintained by the Fathers § 55. From whence plain it is First that Chamier in this place against Bellarmine speaks of an absolute sinlesse Perfection and an exact conformity to the whole Law of God not attainable in this life which no whit concernes the Doctor that speaks not at all of that but only of the sincerity of this or that vertue or grace in respect of this or that Performance which he saies consists in a latitude and has Degrees Secondly that though this sinless Perfection be not attainable in this life yet labour we must after it as much as in us lies there being no one degree of Charity or divine Love below this wherein a man may acquiesce so that he may cease to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ which was the Heresie of the Perfectists condemned in the Council of Vienna Thirdly that by the highest degree Chamier means not that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely and simply such as if there were as * We say that there are degrees of or rather to perfection here upon condition that every degree even the highest is required by the Law of God and what is short of the highest is so far culpable Cawdrey Triplex Diatribe p. 110. Mr. Cawdrey would have it one indivisible point of Love and height of Perfection to which all must arrive that obey the Precept but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is respectively and in some sort the highest not so much in comparison of other things beloved
them but yet were accepted by God if they were heartily performed And Mr. Cawdrey acknowledges that the Jew under the Mosaical dispensation had not only libertatem specificationis a liberty to make choice of what he would offer but also libertatem exercitii a liberty to offer or not offer them when it was to use his own words left free in some cases for a man to offer or not to offer beyond what was positively required by the Law If thou wilt offer a free-will offering a Nidabah c. And herein only or chiefly stands the formality of a Free-will offering as contradistinguished to those offerings which were commanded by the Law c. Triplex Diatr p. 88 91. And secondly to David's Voluntary Resolution of building the Temple the same Mr. Cawdrey replyes that this was in the time of the Law or before Christ but the time of the Gospel gives no such allowance Free-will offerings were then allowed And for this answer he quotes Chamier tom 3. l 20. c. 5. § 25. p. 754. Chemnit in Exod. and saies moreover that Divines resolve there be now no free-will offerings under the Gospel though under the Law there were because the worship then is far different from the worship now Triplex Diatribe p. 95 96. How truly this is asserted it concernes not me at present to enquire and therefore I shall refer the Reader to the Doctors Account of this Triplex Diatribe c. 6. sect 1 2 c. Sufficient it is that both he and Chamier allow Free-will offerings and uncommanded Acts of Worship under the Law And therefore I infer that this Law of loving God with all the heart notwithstanding there are yet some Acts of Worship that were left to mans liberty to perform if he offered them he did well and it was accepted by God and if he did not he transgressed no particular command nay sinned not against that first great Law of Love For as plain it is that this Law was in force even under the Mosaical dispensation when yet as plain it is that the Free-will offerings were allowed What is written in the Law sayes our Saviour to the Lawyer how readest thou And he answering said Thou shalt love the Lord thy God c. And he said unto him thou hast answered right Luke 10. 26 27 28. And in another place he resolves that this is the first and great Commandement in the Law and that on this and the second like unto it hang all the Law and the Prophets Matth. 22. 38 39 40. § 69. And now whatsoever answer our Refuter shall be able to make to reconcile and solve this allowance with that Precept will also equally serve the Doctors interest and assertion it being plain that when this Law was in force there were uncommanded acts of Piety and Religion which no man sinned by omitting but were left free to the liberty and choice of him that should perform them § 70. Secondly I answer from the Doctor that these uncommanded degrees or acts of Devotion though they are not enjoyned or imposed upon any man by any particular Law and Precept sub periculo animae and in this respect are left to our freedom to do or not to do them yet they are within the compass of the general command of Love and in respect of that when a man has done all he can he can never be thought to have done enough though the particular Act or the degree of it be somewhat that he is not particularly obliged to Treat of Will-worship sect 17. § 71. Thirdly I answer from the Doctor that this is an affirmative Precept of which according to the Observation of the Schools the rule is true that obligant semper sed non ad semper they oblige us alwaies yet do not oblige us to be alwaies exercising some one act of the vertues so commanded and so though a man be alwaies bound to love God to the utmost height he can in regard of the habit yet there may be a liberty and freedom in the exercise not only to this or that particular Act but also to this or that degree not under any particular command and yet the general Law may at the same instant be fully satisfied § 72. Fourthly I answer that this * Matt. 22. 38. first and great Commandement and the second like unto it are †This is the first and great Commandement It was none of the ten Cōmandements in particular but containes all the Commandements of the first Table and therefore is counted the greatest Vers 39. Is like unto it Not equal to it duty to God is above duty to man but like it in greatness because it containeth all the duties of the second table as the other did of the first Vers 40. And the Prophets This is the contents and sum of them all Assembly Notes on Matt. 22. 38 39 40. General precepts on which hang all the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel duties too And therefore I cannot conceive that they should infer any other special obligation then what is commanded in the special laws into which they are particularly branched and spread Hence it is that our Saviour sayes to his Disciples * John 14. 15. if you love me keep my Commandements And the Apostle in another place Rom. 13. 8 9 10. He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law For this Thou shalt not commit Adultery thou shalt not Kill Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt not bear false witnesse Thou shalt not covet and if there be any other Commandement it is briefly comprehended in this saying namely Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self Love worketh none ill to his Neighbour therefore Love is the fulfilling of the Law For all the Law as the same Apostle Gal. 5. 14. is fulfilled in this one word even in this Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self These therefore being general Commandements must be supposed as all other generals are to be fully contained in the several Particulars that are comprehended under them And therefore if it appear that there be certain Acts or degrees of Piety that are not commanded by any particular Law suo periculo animae but are left free to our liberty to perform or not perform them they cannot be supposed to be commanded by the general so that the man should sin that does not perform them For that would infer a contradiction that they should be left at liberty and yet at the same time they should be commanded that it should be lawful for me to do or not to do them and yet at the same instant I should sin and so endanger my own soul if yet I did not perform them And if any man at any time should be obliged to perform them sub periculo animae by vertue of this general Law then all men at the same instant must be obliged under the same danger to do it because all men by vertue of this Law are bound to
love God alike because with all their heart and mind and strength and their neighbours as themselves and then the Law which is the rule of Righteousness would be a rule and a cause of transgression and I must of necessity sin whatsoever I did Adde to this that if any special obligation not contained in any particular law were over and above contained in these two generals then something that is not in the Law and the Prophets and Evangelical precepts must be contained in it and then the Generals would be larger then all the Particulars collectively taken and then our Saviour had not given us a sufficient Account of the latitude and extent of these precepts when he said they were the great commandements on which hang all the Law and the Prophets § 73. And therefore though it may be granted that if there are uncommanded Acts and Degrees of devotion as it is plain there were under the Law by the Free-will offerings and the Doctor has abundantly proved it that there are so also under the Gospel they all come under the general command for allowance and approbation as proceeding out of a pious affection of Love and gratitude to God in which regard it is impossible to go beyond the latitude of the Command yet I cannot see how they can so come within the compass of this general Law that they should induce a particular obligation and make the man guilty of transgression that does not perform what he is not in particular commanded § 74. Though then when they are done they may be acceptable to God because when they are freely performed they are fruits and arguments of our Love that is enjoyned by that Commandement yet for all that the Omission of them cannot make us guilty of our breach of a precept or neglect of a duty since whatsoever is of this nature is contained in some particular law that particularly enjoynes it And therefore § 75. Fifthly I distinguish of the love of God It is often taken as we have formerly demonstrated from the Scriptures in general for the affection of Piety or Charity and often more strictly and properly for that high that transcendent affection that is immediately fixed on God himself The Acts of this are elicite Acts and properly and formally Acts of Love the other are imperate Acts and effectively and demonstratively Vide Crellii Ethic. Christia l. 3. c. 4. p. 259 260. Love because they are the fruits and effects and signes and demonstrations of our love of God For he that truly loves God cannot chuse but desire and endeavour to do that which is pleasing and acceptable to God and that which he commands such as are the Acts of Piety and Charity which himself has prescribed and enjoyned in his Law and the more intense and ardent our love is the more we shall labour and endeavour what we can to please him and do that which is agreable to his will Now then though in respect of the formal and elicite Acts of Love there can be no Act nor degree that is left to our Liberty and choyce but all things are here in the utmost height commanded that we can possible perform and this by virtue of Vide Augustin Enchirid. ad Laurent c. 21. per tot p. 85. edit Paris this first great fundamental Law as also by the obligation of gratitude and congruence to use our Refuters words he being infinitely good in himself and we also owing to him omne quod sumus omne quod possumus whatsoever we are and whatsoever we can do yet in respect of the imperate Acts of Love that are the fruits and signes of the former there may be uncommanded Acts and Degrees which though they are approved when performed because they are conformable to this first great Law and are the issues and demonstrations of that Love there injoyned yet are they not commanded by this or any other particular law sub periculo animae but are left by God to our liberty and choice for Free-will offerings of our Love that there might be somewhat over and above his particular commands for us freely to exercise his grace upon and so for him as freely to reward us But then whatsoever God enjoyneth us to be done sub periculo animae and as absolutely necessary to expresse and testifie our Love to him he has shut up under particular Precepts and Injunctions and if we love him we must keep his Commandements and there is a necessity and an obligation lies upon us which we must not neglect or violate upon the perill of our Souls § 76. And therefore though every man be bound to love God as much as he is able and to expresse his love in that obedience and manner that he has prescribed in his particular laws to that purpose yet this nothing hinders but that he may labour to expresse that Love in some Acts and some Degrees that God has not particularly enjoyned so long as they be within the compass of his general approbation and promise of acceptance And therefore though it be lawfull for every man to expresse his love as much as he can though it be in Acts of Piety and Charity or degrees of them not particularly commanded yet it will not therefore follow that because I am bound to love God as much as I can by this Law therefore I am bound to expresse this my Love in this or that particular degree or Act of Piety and Charity not particularly commanded And therefore notwithstanding this Law of loving God with all the heart there may in regard of these expressions be room for a Nidabah a free-will offering and Performance and though we cannot in this life attain to a sinless perfection yet out of a love to God we may in some Acts of Piety or Mercy and the like imperate Acts of divine Love perform more then any Law in particular requires of us and consequently this sincere Love in these particular Acts may be capable of Degrees and so either the same man may love more intensely at one time then another or two men at the same time and yet both obey the precept as has already been frequently demonstrated but more signally and ex professo Sect. 13. § 69 70 71 72 73 74. § 78. For a close of this Section and for a full acquitting of the Doctor from any the least suspicion of Popish complyance in this Doctrine as the Refuter very intemperately laies to his charge I shall here annex the concurrent Opinion and Judgement of our excellently-learned and every-way-accomplished and Orthodox Bishop Davenant as he himself has delivered it in that very Judicious work of his that was purposely addressed against Bellarmine and the Errors of the Church of Rome in these very points Sub hisce nominibus operum Supererogationis quae ex consiliorum observatione oriuntur monstra alunt quamplurima Divinae legis contemptum Pharisaicam perfectae justitiae praesumptionem novi
endeavours which supposes the Fall and Mans frail sinfull weak condition § 22. Now of keeping of the Law according to exact unsinning obedience a loving God to this perfect height a loving him according to the Abilities God gave and Adam forfeited and here irrecoverably lost it is that our Divines Bishop White against Fisher Ames against Bellarmine Bishop Davenant de Justitiâ Habituali Actuali Bishop Morton de merito Bishop Andrews in his Sermon of Justification Chamier against Bellarmine Hooker against Travers and Generally the Protestants in their discourses of Justification by works and Merit ex condigno supererogation and Fullfilling of the law and the states of Perfection speak when they say God must be thus Loved And the Romish doctrines in many Branches enforce it Of this it is Saint Paul speaks in his Epistles to the Romanes and Galathians when he disputes with the Jew that expected Justification without Faith Justification by their own works according to the tenor of that Part of Moses Law that exemplified the Condition of the first Covenant and affixed the Curse to every one that continued not in every thing that was written in the book of the law to do them And according to this Tenor this Condition of the law the Apostle demonstratively proves against the Jew from the law that no flesh living can be justified because that law expresly testifies that all men have sinned and fell short of the glory of God According to this Condition expressed in Moses law the Jew must acknowledge that if he expects to be Justified his righteousness must be so exact that he must not transgress in any least branch of any the least commandment If he does as his own Conscience and the law tels him plainly that he does he must of necessity acknowledge that by this law nor he nor any man else can be Justified much less supererogate and do more then that law requires And therefore of necessity he must acknowledge himself in a damnable state if he will stand to be Justified by that law and his own righteousness No hope there can be for him unless he look for another righteousness another Covenant a Righteousness without him and a Covenant of Faith This is it that the Apostle so demonstratively proves against the Jew and clearly evidences that as no man can be Justified by that first Covenant so Abraham the Father of the Faithfull and all that ever were Justified were Justified by faith in the Righteousness of the Messiah and the second Covenant made and confirmed in his blood § 23. And this is the Righteousness we preach the righteousness Rom. 10. 6 7 8. of Faith in Christs blood the Condition of which righteousness or Justification and acquitting us at Gods bar is Repentance from dead works and Faith in our Saviours blood the Mediator of the new Covenant and a sincere endeavour to keep all the Commandments of God that Christ has imposed upon us And this the Apostle also as demonstratively proves in his Epistles to the Romans Galathians and Hebrews to have been also contained in Moses law the Ceremoniall part whereof was but the type and shadow of Gospel-Promises and Blessings and Purity and holiness § 24. But then not this but the former Legall Perfection of Charity is the Love that Chamier speaks of in his dispute with Bellarmine when he sayes we must love God according to the Tenor and Prescript of this Law totis viribus Naturae non totis viribus corruptionis And of such a sinless Perfection of love it is also that Master Cawdrey speaks and Doctor Hammond denyes to be obligatory to the Christians Justification that is not cannot be Justified by the works of the law but is therefore by Gods Mercy and Christs Merit and Purchase under the Covenant of Grace And of a love according to this sinless height it is that our Refuter speaks and would make good against the Doctor But bate him his Argument called Petitio Principii and he has not proved it Nay I tell him and shall by and by make it good that it is impossible for him to prove it by any other demonstration then what the Philosopher in his Elench's calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 25. For it is one thing to say that the Law or Covenant of works that required unsinning obedience as the condition of Justification and righteousness by that Law requires us to love God to that height and another thing to say that the Christian is obliged so to love God to Justification For that infers that believers are yet under the law when they are not but under grace which is contrary to the Tenor of the Gospel and yet for all that it may be true as the Apostle demonstrates that the Covenant of works the Law as he calls it did require such obedience and therefore no man can be Justified by that covenant or Law but by such obedience and such a height of Love § 26. If then secondly Man be confidered in regard of those Abilities he has now in the Present state of Grace and under the Gospell dispensation I say that Man according to the Gospell obligation of this Law and the Tenor of the new covenant is bound to love God to the utmost of those Abilities of Grace and the assistance of Gods spirit that God gives and shall bestow upon him bound he is so to love God that he may go on more and more to love him so to make use of the present Talent of Grace that God according to his promise in the Gospell may give more Grace and more Abilities to love him For as the Gospell commands us to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and 2 Pet. 3. 18. 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7. that giving all diligence we should adde to our faith virtue and to virtue knowledge and to knowledge temperance and to temperance patience and to patience godliness and to godliness brotherly kindness and to brotherly kindness charity for if these things be in us and abound they make us that we shall neither be barren nor unfruitfull in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ So God has promised in the Gospell Mat. 13. 11. and 25. 29 Luk. 8. 18. and 19. 26. that whosoever hath and makes use and improves it that hath it not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in possession but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the use and exercise to him shall be given and he shall have more abundance And our Saviour expresly tells us Joh. 10. 10. that he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly And thus man by the Law as understood and expounded according to the tenor and gratious moderation of the Gospel covenant is bound to love God with all the strength he either has or shall have and thus as S. Bernard excellently modus amandi Deum est amare sine modo We can never love enough because our love alwayes
must be in the increase nor has any limits to fix and bound its growth § 27. But then this love because it is a thriving thing of necessity must admit of a latitude and endless degrees because as the Schools determine it must be increased in infinitum And thus the Doctor acknowledges that we must love God with all our strength c. § 28. This is that Love in the height that Grotius and †Concedimus Charitatem simpliciter insinitam hoc mandato non requiri quia Creatura sinita non est capax qualitatis infinitae sed negamus huic mandato satisfacere ullum certum gradum charitatis qui subsistit infra metas ultimae possibilitatis humanae Nam mandatum totas vires nostras requirit in Actu diligendi Deum nullamque earum partem sub consilio relinquit ut ex Augustino ipso Aquinate rectissime statuit Gerson Davenant de Justitiâ habit Act. c. 44. p. 504. others speak of nay that which M. Cawdrey himself acknowledges cannot be denyed though he sayes not without a Contradiction that more then this is required and that not onely growth in grace is required which of necessity implyes a latitude and degrees but perfection also which he sayes has no degrees Nay this our Refuter in a lucid intervall does seem to import though he long continues not in that sober mood But I doubt not but upon better consideration he may be drawn to persevere and continue in it Otherwise Nauiget Antyciras for me I shall sooner expect to cure his Intellect by a Potion of Hellebore then a demonstration This is that Love that is opposed to Lukewarmness that is opposed to partiall and divided Love or service that Love that is the way to perfection in heaven there onely attainable and not Perfection it self This is the Love the Doctor speaks of and contends to be required by this commandment the Love that the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not that Love that consists in a sinless perfection that our Refuter contends is now required of the Christian This Love admits of a latitude and has degrees it is like the grain of mustard-seed though as considered in semine it is very small yet by the endeavour of Paul the Planter and Apollos the waterer and the richness of the soyle now manured and fitted by Grace and the benefit of the Climate the Church where it onely growes and Gods blessing that still gives the increase it growes up and multiplies into a tree so big that the fowles of the Aire may lodge and the blessed Spirits and Angels may be delighted in it § 29. But then thirdly man may be considered according to his future state and the Abilities God shall either de facto give us to love him at the last day when not onely the Spirits but the bodies also of just men shall be made perfect or * Vid. Davenant de Justit habit Act. c. 4. 7. p. 532 533. may now by his absolute omnipotent Power bestow upon us for nothing hinders but that he might again create man in innocence and blesse him with the same Abilities of Originall Justice which Adam had or else he might translate us immediately soul and body into heaven as he did Enoch and Elias This this as it is the height of our happiness and holy ambition so it is the utmost height of love that we shall de facto ever arrive at § 30. But then I must adde that this Love is but like the Physitians Temperamentum ad Justitiam not like that which they call Temperamentum aequale ad pondus There is no one indivisible point and measure of love to which all arrive but Vid. Aquin. 2. 2 que 28. art 3. in corp respons ad 2. proportionable still it is to our works and the reward and the happinesse God shall bestow All the vessels of this new Jerusalem shall be full as full of love as they can possibly hold but yet the love in all will not be equally one and the same because the vessels are not all of one equall capacity For as one star differs from another star in glory so shall it be also at the Resurrection of the dead and as there be degrees of Angels whether Thrones or Principalities or Powers Angels and Arch-angells Cherubins and Seraphins whose very name imports a higher and more ardent strain of love and zeal so shall there be also degrees among Saints in respect of Glory and happiness and consequently of Love Christ the first in Glory as the first-fruits from the dead and afterwards they that are Christs I doubt not but the blessed Virgin and the Mother of God as she was saluted by the Angel Gabriel Luk. 1. 28. with an Hail thou that art highly favoured the Lord is with thee blessed art thou among women so she is blessed among Saints as she bore our Saviour in her womb so she is next to him in glory And then as for the Apostles our Saviour has promised that they shall sit with him on twelve Thrones And Mat. 19. 28 29. Luk. 22. 30. Jude 14. if they and ten thousand of his Saints with whom he shall come to Judgement shall be admitted to be Assessors with him in his Throne of Judgement I cannot but conclude they shall have a higher state of Glory And if our Love of God must of necessity bear a correspondence to our knowledge and sight and enjoyment of God in heaven and that knowledge and that happiness must be proportioned according to our works on earth then it will necessarily follow that according to the difference of our Love and grace and improvement of our Talents and stewardship here so shall our glory and happiness and sight and knowledge and Love of God be in heaven A love this though it be not equall in every man yet it is as high as any man shall for all eternity ever enjoy The love shall be still one in every man as the Crown of glory shall eternally be the same A love at the utmost height that the lover of God whosoever he is shall ever eternally obtain A love perfect because without sin a love constant because without interruption and not in habit but in Act a love where God shall be all in all § 31. This is the love we all hope for and aim at and must endeavour after and it will be our sin and our misery if we do not attain to it But then it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Christian as we have already noted the mark he must aime at the crown and the kingdome and not the Race it self and the way to the kingdome This is that height that Perfection of Love which S. Austin and Bernard Peter Lumbard and Aquinas and others of the old Schoolmen speak of when they say it is not attainable in this life but is the Perfection of heaven and adde that the Commandment
feel the motion of it yet we know not whence it comes nor whither it goes since thus it is with every one that is born of the Spirit since we cannot so much as think a good thought as of our selves but all our sufficiency 2 Cor. 3. 5. Phil. 4. 13. is of God through whose assistance and strengthening we can do all things he therefore will own every fruit and degree of Grace that flowes onely from his own holy Spirit and gracious assistance and will not break the bruised Reed nor Mat. 12. 20. quench the smoaking flax but in due time blow it up into a bright and glorious flame and set the bones which he has broken And consequently I must conclude that the highest degree is not commanded and that an Inferiour degree of Love even of Actuall love is no sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod erat demonstrandum § 39. To recapitulate all for the Readers better satisfaction 1. First the highest degree of Love absolutely such or rather the one infinite height and simply perfect Act of Love commensurate with the Perfection and amiableness of God no body sayes is required in this Love 2. The loving God according to sinless Perfection and the abilities and originall righteousness Adam had in innocence the Apostle against the Jews and the †Vid. White against Fisher point 8. §. 1. 2. p. 510. D. p. 522. B. C. D. E. Mountague's answer to the Gagger c. 15 17 19. Davenant de Justit Habit. Actual Protestants against the Romanists say is required to Justification and according to the Tenor of the first Covenant which therefore they say is necessary because the Papists speak of a Justification by works a fullfilling of the Law and merit ex condigno Perfection and works of Supererogation This our Refuter undertakes to maintain to be now required of Christians to Justification otherwise he has no opposite But then the Doctor maintains that this Law requires not that Love and that Charity that consists in this sinless Perfection to the Justification of believers now because they are not under the law but under Grace And if our Refuter be his Adversary in this let him try his School-skill and answer our arguments in a School-way and leave his begging of the question 3. The loving God according to the Abilities and advantages we shall have in heaven when we shall see God face to face is the Perfection of Saints and those of the Church Triumphant not the duty of Christians and those of the Church Militant more then sincerely to endeavour after it and by comparing their weakness with the uprightness of the Law and the Perfection of this Love they may have wherewithall to humble them and long for and to fly to Ckrists Righteousness and Mediation and Gods Mercy And though our Refuter bring after the Authorities of Austin Bernard Aquinas and Scotus to prove that to this we Christians are obliged by the Law yet I shall demonstratively prove anon that they say it not but the contrary and so our Refuter stands alone and naked like the Shrub on the point of a Rock or the top of a Mast in open Sea in a storm that has nothing to succour it 4. That there is no one degree in this Quality and Grace of holy love so high beyond which there can be no higher or it cannot go but it must cease to be love and become somewhat else and consequently we cannot be obliged to love God in any one degree precisely much lesse in the eighth degree which is the highest as our Refuter and Master Cawdrey maintain 5. That believers by this old this new Commandment of Love as * Mat. 22. 39. Joh. 13. 34. our Saviour and S. John †1 Joh. 2. 7 8. 2 Joh. 4. 5. calls it are obliged to Love God to the utmost of their Power and sincerely to endeavour to grow more in grace and the knowledge of our Lord that so they may be enabled still to love him the more The onely measure of love here being to love him without measure not fixing upon any bounds or limits of love And this is that the Doctor and the most learned of Protestants maintain and let him see if he can disprove it and make what advantage he can by it § 40. But now though all this is said and demonstratively proved I must tell our Refuter that all this is nothing to the present controversie depending between him and the Doctor I must grant it indeed to be very usefull in it self and very fit to be known and better considered then oftentimes it is And in this respect I thank our Refuter for his digression that has thus occasioned mine And withall I must adde that though all were granted which now he contends for it would no whit at all concern the Doctors assertion Because the Doctor expresly in very many places especially in the defence of his Treatise of Will-worship professes not to speak of sinless perfection but of the sincerity of this or that virtue or Grace in this or that performance when he sayes it consists in a latitude and admits of uncommanded degrees And so much for his first reason I follow him to the next SECT 28. His Second Reason proves not yet granted God by more Obligations then he expresses to be Loved Acknowledged by the Doctor This Love infinite Not Positively and Categorematicè but Negatively and Syncategorematicè Acknowledged by Bellarmine and others Hinders not Freewill-offerings of Love These asserted by Bishop White Doctor not confuted though Bellarmine may Bellarmine and Ames at no great odds here Concerns not the Doctor Refuters Artifice censured Doctors Comfort and Precedent in this Persecution of the tongue 1. HIs second Reason whereby he undertakes to evince that this Commandment enjoyneth a most intense actuall Love of God a love of God with as high a degree as is possible to the humane Nature now follows and it is this JEANES A most intense Love of God a love of him with the utmost of our forces and endeavours is due unto God debito connaturalitatis debito gratitudinis 1. Debito connaturalitatis by an obligation of congruence for it is fitting that we love him as much as we can who is infinitely good in himself and therefore the chief good and supreme end of man The Protestants are brought in by Bellarmine de Monach. l. 2. c. 13. thus objecting against their Popish Evangelicall counsels of perfection that he that is unwilling to love God as much as he can doth hereby deny to wit virtually and interpretatively that God is the chief good of man and whereas he is so bold in his answer to affirm that non requiritur ut quis summum bonum tam ardenter amet quam forte posset Ames hath hereunto a round and acute reply tum non requiritur ut in bonum omni ratione summum feramur affectu omni etiam ratione summo 2.
This most intense Love of God is due unto God by an obligation of gratitude for hereby as Doctor Francis White against Fisher out of Bernard we are indebted and owe to the Almighty omne quod sumus omne quod possumus whatsoever we are and whatsoever we are able to do § 2. To this I answer First that this is not the Conclusion that he undertook to make good For he promised to evince by these following Reasons That this commandment enjoyneth a love of God with as high a degree as is possible unto the humane Nature which this Proof no way reaches For it is one thing to love God with our utmost forces and endeavours and as much as we can and another thing to love him with as high a degree as is possible to the humane nature The former may be and is obligatory to the Christian though this latter is not § 3. Secondly I therefore answer That all is granted that this Argument contends for § 4. Obliged we are not onely by an obligation of congruence and gratitude but also by many other obligations not here named to love God with a most intense love with the utmost of our forces and endeavours The Doctor grants and expresly proves it by the Testimony of the son of Syrach Ecclus. 43. 30. When you glorifie God the Lord exalt him as much as you can and when you exalt him put forth all your strength for you can never go far enough i. e. sayes the Doctor how far soever you exceed the Particular command you are yet within the compass of the generall one of love he means and in respect of that can never be thought to have done enough though the Particular Act or the degree of it be somewhat that you are not particularly obliged to The words are full and high and to all the Argument pretends to § 5. Because God is infinite in perfection infinitely good and infinitely amiable we that are finite in our Natures and Operations can never love him enough and as much as he deserves and because all our sufficiency is from God Naturall gratitude if there were no other Rule and Law would oblige us to imploy all that strength and sufficiency in his service from whom alone all is derived And because when we have done all we can we should yet be short of loving him sufficiently and to the height of his worth and Perfection still labour we must that we may yet more and more love him and because this life is too short endeavour we may and must to be admitted into heaven where we may love him to the utmost height we can or shall ever attain and because we cannot love him infinitely as his goodness deserves we yet may love him eternally Ratio diligendi Deum est Deus ipse modus sine modo saies S. Bernard sweetly that never speaks otherwise The onely Reason and Motive to our Love of God must be his own Goodness and the onely Measure of this Love must be Love without Measure Because God is Infinite in Perfection our Love must also be Infinite not absolutely as God is but onely in a sort that befits our finite condition Our Love must be infinite Syncategorematicè as they speak in the Schools though Categorematicè it cannot That is though the word Infinite cannot be predicated of our Love in casu recto yet it may in casu obliquo though it cannot be Positively infinite yet Negatively it may and must though still it will be finite yet it must have no set no determinate bounds and limits Though our love cannot be infinite yet we must infinitely love him love him in infinitum and never think we can love him sufficiently and unto the utmost height beyond which we neither can nor need to go Our work and labour of love must be like to the Arithmeticians Operation in Progressive Multiplication The further he goes on in his work the more is the Product and the greater still his Task And if this will content our Refuter he has mine and the Doctors free grant and I hope in this we shall be friends § 6. Nay if it were of any concernment I undertake that Vid. Bellar. de aetern Foelicit l. 3. c 8. de Gemit Columb l. 2. c. 3. c. 10. Fran. de Sales of the love of God l. 3. c. 1. l. 10. c. 1 2 3 4 5 6. alibi passim Jo. Euseb Nierembergius de Adorat in Spiritu veritate l. 1. c. 9. l. 3. c. 6. l. 4. c. 4 5 9 10 12. alibi passim Bellarmine at least in his Meditations and Prayers will acknowledge it whatsoever he does or shall do in his Polemicks and if I find not this and much more then this in F. Sales of divine Love and Nierembergius the Jesuite in his book de Adoratione in Spiritu and all the rest I have seen that write Sermons and Commentaries I am very much mistaken and I shall not believe what I read with mine own eyes and think that in a waking dream I read mine own Protestant Phansies and not the writings of Jesuites and Papists But because magna est veritas praevalebit It is much for the honour and Justification of the Protestant Doctrine that even its adversaries and opposers in their modest sober thoughts in their more humble and mortified considerations do approve and acknowledge what we so eagerly contend for § 7. If our Refuter shall here reply that he has gained all he desires in this one concession and that then there can be no Nidabah no free will offerings no uncommanded degrees of Love § 8. I shall answere that I am very glad I have pleased him and hope he will think that I am no enemy to him but onely an opposer of Errours a Lover of Truth and a defender of its Advocates and Patrons whether Master Jeans or Doctor Hammond But then withall I must adde that there must and will be free-will offerings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be found in the Law of Moses which if he can reconcile with his Argument and Principles I doubt not but to reconcile this very argument to the Doctors Exposition and Concessions And indeed we have already done it or let our Refuter call in his School-abilities to help me For he I am sure as a Divine and Expositor of Scripture is bound to reconcile the seeming contradictions of that as well as the Doctor is bound to give an answer to all Objections that may or can be brought against his doctrine § 9. Indeed I am half perswaded that upon a serious review and more setled thoughts our Refuter himself will acknowledge that it is no very difficult Task For though it be granted that a most intense actuall Love of God is due unto God by an obligation of gratitude because hereby as Doctor Francis White against Fisher out of Bernard we are indebted and owe to the Almighty omne quod sumus
3. dist 27. dico igitur quod illud praeceptum Deut. 6. non potest impleri in viâ quantum ad omnes conditiones quae exponuntur per illas additiones ex toto Corde ex totâ animâ c. quia non potest esse in viâ istâ tanta recollectio virium ut amotis impedimentis possit voluntas tanto conatu ferri quanto possit si vices essent unitae non impeditae quod ad talem intensionem actûs expulsis impedimen t is recollectis viribus debet intelligi dictum Aug. Magistri quod praeceptum illud non impletur in viâ nam pronitas virium inferiorum pro statu isto impedit superiores ab actibus perfectis The first that Bellarmine hath to evade these Testimonies c. § 10. Well Sir because there can be no good Musick in unison's I cannot commend your skill very much you are still striking on one string Forsooth the writers of Controversies betwixt us and the Papists But though you are very uncharitable to the Doctor in thus aspersing his fame yet you are very mercifull to your Reader in not clogging his Patience by transcribing those quotations so every where to be had Howsoever I must tell you that you had yet been more mercifull if you had spared those that you have transcribed because indeed they are so little to the purpose And if these wherewith you say you trouble the Reader are the most remarkable that you conceive are to be found in Aquinas and Scotus concerning this matter you must give me leave to tell you that your Reading in those Authors is not very great although you are a School man nor your Remarques and Récherches very deep very pertinent and Judicious I doubt not but that I in my slender observation and small reading in those Authours shall observe the quite contrary to what you labour to perswade your Reader § 11. For your first quotation of Aquinas secundâ secundae q. 44. art 6. I must say that if you had rendred it entire and faithfully as it lyes in Aquinas it would have been answered before it had been objected I represent it then at large It is in Corp. thus Dicendum quod praeceptum aliquod dupliciter potest impleri uno modo Perfectè alio modo imperfectè Perfectè quidem impletur praeceptum quando pervenitur ad finem quem intendit Praecipiens Impletur sed imperfectè quando et si non pertingat ad finem Praecipientis non tamen receditur ab ordine ad finem sicut si dux exercitus praecipiat militibus ut pugnent ille perfectè implet praeceptum qui pugnando hostem vincit quod dux intendit Ille autem implet sed imperfectè cujus pugna ad victoriam non pertingit non tamen contra disciplinam militarem agit Intendit autem Deus per hoc praeceptum and this this is the Passage our Refuter insists on ut homo sibi totaliter uniatur quod fiet in Patrià quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus Et ideo plenè perfectè in Patriâ implebitur hoc praeceptum in viâ autem impletur sed imperfectè Et tamen in via tanto unus alio perfectius implet quanto magis accedit per quandam similitudinem ad Patriae perfectionem The meaning of Aquinas is this In every Precept or command we are to consider the end of the Legislator and the end of the Law This is the performance of the duty enjoyned which the Legislator commands as a means for the attainment of that end which he himself did intend and aime at when he published the Law For instance A Generall intends and designs the taking this city or that Fortresse and therefore he rallies up his Forces and commands them to storm it They do so and if they gain the City by assault the Commander has his end which he first intended when he gave the word of command and the soldier has done his duty which was the end of the Precept but if they storm it and are repulsed though the Generall has missed his Aime yet the Soldier has not broken the Precept and did as much as the Commandment though not as much as the Commander intended It is just so in the present case according to Aquinas's doctrine God when he first made man intended to make him eternally happy by a full enjoyment and sight and perfect love of himself But because he made him upright and of a nature as well capable of serving as of enjoying his maker he prescribed him a Law as a Means for the attainment of this happiness The Law was Thou shalt Love the Lord with all thy heart or as much as thou art able and according to that strength and that grace I bestow upon thee For God dwelling in inaccessible light cannot be known and loved by us any other way then as God enables us to know and to love him and then he promised to admit man to a clear sight and full fruition and perfect love of himself This was Gods end when he first made the Law and our duty and the end of the command it self was that we should love him to the utmost of that power and strength which he should give us to love him If therefore we consider the Perfection of that Love and that happiness which God intended we should arrive at by the enjoyment of himself in heaven this is mans duty to aime at because it is his last end and the perfection God intended to bring him to at first when he made him But then because it is incompatible with our present state and Condition as we are in the body God made it not the end of the Precept though it was that which he intended we should arrive at though it were our last end and his design when at first he created us For otherwise he had prescribed us an impossible duty that we should be happy in possession and yet in the way to it that we should be present with him and see him face to face and yet be absent from him which implyes a contradiction And therefore he requires of us as our duty a lower kind of love a love suitable to our present state that we should love him as much as we can and as much as he has enabled us to love him This is the end of the commandment and the other Gods end that enjoyned the commandment That is our duty and this our crown and reward This God commands us to aime at to labour for and endeavour after as much as we can whilst we are in this life and the way and means to it is the Performance of this command in the loving him here according to our utmost abilities and endeavours And this is not an impossible duty but an easie yoke a yoke yet burdensome enough in regard of it self but made facile and easie by the assistance of Grace And he that thus loves God with
all his heart though he love him not so perfectly as the Saints do in heaven yet in the Judgement and according to the Resolution of Aquinas he loves him with that height and perfection of love that the Law does require and look for the end whereof is onely that we love God as much as we are able in order to our last end and happiness and that we may gain that crown which God principally intended when he first did create us and imposed the command upon us He then that loves God as much as he can and according to the utmost of those abilities God gives him in this his passage to heaven fulfills this commandment though he loves him not so much as another does to whom God has afforded more Grace and more strength and more abilities to love him And he that now loves him with all his heart to day and so obeys the Command may by the addition of more Grace be enabled and so obliged to love God more to morrow because the Commandment still in force indefinitely commands that we love God with all our strength whatsoever it is And thus he can never know by this Law an end of his labour and an end of his love till he shall come to heaven where he shall love God as Perfectly as God at first intended when he shall arrive at the end that God aimed at in the enacting of the Law and prescribing that inferiour growing still increasing Love as a duty and means and way for the attainment of the other § 12. And now that this was the meaning of Aquinas is very plain from this very resolution For he expresly here declares that the Love in this height of Perfection is not compatible with our present state but is the perfection of the Saints in Patriâ who love not God by way of duty and choice and obedience but by necessity of their glorified nature and the beatificall vision § 13. This will further appear from his answers to the three Arguments in this very Article and Question For thus he Ad primum ergò dicendum quod ratio illa probat quod aliquo modo potest impleri in hac vitâ licet non perfectè Ad secundum dicendum quod miles qui legitimè pugnat licet non vincat non inculpatur nec poenam meretur ita etiam qui in viâ hoc praeceptum non implet nihil contra divinam dilectionem agens non peccat mortaliter Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut dicit Augustinus in lib. de perfectione Justitiae Cur non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamvis eam in hac vitâ nemo habeat Non enim rectè curritur si quo currendum est nesciatur Quomodo autem sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur So again in the same Question Art 4. in respons ad Secundum dicendum quod dupliciter contingit ex toto corde Deum diligere uno modo in actu id est ut totum cor hominis semper actualiter in Deum feratur ista est Perfectio Patriae Alio modo ut habitualiter totum cor hominis in Deum feratur ita scil quod nihil contra Dei dilectionem cor hominis recipiat haec est perfectio viae cui non contrariatur veniale peccatum quia non tollit habitum charitatis cum non tendat in oppositum objectum sed solum impedit charitatis usum So again ibid. Ad tertium dicendum quod Perfectio charitatis ad quam ordinantur consilia est media inter duas Perfectiones praedictas ut sc homo quantum possibile est se abstrahat à rebus temporalibus etiam licitis quae occupando animum impediunt actualem motum cordis in Deum So again 2. 2. q. 24. art 8. Vtrum Charitas in hac vitâ possit esse perfecta And he determines it in the affirmative from the Authority of Saint Austin The answer to it in Corpore is this †To this very purpose see also 2 2. q. 184. art 2. in Corp. Cajetan in loc Dicendum quod Perfectio charitatis potest intelligi dupliciter uno modo ex parte diligibilis alio modo ex parte diligentis Ex parte quidem diligibilis perfecta est charitas ut diligatur aliquid quantum diligibile est Deus autem tantum diligibilis est quantum bonus est Bonitas autem ejus est infinita unde per hunc modum nullius creaturae charitas potest esse perfecta sed solum charitas Dei quâ seipsum diligit Ex parte vero diligentis tunc est charitas perfecta quando diligit tantum quantum potest Quod quidem contingit tripliciter uno modo sic quod totum cor hominis actualiter semper feratur in Deum haec est perfectio charitatis Patriae quae non est possibilis in hac vitâ in quâ impossibile est propter humanae vitae infirmitatem semper actu cogitare de Deo moveri dilectione ad ipsum Alio modo ut homo studium suum deputet ad vacandum Deo rebus divinis praetermissis aliis nisi quantum necessitas praesentis vitae requirit Et ista est Perfectio charitatis quae est possibilis in viâ non tamen est communis omnibus habentibus charitatem Tertio modo ita quod habitualiter aliquis totum cor suum ponat in Deo ita scil quod nihil cogitet vel velit quod divinae dilectioni sit contrarium Et haec perfectio est communis omnibus habentibus charitatem So again in the following Article 9. Vtrum convenienter distinguantur tres gradus charitatis Incipiens Proficiens Perfectà he resolves it in the affirmative from the authority of Saint Austin The Answer in Corp. is this Dicendum quod spirituale augmentum charitatis considerari potest quantum ad aliquid simile corporali hominis augmento Quod quidem quamvis in plurimas partes distingui possit habet tamen aliquas determinatas distinctiones secundum determinatas actiones vel studia ad quae homo perducitur per augmentum sicut infantilis at as dicitur antequam habeat usum rationis postea autem distinguitur alius status hominis quando jam incipit loqui ratione uti iterum tertius status ejus est pubertas cum jam incipit posse generare sic deinde quousque perveniatur ad perfectum ita etiam diversi gradus charitatis distinguuntur secundum diversa studia ad quae homo perducitur per charitatis augmentum Nam primo quidem incumbit homini studium principale ad recedendum à peccato resistendum concupiscentiis ejus quae in contrarium charitatis movent Et hoc pertinet ad incipientes in quibus charitas est nutrienda vel fovenda ne corrumpatur Secundum autem studium succedit ut homo principaliter intendat ad hoc quod in bono proficiat Et hoc studium pertinet ad proficientes
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
all things not any thing without God nor all things together equally and comparable to God § 25. But then as to the second member he sayes Some meaning Henriques and others do distinguish and say that one love may be said to be more Intense and exceed an other first because it is ferventior seu tenerior more tender and melting and effeminately Passionate a tumult in the affections sometimes enlargeing the heart with joy and then strangling it for some lovers have dyed with it as the Father at the news of his sons victories and triumph and sometimes contracting it or melting it into tears Or secondly because it is fortior sive firmior of a more strong and masculine temper and can make a man bold as a Lyon and resolve to lose life and all things and suffer the utmost can be inflicted for the great affection that is in it And now when Henriques and they had resolved quod dilectio Dei c. that we must love God above all things quoad firmitatem with a more manlike affection so that nothing may be able to draw or remove us from the love of Christ yet it is not necessary that we should love God above all things with that Passionateness and ravishing and tenderness of affection because many are found thus to love the Creature suppose their wives or their children more then God himself and yet would rather forsake wife and children part with all things then renounce God And then secondly because if thus both wayes God may be loved above all things then the commandment Thou shalt love the Lord thy God Deut. 6. might be fullfilled in this life contrary to what the Master and Austin and Anselme determine qui nolunt quod hoc praeceptum sit nec quod teneamur illud implere sed quod implebimus § 26. Against this the subtle Doctor resolves that the masculine Love that can make us bold as Lyons and ready to die for Christ is the onely true Love which is seated in the will the other but a Grosse materiall thing a Passion of the sensitive appetite And if any man love more tenderly and passionately then others and yet less firmly and strongly and valiantly this proceeds not from any height and excess of the true genuine intellectuall love but from a meer effeminate and passionate delight and melancholy temper or melting complexion and disposition as some Votaries and Recluses find many times more ravishing joyes in their contemplative course of life then many more solid and well setled and grounded Christians that an hundred times more readily and cheerfully can suffer Martyrdome A passion more frequently found in women then in men in newly recovered Penitents and Converts then well grown Christians nec dulcedo est actus voluntatis elicitus sed passio quaedam actui retributa quâ Deus allicit nutrit parvulos ne deficiant in viâ The fragrancy of the Apple and the perfumes of the flaggons of wine wherewith Christ comforts his beloved when she begins to swoon and faint the milk for new born babes not the strong meat for men § 27. And then secondly he resolves God ought to be loved above all things as well intensively as extensively not onely super omnia alia extensivè sed etiam majori affectu quam aliquod aliud Et dico majori simpliciter quia scil magis repugnat effectui opposito quia facilius posset inclinari ad oppositum dilectionis cujuscunque alterius quam Dei that is if I rightly understand him according to Chamier non solùm comparatè adres alias sed etiam ad nos ipsos not onely with a higher affection then that which we bestow on any thing else for that though the highest may be but low in it self but also with an affection as high as we can because that is most opposite to sin and most repugnant to those effects and Acts that trash and hinder our love and is therefore most proper for this present state wherein we are more easily inclined to love sensuall objects then spirituall the creature then God whence it follows that we should love God with such a height of affection that shall enable us and encline us with more readiness and ease to oppose and withstand the love of any thing else rather then the love of God § 28. And then he adds further that the reason grounded on the authority of Lumbard and Austin signifies nothing quia pari ratione fuisset dandum praeceptum de visione Dei non ut impleretur sed ut sciremus quo esset tendendum cujus oppositum satis Patet and they might have said as well that there should have been a Precept to command us to see God face to face not that it should be fullfilled by us but that we might know whether to bend our hopes and aimes § 29. And now having thus plainly laid down all things and fully cleared his way he comes to give his resolution in the words our Refuter referrs to But then I must tell the Reader that he has pruned and pared off what makes against himself and is necessary to understand Scotus his opinion and he has brought him as well as he could to the size of his own Bed Dico igitur quod illud praeceptum extensivè intensivè secundum viam praedictam potest impleri in hac vitâ which is the full resolution of the Question according to the Doctors exposition and therefore these words were craftily left out by our Refuter lest he should be discovered by his Reader sed non quantum ad omnes conditiones quae exponuntur per illas additiones ex toto corde ex totâ animâ quia non potest esse in vitâ tanta recollectio virium ut amotis impedimentis possit voluntas tanto conatu ferri quanto posset si vires essent unitae non impeditae quoad talem intensionem actûs expulsis impedimentis recollectis viribus debet intelligi dictum Augustini Magistri quod praeceptum illud non impletur in viâ nam pronitas virium inferiorum pro statu isto impedit superiores ab actibus perfectis That is we are bound by the precept to love God above all things extensively and intensively and secundum viam praedictam according to the exposition that we have already given it may be fullfilled by Christians in this life although it cannot be fullfilled according to all those conditions which some expositors give of those additions ex toto corde the whole heart and the whole soul c. because there cannot be so great a recollection of strength that all impediments being removed the will may so vigorously endeavour as it might if the forces of the soul were all united and not hindered and according to this intension and fervour of the Acts of love all impediments being removed and the strength and forces of the Soul being recollected and joyned must the saying of Austin and Lumbard be
ex totâ virtute quae est idem cum fortitudine unde in alio loco dicitur ex fortitudine tuâ alibi ex omnibus viribus tuis quod est idem haec quatuor insinuantur Mat. 22. Luc. 10. quamvis in aliis locis scripturae aliqua horum omittuntur hoc enim est quia illud omissum ex aliis intelligitur Ratio autem horum quatuor hic accipienda est ad praesens quia dilectio Dei de quâ agimus actus est voluntatis quae hic significatur per cor Nam sicut Cor ut dicit membrum materiale est principium omnium corporalium motuum ita voluntas quantum ad intensionem finis ultimi qui est objectum charitatis est Principium omnium actuum quarumcunque potentiarum quae moventur à voluntate hae autem sunt tres sc intellectus qui significatur per mentem vis appetitiva inferior quae significatur per animam unde secundum eam dicimur agere vitam animalem vis executiva exterior quae significatur per fortitudinem seu virtutem seu vires Praecipitur ergo nobis ut tota intentio nostra feratur in Deum quod est ex toto corde diligere quod intellectus noster totaliter subdatur Deo quod est ex totâ mente appetitus inferior reguletur secundum Deum quod est ex tota anima quod Actus noster exterior ordinetur ad Deum quod est ex tota fortitudine tua i. e. virtute vel viribus Deum diligere And this I hope will please our Refuter In the second Article the question is An modus iste possit in via totaliter impleri And he resolves it by a distinction Advertendum est quod sicut dicitur 3. Phys totum perfectum idem sunt ideo totaliter diligere est perfectè diligere sicut ergo duplex est Perfectio ita duplex totalitas dicitur enim perfectum aliquid uno modo quia nihil deest ei eorum quae natum est habere alio modo dicitur Perfectum cui nihil deest eorum quae debet habere secundum statum Prima ergo Perfectio naturae humanae solum est in gloria quando natura habebit omnem Perfectionem quam nata est habere Sed secunda Perfectio fuit in statu innocentiae quando natura habuit quicquid habere debuit secundum statum illum forte plus quia habuit Justitiam originalem gratuito naturae superadditam Ab utraque autem Perfectione deficit Perfectio quam potest secundum cursum communem habere natura humana in statu naturae corruptae quia non potest totaliter vitare quum incidat in aliquem defectum rationis saltem in aliquod peccatum veniale Secundum verò hoc in dilectione Dei potest attendi duplex perfectio totalitas una quando nihil deerit de his quae homo potest expendere in amorem Dei quin totum semper in actu in dilectione Dei ponat haec perfectio seu totalitas non ponitur nobis sub praecepto pro statu viae quia nobis non est possibilis status enim viae non compatitur continuationem in actu sed implebitur in Patriâ quando semper Beati videbunt Deum diligent ipsum omnia in ejus dilectionem referent ut in sinem Alia est totalitas vel Perfectio secundum quam homo nihil subtrahit de his quae debet ponere in dilectione Dei haec perfectio seu totalitas non excludit interruptionem actus nec amorem cujuscunque alterius à Deo etiamsi actu non ordinetur in Deum dum tamen non sit contrarium vel repugnans charitati sicut est peccatum veniale haec totalitas praecioitur nobis ut nunc implenda constat quod impleri potest quia homo diligit Deum totaliter ex toto corde c. quicunque vitat omne peccatum mortale quod solum est charitati contrarium sed quilibet homo hoc potest pro statu viae facere ergo c. § 36. According to this he shapes his answers to the objections Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus potest in viâ amari totaliter nisi quod disting uendum est de totalitate dilectionis hoc enim potest sumi vel ex parte rei dilectae sic totaliter diligitur res illa cujus nihil est quod non diligatur sic cum nihil sit in Deo quod non possit ab homine diligi Deus potest hoc modo totaliter amari in viâ in Patriâ sed perfectius in Patriâ sicut perfectius cognoscitur sicut dictum est de amore sic intelligendum est de cognitione Alio modo potest sumi hic totalitas ex parte diligentis sic potest Deus totaliter diligi diligitur ab his qui sunt in Patriâ qui nihil de potestate suâ subtrahunt quin totum ponunt in dilectione Dei semper secundum actum in viâ verò non sic potest diligi sed solum secundum habitum modo quo est expositum quod solum cadit pro nunc sub praecepto Alio modo potest sumi talis totalitas ex regulatione dilectionis ad diligibile sic totaliter diligitur illud cujus bonitati aequatur quantitas dilectionis sic Deus non potest diligi ab alio quam à seipso And then to the second he answers Quod illud argumentum bene probat quod Deus non potest in viâ diligi totaliter vel perfectè prout totalit as vel perfectio excludit omnem defectum sed illud ut dictum est non cadit sub praecepto potest tamen totaliter diligi totalitate excludente omne repugnans contrarium hoc sufficit ad impletionem praecepti His reasons of this determination are first quia nullus potest ligari ad illud quod est sibi impossibile 2. quia actus charitatis est magis necessarius in viâ quam actus aliarum virtutum secundum illud 1 Cor. 13. si charitatem non non habuero c. And since the Acts of all other virtues may be performed therefore much more the Acts of the Queenvirtue and grace without which all the rest are nothing and since no Law obliges to that which is simply now impossible and yet we are obliged to love God with all the heart while we are here in the body It follows that we may so love God as we are bound to love him which can onely be according to the sense and exposition above given So Durand § in contrarium arguitur G. § 37. But there is one thing more which I had almost forgotten to take notice of in that Author It is in his answer ad secundum in the former question Dicendum quod ◠similem modificationem habet actus charitatis sicut actus
that is in debate betwixt you and your adversary You need not have spent so much time in proving that Christ as Comprehensor did love God to the utmost height possible It should have been granted you for asking It is a known undoubted truth in the Schools a Perfection that de congruo follows from the Hypostaticall union and therefore questioned by none but the Socinians and those that deny the divinity of Christ § 3. But I see by experience that Gold the most solid most ponderous of Metalls may be beaten so thin that it may be moved with a breath and broken with a touch And our Refuter is so unhappy as to weaken an undoubted truth by his overmuch proving it For if the inward Acts of Christs love were alwayes at the utmost height because this most intense love is a naturall and necessary sequele of the Beatificall vision then it necessarily follows if his love were alwayes thus intense that then he alwayes enjoyned the Beatificall vision the sole and necessary cause of such a love For it is an undoubted Maxime That Positis aut sublatis effectu causâ necessariis ponuntur tolluntur causa effectus And if so what then shall we say to the Author of a mixture of Scholasticall divinity with Practicall Henry Jeanes of Chedzoy For sayes he not expresly That it is not to be denyed Mixture of Scholast with Pract. p. 261. but that by speciall dispensation there was some restraint of the influence of this happiness or beatificall vision in the whole course of his humiliation and Particularly in the time of his dolefull Passien And now if his fervour of love were a naturall issue of the beatificall vision it will necessarily follow that as that his happiness and clear intuitive sight of the divine Essence was restrained so the fervour of his love was proportionably abated also § 4. But not to trouble our selves much with any contradictions of our Refuter I suppose he meant well whatsoeever he sayes It was truly said by Saint Leo and all Antiquity has approved it that at the time of our Saviours Passion Non dissolvit unionem sed subtraxit visionem And hence it comes to pass that we read of our Saviours saying My soul is exceeding sorrowfull unto death and his crying upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And I believe our Refuter is not ignorant what M. Calvin has said of that expostulation § 5. And why then might not this be a fit season for the heightning of the Ardency of our Saviours zeal and devotion when he prayed for the restoring of those comforts and Joys that flowed from the Influence of the Beatificall vision which now was restrained The more comfort and happiness he formerly enjoyed from this clear intuitive knowledge the more earnestly now without doubt he would long for it And had not now our blessed Saviour in this extremity and bitterness of his Passion and sufferings when the manhood was left naked without any beams of comfort streaming from the Godhead which now by speciall dispensation our Refuter grants as indeed it is most evident from Scripture also were restrained had not now I say our blessed Saviour occasion enough for the heightning of his fervour in prayer had he not now grounds and motives sufficient to induce him to advance his ardency and zeale when he prayes for the restauration of those joyes For who so ardently longs for a Repossession of happiness as he that has once been satisfied with the ravishing contentments of it The loss of those comforts which David formerly enjoyed was it that made him so earnestly cry out Psal 51. 12. Restore unto me the joy of thy Salvation and uphold me with thy free Spirit Make me to hear joy and gladness that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoyce The Iron that has once been touched with the Loadstone and enjoyed the benefit and sweetness of that magnetick Love and Influence does more earnestly desire and move stronger to a Re-union with that Loadstone then it did before the touching And this is abundantly sufficient to demonstrate the utmost of the Doctors pretences in his Ectenesteron who there undertakes onely to shew that the fervency of Christs zeale and devotion in Prayer was in his Agony encreased But then because it is an Act of Piety and devotion and consequently of Charity and love to God as that is commonly taken in the Scripture of which Love alone does the Doctor speak and so is not that Love that high transcendent Love which flowed from the Beatificall vision which our Saviour as Comprehensor enjoyed and that which our Refuter here speaks of plain it is that by this Argument if all were granted he opposes not the Doctor § 6. But then this is not onely sufficient to acquit the Doctor but also to destroy all the truth in his Argument For if now especially in the time of our Saviours dolefull passion the Influence of the Godhead and beatificall vision were restrained then it evidently follows that now at least there was more occasion then formerly even for the heightning of his love of God as that is properly taken For our Love of necessity must bear a proportion and correspondence to our knowledge and therefore we shall love more infinitely more when we see God face to face then now possibly we can when we see him onely in aenigmate in speculo by Faith as in a glass darkly And consequently so must it be with our Saviours love also at least during this restraint And therefore to grant to our Refuter what he adds in that Treatise immediately after though surely it seems very improbable and no wayes sortable unto the state of Christs blessedness for his grace and holiness the image of God in him his love of God in the habit to be lyable unto perpetuall motion and augmentation yet even there he himself expresly grants that his Actuall grace and wisdome and consequently his acts of divine love did encrease and gradually differ and if he should here deny it this argument we have urged from his own concessions will necessarily enforce it § 7. The truth is he met with a common received truth but for want of skill and a right understanding of the Schoolmen in whose shop this divine truth was first strook out and discovered he has almost destroyed it by his manner of proof and labouring to defend it § 8. First then I grant That Christ in the dayes of his Flesh was not purè viator but also Comprehensor 2. That as Comprehensor he enjoyed a clear intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence 3. That from this clear intuitive knowledge issued a Love answerable to it an Actuall love most perfect and in the utmost height alwayes uninterrupted alwayes the same because as Suarez truly erat simpliciter necessarius tam respectu Dei Vid. Suarez tom 1. in 3 par Thom. disp 37. Sect. 4.
quam respectu propriae beatitudinis it was an Act simply necessary flowing from the beatificall vision which Christ in the superiour faculty of his soul the mind alwayes enjoyed and which de congruo flows from the hypostaticall union This Ibid. disp 37. sect 4 p. 518. Col. 1. D. E. they call amor beatificus animae Christi simpliciter necessarius 4. It is supposed by Suarez and others that besides this beatifick Love there was also in Christs soul an infused habit of Love whereby he also loved God in the dayes of his flesh as well as he knew him by a twofold supernaturall knowledge the beatifick and infused as he declares and proves at large ibid. disp 39. Sect. 7. p. 540. 5. Hence it is that the same Suarez sayes Tertio suppono Ibid. disp sect 5. p. 518. Col. 1. E. F. Col. 2. A. B. Christum fuisse simul Comprehensorem viatorem ex quâ mirabili conjunctione consequenter effectum est miraculosè ut proprii actus beatifici ita continerentur in supremâ parte animae ut non redundarent in inferiorem neque perfectionem suam cum illâ communicarent Ad hunc ergo modum intelligi potest ita animam illam amâsse Deum necessario ut amor ille sisteret in solâ formali conjunctione unione ad Deum suo modo ad formalem beatitudinem pertinente non se extenderet nec communicaret ut ita dicam aliis operibus actibus qui in Christum ut viatorem conveniebant Cum enim haec extensio vel Communicatio fit per modum cujusdam efficientiae poterat facilè impediri sicut fruitio beata impedita est ne omnem tristitiam expelleret nec inferiori portioni communicaret Hoc ergo supposito facile intelligitur illum Dei amorem quem anima Christi habuit veluti consequentem scientiam infusam non beatam fuisse liberum c. ex quo ulterius facile intelligatur ab illo amore libero liberè etiam processisse actus obedientiae charitatis proximi aliarum virtutum quos Christus Dominus ut viator exercuit tum quid ille amor est sufficiens principium causa illorum tum etiam quia amor beatificus ut dictum est veluti continebatur ne influeret in hujusmodi actus sed relinqueret voluntatem operari modo accommodato viatori Thus he Adde to this what the same Suarez has demonstrated ibid. disp 39. Sect. 2. we have already quoted the place at large and shall therefore refer the Reader to it 6. I shall crave leave of the Readers patience to acquaint him what the same authour has further observed to our purpose in his Commentary on the 15. Question of the third part of Aquinas art 6. utrum in Christo fuerit tristitia Quanquam ex divinâ contemplatione quae erat in animâ Christi redundare posset haec delectatio in appetitum sensitivum divinâ tamen virtute impedita est ne dolorem vel tristitiam sensibilem impediret quam doctrinam docuerat D. Thomas art praecedenti ad tertium solvens difficultatem quomodo anima Christi beata fuerit capax doloris tristitiae Circa quam doctrinam supererat difficultas quia ex illà videtur sequi in voluntate Christi nullam fuisse tristitiam quia in illâ fuit summum gaudium ex divina contemplatione visione manans Sequela patet quia si appetitus sensitivus privatus est delectatione quae in ipsum derivari posset in fruitione beata ne fieret incapax tristitiae ergo voluntas in qua per se primò fuit gaudium illud beatificum per illud effecta est omnino incapax tristitiae Respondeo D. Thomam hoc loco ea tantum docuisse quae ad praesentem difficultatem solvendam sufficiebant assignasse modum quo evidentius constare poterat appetitum sensitivum Christi fuisse capacem tristitiae an vero alio modo potuerit voluntas esse capax tristitiae simul cum gaudio D. Thomas hoc loco neque negavit neque asseruit quoniam ad rem not spectabat Adde praeterea D. Thomam non tantum voluisse ostendere appetitum sensitivum Christi fuisse capacem tristitiae secundum quid seu secundum aliquam rationem sed absolute simpliciter ita potuisse tristitiam pati ut omnis delectationis voluptatis expers aliquando fuerit Quod in voluntate locum habere non potuit quia licet secundum aliquam rationem potuerit tristari tamen quia secundum potiorem superiorem rationem semper fuit beata non potuit omni gaudio privari appetitus autem sensitivus fuit in statu possibili caruit statu beatifico ideo fuit capax talis tristitiae quae omnem voluptatem excluderet Caetera quae ad hanc difficultatem pertinent tractabimus infra q. 18. Suarez ibid. pag. 460. 461. § 9. From all which well considered if already we have not given a full and satisfactory answer to all the pretences of this discourse of our Refuter it will evidently appear that though Christ as Comprehensor in the superiour Part of his soul had alwayes a clear intuitive knowledge of the divine Essence and a naturall and necessary love of God thus clearly known which was alwayes at the utmost height still one and the same uninterrupted Act because simply necessary yet this beatifick knowledge and Love of God was so miraculously ordered that it hindred not nor any wayes altered the Acts and operations of the inferiour faculties of his soul nor changed the mannner of working of those his infused graces whether of knowledge or love of God or his neighbours or the exercise of any other virtues and graces necessary for him in the state of a viator To all which as in that state he had a true and proper freedome so he did truly merit by the free ezercise of them And as the happiness he enjoyed in this superiour faculty of his soul as Comprehensor did not hinder but that at the time of his Passion his soul in the inferiour parts was sorrowfull unto death and had no comfort from those supernaturall joyes in the superiour which now by speciall providence and dispensation were suspended so this naturall and necessary fulness of his beafitick Love nothing hindered but that there might be a graduall difference in the Acts and exercise of his infused love of God or at least in the Acts of love towards us his neighbours and the Acts of other virtues and graces All which Acts of Piety and devotion and zeal to God and love to his neighbours and obedience to Gods commands in the exercise of all other virtues and graces his will did freely perform in that way that was proper and most agreeable to the state of a viator And consequently since every man in the exercise of these virtues and graces is bound to exercise them quoad debitas circumstantias and since we have clearly shewed
sufficient cause alwayes to Love God at the utmost height possible to the humane nature to wit a clear intuitive knowledge of the divine Essence yet he had no more Grounds and Motives to this love then he had occasions because he alwayes loved naturally and necessarily to the utmost height and it was impossible for him to do otherwise Will any man read a Morall Lecture of Persuasion to excite a Stone to move downwards or labour by Grounds and Motives to induce the Fire to burn A pair of bellowes are worth all the Suasories in Seneca or the Declamations of Quintilian The glorified Saints and Angels have Cause sufficient to love God the beatificall vision and therefore as they need no Grounds and Motives to induce them to love God so they have none used to them in heaven because there they naturally and necessarily love God and it is a part of their happiness and a necessary fruit of their glorified natures to do so Grounds and Motives as well as Occasions are proper onely to those that are in viâ that are in the way to heaven to stirr up their spirits and flagging dull Motions and quicken them in the Race as also to dehort them from those things that may be an occasion either of their fall or slow motion § 17. But then this nothing hinders but as considered in the state of a viator he might have both Occasions to heighten his Love and ardency in Prayer as the Doctor affirms he had and we have already demonstrated the Truth of his assertion and shall by and by further clear it and also Grounds and Motives to strengthen and confirm him in his love and magnanimity and Patience in the midst of his bitter agony For we have already observed from the Schoolmen and best Interpreters that the Angell that was sent to Comfort our blessed Saviour and strengthen him in his bitter Agony did it by Morall Arguments and Suasories and Rationall Grounds and Motives Remonstrating him the transcendency of his Love to Mankind and the Glory of the Acquest his obedience to God his Father and the Crown and Reward laid up for him The Advancement of the honour of Gods Mercy and the magnifying his Name in the salvation of mankind and the like § 18. But then secondly by this Confusion he falls upon the Rock of palpable contradiction and one part of his discourse confutes the other For if Christ had alwayes sufficient Causes Grounds and Motives to induce him to love God c. then he did not love him naturally and necessarily as he sayes he did Or else if he alwayes loved God to the utmost height naturally and necessarily then he had not alwayes sufficient Causes Grounds and Motives to induce him to love God to the utmost height For Causes Grounds and Motives to love suppose an absolute freedome and liberty of indetermination and indifferency to love which is perfectly contrary to an absolute necessity of loving and therefore incompossible with it Let him chuse which part he will and avoid the Rock if he can § 19. If he sayes that Christ as viator had sufficient causes grounds and motives to induce him to love God to the utmost height because as Comprehensor he enjoyed the beatificall vision and naturally loved him I deny his sequele because then it would also follow that he had sufficient causes grounds and motives to love God in that height which was incompossible with his state of viator to wit with as heightned degrees of Actuall love as the humane nature could reach to which is the state of a Comprehensor and consequently implyes a kind of contradiction in adjecto § 20. And then thirdly he not onely speaks contradictions but palpable Tautologies For he sayes Christ naturally and necessarily loved God to the utmost height of Actuall Love and then adds in the close by way of proof For if we speak of a liberty of indifferency and indetermination he had no more liberty towards the intension of the inward Acts of his Love than he had towards the Acts themselves It is just as if I should affirm the Aethiops skin to be black and then adde for a further confirmation For if we talk of any colour in his skin that was disgregative of the sight he had none which were a most ridiculous tautologicall argumentation and prooving idem per idem § 21. And therefore having now shewed the weakness and very inartificiall proceeding of our Refuters discourse I am at leasure to tell him what were the occasions of heightning our Saviours Love of God at the time of his Passion more then he had at other times which the Doctor intimates and our Refuter out of his great Scholasticall modesty and profound Christian humility and tenderness to our blessed Saviours honour I suppose he means will not undertake to guess at But first I will tell him what Love it was the Doctor means that so all occasions of Cavill may be avoided § 22. The Schools ordinarily distinguish of a twofold Love of God one they call Amor Concupiscentiae or Amor desiderii The other they call Amor Amicitiae or Amor Complacentiae The first is a Love of God for the benefits we hope and are to receive from him and arises out of an apprehension and sensibleness of those wants and needs that he alone is able to supply The other is a Love of God purely for his own goodness This is the most genuine and transcendent Love but the other more naturall For Nature it self teaches us in all our wants to have recourse to God or something we mistake for God And hence it is that the most acute Father Tertullian Vid. Suarez tom 1. in tert part Tho disp 39. sect 2. p. 542. col 1. C. Et ibid. disp 34 sect 3. pag. 457. col 1. F. 2. A. makes use of this Argument and in contemplation of it cryes out O Anima naturaliter Christiana This is proper onely to the viator The other in the most transcendent manner agrees to the Comprehensor and in a lower degree also to the viator according to the Perfection and excellency of his habituall grace Yet these two sayes the most incomparable Bishop Andrews though they may be distinguished yet Pattern of Catechist Doctrine at large com 1. c. 12. pag. 155. are not alwayes divided For the one oftentimes is the beginning of the other both in our loves to God and man For those that have been beneficiall to us though we love them at first for the benefits we receive by them yet afterwards we come to love them for themselves The first ariseth from hope because a man being cast down by fear conceives hope upon Gods promises then sending forth prayer receiveth fruit and saith Praised be the Lord for he hath heard the voyce of my humble petition And Psal 28. 7. 21. thou hast given me my hearts desire which fruit stirreth up the first love and this Amor Concupiscentiae the
love of concupiscence which goes before Amorem gratuitum free Love For as the Apostle saith that is not first which is spirituall but that which is naturall or carnall and then that which is spirituall so free Love of God for himself is not first but first we love him for his benefits and then for himself and this is true love c. That which is naturall will be first concupiscentia before Amicitia or benevolentia and this is the inchoation of the other Perfect love is not attained at first for nemo repente fit summus Now Saint Chrysostome wondreth how men can slip themselves out of this Love for if they will love any for his Benefits none bids fairer for this Amor mercenarius then God for he offereth for it the kingdome of heaven c. And therefore it is lawfull to Love God for his benefits for God uses them as motives to stir us up to love him and the best of Gods servants have so practised Moses looked at the recompense Heb. 11. but we must not rest there nor love him onely or chiefly for them but for himself c. I love the Lord saith the Psalmist and why He is my defence Psal 18. 1. And in another place Because he heard my voyce yet seeing David did not Love God onely or chiefly for his benefits his love was not properly mercenary but true though not Perfect Thus far this most excellent Bishop whose words I have made use of as Jewels and ornaments to this discourse and because I think it impossible to me I am sure to express it better § 23. Now Christ being made like to us in all things sin onely excepted he must also have in him this naturall love of God for his benefits and protection and assistance that he had and might have from him and the Schools do resolve so For it was in its self naturall and therefore not sinfull and his present slate of a viator in the dayes of his flesh required it For though the Foxes have holes and the birds of the Air have nests yet the son of man had not where to lay his head He was truly vir desideriorum a man of desires as well as a man of sorrows This as it was naturall to the flesh and proper to him in the state of a viator so it agreed to him in respect of the Inferiour part of the Will and the sensitive Appetite which desired things naturall and necessary for it self but yet onely those things that were lawfull and fit And therefore the Schools though they resolve that there was not that hope Vid. Estium l. 3. sent d. 26. §. 8. alibi Aquin 3 part q. 7. art 4. Et Cajetan Suaresium alios in Loc. in Christ which is virtus Theologica Deum ipsum ut principale Objectum spectans yet there was in him another lower kind of hope bona quidem vera good and lawfull and true in it self which respected those things he had not yet obtained in the dayes of his flesh as his Resurrection the Glorification of himself in the humane Nature at the right hand of God and the honour of his Name and Enlargement of his kingdome In which respect saith the Psalmist in the Person of Christ in the Passion-Psalm 22. 10. I was cast upon thee from the womb thou art my God from my mothers Belly So again in the eighth and ninth verses He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him But thou art he that took me out of the womb thou didst make me hope when I was upon my Mothers breasts there are many other places in Scripture to this purpose but these are sufficient to our business This hope as it was the ground of his Love of God for the benefits he did expect and the assistance he stood in need of in the dayes of his flesh so it was the foundation of all his prayers either in regard of his present pressures and wants and reliefs he stood in need of or else in respect of the future blessings he expected after his resurrection As then as Aquinas tells us Christus habuit spem respectu aliquorum quae nondum erat adeptus so he did Aquin. 3. part q. 7. art 4. in corp truly in this respect divinum auxilium expectare In the midst of his afflictions and in the height of his Passion he trusted in God and he was heard in that he feared or delivered from it And as he trusted in God hoped in him and expected aid and assistance from him so he truly had a naturall love of God a love of desire and concupiscence towards God for the benefits and assistance he daily received and hoped from him And out of the abundance of this Love he cryes out upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me § 24. But then though this Love of concupiscence be ordinarily first in men and then afterwards the Love of Complacency though we love God first for his benefits and goodness to us and afterwards for himself yet it was not so in Christ For first as Comprehensor in his mind he loved God naturally and necessarily with the highest degree of complacency benevolence and friendship And this from the first moment of the souls union with the body And secondly as viator by reason of the fullness of the habit of Divine Grace he loved him alwayes as high with this love as the present state was capable of Though he loved God alwayes for his owne sake yet this supernaturall divine Love was not the fruit of his love of concupiscence and because he was sensible of Gods blessings and favours but it was the effect of the Beatificall vision and the fullness of divine Grace supernaturally infused from the first moment of his conception and de congruo both flowed from the Hypostaticall union § 25. But then as the Schools distinguish of a threefold knowledge in Christ the one which they call beata the other infusa and the third Experimentalis and Acquisita so there is also observed by them a threefold love of complacency in Christ The first is the beatifick Love proper to him as Comprehensor the second the Acts of the infused habit of divine Love And the third a Love of Complacency flowing from the frequent experiences of Gods goodness to him in the dayes of his flesh For he also did taste and see how good and gratious to him the Lord was in that state when he was truly that man of sorrows This was Acquisite and experimentall and this we may without any dishonour to Christ or the least disparagement to divine truth say was the issue of that other Love a Love of God for his blessings and gratious assistance This was a ravishing contentment arising in the Inferiour part of his soul a sweet delight and complacency in God from the experience of his goodness answering and satisfying those desires
in these faculties § 26. Now these two Loves of God proper to Christ as viator the naturall love of God for the blessings we hope and receive from him this love of desire and that experimentall acquisite love of Complacency arising in the Inferiour faculties of Christs soul from the experiment of Gods gracious goodness may without any derogation to the height and Perfection of his supernaturall Love be said to be capable of increase and augmentation And of these the Doctor must be understood to speak § 39. when he sayes that in the time of our Saviours Agony there was more occasion for the heightening of his Love of God and Trust then there was at other times He never before now had such occasion to Love God and earnestly long for his assistance as in his bloody Agony when the comfortable beams and influence of the Godhead were now miraculously and by speciall providence pro tempore withheld This made him to cry out upon the Cross with a loud voyce My God my God why hast thou forsaken me this made him to call up all the faculties of his soul and to heighten his Ardency and zeal and fervour in Prayer proportionable to the height of his Agony As he never was in such a Passion till now as he never sweat drops of blood before down to the ground so he never had such occasion to heighten his Ardency and that his Love of desire towards God and his goodness in respect of his present aid and support should be more advanced The more we are in want and distress the more nature instructs us to love those that help us and the heightning this love and our hope and expectation of aid and assistance advances and quickens our Ardency and fervour in Prayer and the more we want we love we hope we desire the higher will our zeal and devotion in Prayer be inflamed and this Saint Luke meant when he tells us that our blessed Saviour being in an agony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed the more earnestly And now since in the dayes of his flesh he offered up Prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears c. and was heard in Heb. 5. 7. that he feared since he had an Angell sent to comfort him from this experience of Gods goodness the Inferiour faculties are so ravished and satisfied that now his love becomes bold as a lyon and we hear no more now of these naturall desires prompting him to pray for a removall of that bitter cup. Now boldly as the Lyon of the tribe of Judah he sayes to those that came to apprehend him I am he and again I have told you that I am he If therefore yee seek me let these go their way Joh. 18. 5 6 7 8. Now he willingly meets death and gives those that came to apprehend him leave to take him Now was this experimentall Love of God in the Inferiour faculties advanced to the utmost height And now his Love was as strong as death it self § 27. But then though this be abundantly sufficient to satisfie all pretences in this or any part of our Refuters discourse yet I must remind the Reader that there is a great deal of difference between the heightning Christs Ardency in Prayer of which the Doctor speaks and that advancement of Christs actuall love as Comprehensor immediately terminated on God himself of which our Refuter speaks in this discourse and never the Doctor either in his Ectenesteron or his Treatise of Will-worship or the defence of it against Master Cawdrey § 28. And thus at last is demonstrated the vanity of our Refuters Title-Page and shewed it is to be like the Apothecaries glorious titles on his Empty boxes For he has proved nothing he there pretends against the Doctor and if he had proved all he pretends to he had not so much as opposed much less refuted the Doctors Ectenesteron which alwayes speaks of another thing then himself does For all opposition must be ad idem as this of our Refuters is not as has all along been demonstrated And so I come to the next Section SECT 31. Poor Refuter Doctor digresses not Affliction a fit season to heighten Devotion Christs Ardency our Instruction The Doctor Heightning Christs Actuall Love derogates not from his Habituall fullnesse Charitas quamdiu augeri potest c variously cited The Doctors mistake The words not Jeromes but Austins This lapse how possible Veniall Occasion of Austins writing to Jerome His severall proposalls of solving the doubt His own upon the Distinction of Righteousness Legall Evangelicall 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 Erasmus 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 Actuall Grace the Habituall still invariable Illustrated by two Instances Erasmus and Doctor Eckhard assert Christs growth in Habituall 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 Doctor HAMMOND § 40. OF this I shall hope it is possible to find some instances among men of whose graces it can be no blasphemy to affirm that they are capable of degrees Suppose we a sincerely pious man a true Lover of God and no despiser of his poor persecuted Church and suppose we as it is very supposable that at some time the Seas roar the tempest be at the height and the waves beat violently upon this frail brittle vessell may it not be a fit season for that pious mans Ardency to receive some growth for his zeal to be emulous of those waves and pour it self out more profusely at such then at a calmer season I hope there be some at this time among us in whom this point is really exemplified if it be not it is an effect of want not fullness of Love But I need not thus to enlarge It is not by this Refuter denyed of the Person of Christ and that is my entire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference either to M. C. or to him
it self out more profusely even in Outward Expressions then at a calmer season I shall not doubt to conclude that his Inward Devotion was also then more enlarged I never read of any but the Hypocrite and Crocodile that have Tears at command and can assume a sad countenance and at pleasure disfigure their faces and counterfeit a passion True zeal and devotion knowes no other expressions then what are Naturall and Genuine Gods Spirit gives no Rules no Examples for the heightening of our Outward Devotion onely nor to make a Trade of lifting up the eye and smiting the breast and making the Tears full and raising of our Cryes and Noise They were the Pharisees onely that did teach and practise such Arts and I read of miscreant Jews that were professed Praeficae and hired mourners at funeralls We need no Tutors nor Instructors to teach us to express the true passions of the heart They whether we will or no uncommanded unthought of rise and fall as the soul it self is affected Nature teaches us this lesson and it is the first that we practise The Child the more it longs after the Mother or the Nurse the more it cryes and sheds tears and the further they go from it the louder still it calls and the more earnest more violent are the Shrikes and lamentations If a man be fallen into a Pit or have lost his way among the Woods the deeper he finds the Pit and the more remote from any Village or company that he conceives himself to be the louder he calls and the more multiplies his cryes It is just so with a truly sanctified soul The more eager and violent is her Love of God the more earnestly it longs and Psal 51. 1 and 12. yearns after him and the comforts of his presence and when God withdraws himself from it the further that he seems to remove the deeper still is the sigh the more humble the Prostration the more dejected the countenance and the more earnest are the Cryes and more plentifull the Tears and the more ardent still the Prayers Our earnest Longings and * Psal 42. per tot pantings after God and the Joy of his countenance without any other Monitor and Instructor can advance and heighten our devotions Indeed nothing but Love and more then ordinary Affection can quicken and raise them as nothing but Moses Rod could make the Waters flow and gush forth from the Rock in the Wilderness Love is often compared to Fire As then the Fire must raise the Spirits in the Alembick before any water can distill and drop and as the more Spirits are raised by it the more Water issues forth so the Flames of holy Love must first raise the spirit of zeal and devotion in us before it will dissolve into Tears and breathe out in Sighs and as that spirit of zeal and true devotion does increase the deeper will be the Groan the more vehement will be our Prayers And therefore S. †Mat. 27. 46. Mar. 15. 34. Matthew tells us that our Saviour when * Subtraxit visionem non dissolvit unionem Leo. now the comfortable Influence of the Deity was suspended he cryed with a loud voyce My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And of this devotion this Ardency it is the Doctor speaks and of this onely he understands S. Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed the more carnestly § 8. And therefore you to no purpose add when the case already is so plain JEANES Secondly In this your reply unto me you expresly averr that the inward Acts of Christs Love of God were more intense at one time then at another Sect. 21. and I hope you have more Philosophy then to confound the inward Acts and the outward expressions of Love That which herein hath occasioned your mistake c. § 9. What the Doctor so expresly averrs in his 21. Section has already been cleared and sufficiently demonstrated And though you beguile your self and others with the ambiguity of this Term the Love of God yet the Doctors meaning is so plain that it is impossible for any man to be deceived in it that resolves not to be willingly mistaken § 10. But you are not deluded in your hopes The Doctor has more Philosophy then to confound the Inward and Outward Acts and Expressions of Love though you betray so little Ethicks to divide and sever them For though the Metaphysician and Naturalist may precisely and abstractly consider them yet the Divine and Moralist know that as the Soul Vid. Durand l. 2. sent dist 42. q 1. A. B. C q. 2. ib. Aquin 1. 2. q. 11 art 4. q. 18. art 6. in Corp. q. 20. art 3. in corp Suarez infra citat and Body make a man so the Inward and the Outward Act concurr to make up one compleat Moral Action Without this the Outward Expressions are but empty Paint and Varnish and all that they can do is but to dress and tire an Hypocrite to make him truely more ugly because it onely makes him more handsome to the eye and appear otherwise then he is § 11. And now our Refuter as if he were some Licentiate in Physick having cast the Doctors Water and as he conceives discovered his distemper he proceeds to acquaint him with the Procatartick cause of his Malady JEANES That which hath herein occasioned your mistake is I believe a supposal that the inward acts of love and the outward expressions thereof are if they be sincere alwayes exactly proportioned in point of degree but this proposition hath no truth in it as you will easily find if you attempt the proof of it who almost but may easily c. § 12. That the Inward Acts of Love and the Outward expressions thereof if they be sincere are alwayes exactly that is Arithmetically proportioned in point of degree so as they be equall and parallel in graduall intension * Jeanes Answer to the Ectenest p. 16. as you formerly express your self is an imaginary phantà sm and Creature of your own brain and no supposall of the Doctors But that the Ardency of the Inward Acts does ordinarily rise and fall according to Geometricall proportion as the Outward Expressions gradually do though the increase and decrease is not Arithmetically parallel in both is a most commonly received Truth in the practise and opinion of all sorts of people in the world for ought I find to the contrary and has been already demonstrated and therefore needs not further Proof § 13. What follows is a very clear mistake and belongs not to the matter you would prove by it When therefore you ask the question and say JEANES p. 38. Who almost but may easily conceive how 't is very ordinary for the outward expressions of Love to be gradually beneath the inward Acts thereof He is no hypocrite in expressing his Love that loveth inwardly more then he expresseth outwardly the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall
but also transcend the most sincere expressions of Love It may be so in all men and I shall alleage two reasons why in Christ c. § 14. To your first question I return that it is readily granted For every prudent Father does often deal so with the child he most loves and God himself sometimes in mercy hides his face and withdraws the light of his countenance from his dear children and servants when yet with an everlasting Love he affects and with everlasting kindness will have Jer. 31 3. Isa 54. 8. mercy upon them But will you thence conclude against the express letter of the Gospell that Christs earnestness in prayer was not greater in his Agony then at other times Sir you must consider that you are not now to remonstrate what may possibly come to pass or what in other men at other times and in other cases happens but what de facto then was at the time of our Saviours bloody Agony And who sees not at first glance that your Proofs fall a hundred short of your Conclusion For we are not now upon the disquisition and enquiry of what was Physicê and naturally possible but what was Morally such and what de facto according to S. Lukes plain Narration and the ordinary course and Practise of men did then come to pass And therefore since the Rule of the Law is that illud possumus quod Jure possumus if it has already appeared and clearly been demonstrated that the Christian Grace of Sincerity does ordinarily and in most cases require it and usually where the Charity is true and perfect and not counterfeit or innocently concealed for the advantage of the beloved there is and ought to be a proportionable correspondence between the Outward and the Inward Acts of Love and as the one falls or rises so also in Proportion do the other then it will not be enough to inferr which yet is all you conclude that the degrees of the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall but also transcend the most sincere expressions you must prove that they still must and ought to do so which I think will be impossible But yet let me tell you that if you should perform this more then Herculean Task you will still be very far short of concluding any thing against the Doctor For again I must remember you that we are not now speaking of the Elicite Acts of the Formall virtue of Charity and the Love of God properly taken but onely of the Imperate Acts of that Charity the Ardency of Prayer which is onely Tropically such and this will yet make your task more impossible § 15. And therefore whereas you add for a Confirmation that he is no hypocrite in expressing his Love that loves Inwardly more then he expresseth Outwardly I answer that this is manifestly impertinent to the matter in debate Christs Ardency in Prayer And though in some cases I shall make no scruple to grant it yet mind you I must that the Christian Grace of sincerity requires that in the Ordinary Course of humane affairs as our Love should not be Personate so it should be fruitfull and operative otherwise it would in this be lame and imperfect as well as in the other it would be counterfeit And this further manifests that from such not onely vain and impertinent but also false allegations as understood according to the ordinary course of morality and practise among men you will never be able to demonstrate that our Saviour in his Agony did not more earnestly according to the inward Act and Fervour deprecate his last bitter cup then any other worldly cross and affliction to which he was exposed in the dayes of his flesh § 16. But yet he will essay to make good his undertaking JEANES It may be so in all men and I shall alleage two reasons why in Christ the inward Acts of his Love were alwayes equally intense though the outward expressions thereof were gradually different § 17. And if you can make this good in the sense that the Doctor understands all along the Phrase The Love of God nay if you can clearly prove it in your own I am so great a friend to any Reason you shall bring that though you have failed in all your other undertakings yet I shall give you the whole cause for that single Reasons sake § 18. Let us weigh then your reasons to this Purpose and try them at the touchstone JEANES The first reason agreeth unto Christ in common with other men Christ as man was alwayes obliged unto the most intense ardent and fervent inward acts of Love of God But he was not c. § 19. Say you so Sir Nay then I do not doubt but notwithstanding my fair proffer you yet will fall short and so lose the golden Ball at last § 20. For Christ as Mediator and one that had undertook to pay our debt was not onely Priviledged in the humane nature by virtue of the hypostaticall union to be holy harmless undefiled but by virtue of the Covenant and contract betwixt him and the Father as well as by that First made with all mankind in Adam was obliged to be spotless and innocent otherwise he could never have been that Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world But then Man though in his integrity by virtue of the first Covenant he were bound to sinless perfection yet now since the Fall and the Fatall curse incurred and in Part inflicted on him he may as justly by that or any other New Covenant be obliged to be Immortall as the Condition of his Salvation as to be absolutely sinless and pure from all even Originall Pollution since his Corruption as well as his Mortality is an equall fruit of the first Sin and it is a part of the Curse and Punishment of Adam even inflicted on him by God that all his posterity should be left to be born after the similitude of his fallen nature For by one man sin entred into the world and death Rom. 5. 12. by sin and so death by that one passed upon all men to condemnation for that all have sinned or as S. Austin constantly reads it in quo omnes peccaverunt in whom all have sinned § 21. As then God may justly though not by Positive infliction yet by spirituall desertion and Penall decree punish one sin with an other so the Scripture assures us that this originall guilt and pollution and the vitious effects of it seize on us as a part of our punishment and Praeludium of eternall damnation and all the sons of Adam for their transgression in him are by virtue of the first covenant as certainly dead in Law and in some measure also executed as the damned are now in Hell though not so absolutely so irreversibly as they I would not be mistaken I say by virtue of that Covenant so certainly dead in Law though not so irreversibly And if the Mediatour of the new Covenant
which the * Rom. 7. 12. law still holy and the Commandment holy just and good is the eternall Rule as the full condition of their Justification here and Salvation hereafter § 32. And thus is evidently shewed the great difference between the Obligation of our Saviour to holiness and purity and that of all other Men besides § 33. Though then it is readily granted to our Refuter that Legal sinless perfection did admit of no degrees nor growth nor proficiency nothing less then what was absolutely sin-less yet since even M. Cawdrey himself grants that Cawdreys Triplex Diatribe p. 116. our Saviour still innocent and spotless did yet supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and do more then the law required particularly in the degree of affection in prayer if not in the prayer it self it evidently follows that such Perfection as this will not at least according to this doctrine of M. Cawdrey conclude that the inward Acts of our Saviours Charity were alwayes equally intense but onely that they were equally innocent which as the Doctor does in that very place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expresly grant so it is so far from infringing his Assertion of the greater ardency in Christs prayer that he layes it down as the very Basis and foundation of his Argument § 34. But since M. Cawdrey's concessions may be of little moment to our Refuter whose Apologist yet he is I shall onely mind him that it is not legal sinless perfection that the Doctor any where speaks of when he sayes it consists in a latitude and has degrees but onely the sincerity of this or that particular grace in this or that particular performance suppose of prayer or alms-deeds or the like above what any particular Law requires of all persons at all times and in all Cases And therefore his following Reasons might very well have been spared that concern so distant a purpose § 35. But at least for our promise sake we will hear his Reasons for all that JEANES The first Reason agreeth unto Christ in Common with other men Christ as man was alwaies obliged unto the most intense ardent and fervent inward Acts of love of God but he was not alwayes obliged unto the most intense expressions of these inward Acts the reason of the difference between his obligation unto the intension of the inward Acts of his Love and his obligation unto the intension of the outward expressions thereof you may fetch from what is said by Aquinas secunda secundae q. 27. art 6. ad tertium Nec est simile de interiori actu Charitatis exterioribus actibus Nam interior actus Charitatis habet rationem finis quia ultimum bonum hominis consistit in hoc quod anima Deo inhaereat secundum illud Psalmi mihi adhaerere Deo bonum est Exteriores autem actus sunt sicut ad finem ideo sunt commensurandi secundum charitatem secundum rationem The second reason is peculiar unto Christ c. § 36. The Argument stands thus If Christ as man were obliged to the most intense Inward Acts but not to the most intense Outward expressions then there may be a graduall difference between the Inward Acts and the Outward expressions of Love But Christ was obliged c. ergo § 37. The Assumption consists of two parts and therefore cannot be answered at once § 38. To the first part then I say that this Proposition Christ as man was alwayes obliged unto the most intense inward Acts of Love of God is very ambiguous and therefore must be distinguished First then Christ as Man may be considered according to his twofold state either of Comprehensor in the superiour part of his soul or as Viator Secondly this term The love of God may be diversly understood For first either it may signifie the Love of God properly and as taken in a Formall sense for that which the Schools call Dilectio Dei and Aquinas and the Schoolmen call Charitas ut finis or Metonymically and in a Causall sense for the Love of our Neighbour for Gods sake or any other virtue or Grace of the first table suppose of Religion and the like that springs from the Love of God and is in order to him And this is that which the Schools call Charitas ut medium and Charitas Praecepti Thirdly this phrase the most intense ardent and fervent inward Acts of love may be variously taken For first either they may signifie the most intense absolutely and simply that the humane nature of Christ either by the omnipotent power of God can or else de facto shall ever arrive at Or secondly Comparatively and that either first in respect of the Law or secondly in respect of the present State or thirdly in respect of the grace or quality precisely and abstractly considered § 39. Now unless these be distinctly considered it is impossible to give a true and satisfactory answer And for want of this distinct consideration it is that our Refuter all along is so confused in his discourse and exposed to so many errours and mistakes § 40. First then Christ as Man considered in the state of comprehensor and enjoying the beatificall vision in his mind was not under any Obligation to love God because as the learned Chamier well observes Precepts are not given to Angels and the spirits of just men made perfect because they Chamier Panstrat tom 3. l. 6. c. 12. §. 35. p. 191. Col. 2. D. Vid Suarez in 3. P. Them â—o 1. disput 37. sect 4. p. 516. col 2. B. are extra statum merendi in a state not of Tryall but of Trust not in the way but at the end of their Race And the Schools resolve that this Beatifick love of God was simpliciter necessarius whereby our Saviour loved him to the utmost height possible for that state as a naturall and necessary consequent of the beatificall vision Secondly Christ as considered in the state of viator was not obliged to the most intense Act simply and absolutely attainable or as enjoyed by him as Comprehensor for this implyes a contradiction in Adjecto that he should be Comprehensor and viator in one and the same respect Thirdly Christ as viator was obliged to the most intense love of God formally taken that he in that state could possibly arrive at by the assistance of grace Fourthly Christ as viator was obliged to the most intense Acts of Charity Metonymically taken that the Law of God still required Fifthly The quality and grace of the love of God properly taken as precisely and abstractly considered has no set limits and periods beyond which it cannot be increased no such gradus ad octo as all other Naturall Qualities capable of intension and remission have And consequently nor Christ nor any Man else is obliged to any one such highest degree Sixthly the love of God as Metonymically taken for the love of our Neighbours has its set
bounds and limits For we must love them as our selves and some more some less according to their nearness of allyance and kindred and Countrey and the grace of God shining in them and the like And therefore it is resolved in the Schools that datur ordo in charitate And then for the other virtues and graces they have all except the three Theologicall Graces of Faith Hope and Charity that have an infinite Object God and therefore can have no limits their excesses as well as defects they have their set periods and bounds they consist as Aquinas resolves in a middle point between two extreams But then this middle point also is not like the Eclipticke but the Zodiack and consists in a Latitude And therefore Seventhly in these last the Law requires not at all times the most intense degree of the Act but onely such a degree as befits the Object at this time and with relation to all other Circumstances § 41. And hence it is that the Doctor speaking onely of some of these Acts in particular affirms them to consist in a latitude and that in respect of the particular Law obliging all men to the performance of them there may be degrees above that particular command that God leaves to our Liberty freely to exercise that so we may have something to offer to him freely out of those very graces which himself has freely bestowed upon us And consequently that Christ in the Acts and Exercise of these in particular the Ardency of Prayer was not alwayes obliged to one equall uniform highest degree of intensness And therefore the first part of his Assumption as confronted to D. Hammonds Assertion is unsound § 42. All these in their severall orders have been largely prosecuted and confirmed and therefore nothing now remains but that we proceed to the second part or Proposition contained in the Assumption § 43. And it is this But Christ was not alwayes obliged unto the most intense expressions of these inward Acts of his Love § 44. To which I answer that if by the Expression of these inward Acts he means the outward sensible expressions of the inward acts it is thus far granted that nor Christ nor any man else is obliged to any one particular act or kind of outward expression suppose in prayer to use any one particular gesture or language or form and the like but by Gods law is left indifferent to use any that is quoad specificationem decent and fitting § 45. But then I must add that Aquinas his authority comes not up to this purpose nor am I moved to this concession for any reason that I or any man else can gather from the passage cited to confirm it For Aquinas here means not by the exteriour acts of charity the outward sensible expressions of it but onely the performances of those duties and graces of the first and second table quae sunt in ordine ad finem which God requires us to perform in order to our last end and happiness our eternall union and sight and love and enjoyment of God in heaven The exteriour acts of charity he there means are I say no other then the acts and performance of all virtues and graces whatsoever as no man that is any way versed in that Author can be ignorant § 46. But because our Refuter is a Schoolman and a Souldier and resolves to dispute every inch of ground with us I shall for a full displaying of his Ignorance proceed to make it good § 47. Thus then I lay down the full sense of the place By this interior actus charitatis the inward act of divine love the Schoolman means the immanent and elicite act of that love that is immediately fixed on God in which love mans last happiness consists This other where he calls finis praecepti from S. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy the end of the commandment because all the commandments onely drive at this and aim to bring us unto God And in the place here urged he sayes it has rationem finis because mans last happiness consists in this love and this union of the soul with God in heaven By the exteriour acts of charity he means not the materiall sensible expressions as for instance the more abundance of tears deeper sighs more patheticall phrases and forms and expressions more humble gestures of the body in prayer which is all the heightening and advancement our Refuter will allow to our Saviours ardency in prayer in the garden not the outward acts but morall duties and gratious works and performances of any virtue or grace that the law of God prescribes § 48. The first are elicite acts of divine love and therefore immanent and interiour to it But these latter morall duties are imperate acts of that love And therefore though they are or may be intrinsecall to the will wherein they are subjected yet are they extrinsecal to charity belong not to the formall essence and nature of it but are outward fruits and effects and symptomes of it because the more the man loves God the more he will labour to keep his commandments and the more sincere and cordiall he is in the exercise of any duty or grace the more it appears that he truly loves God that has commanded it But then though these be exteriour because imperate acts of divine love yet in their formall nature and essence they are immanent acts of the will because they are the elicite acts of the virtuous habits there seated and consequently they are not as our Refuter very ignorantly outward corporeall sensible tokens and expressions For the exteriour Acts of Charity he speaks of he sayes are siout ad finem such which God has commanded us to perform as the way and means that we may be perfectly united to him and see and enjoy his goodness in the land of the living and love him eternally ideo sunt commensur andi secundum charitatem secundum rationem and therefore are to be measured and proportioned according to charity and reason which words cannot possibly have any sense after the meaning of our Refuter § 49. Now that this and no other is the meaning of Aquinas will appear from the very question it self the answer in corpore and the beginning of this answer ad tertium which our Refuter warily omitted The question is utrum charitas habeat modum whether charity has any set bounds or limits any gradus ad octo as M. Cawdrey and our Refuter sayes it has He resolves it in the Negative from the authority of S. Bernard Causa diligendi Deum est Deus ipse modus sine modo His answer in corpore is this Dicendum quod modus importat quandam mensurae determinationem In omnibus appetibilibus agilibus mensura est finis Et ideo finis secundum seipsum habet modum ea vero quae sunt ad finem habent modum ex eo quod sunt fini proportionata Finis
autem omnium actionum humanarum affectionum est dilectio Dei per quam maximè attingimus ultimum finem ut supra q. 23. art 6. dictum est Et idèo in dilectione Dei non potest accipi modus sicut in re mensuratâ ut sit in câ accipere plus minus sed sicut invenitur modus in mensura in quâ non potest esse excessus sed quanto plus attingitur regula tanto melius est ita quanto Deus plus diligitur tanto est dilectio melior Et sic as he goes on in his answer ad primum etiam charitas quae habet modum sicut mensura praeeminet aliis virtutibus quae habent modum sicut mensurata And so ad tertium Dicendum quod affectio illa cujus objectum subjacet judicio rationis est ratione mensuranda sed objectum divine dilectionis quod est Deus excedit judicium rationis ideo non mensuratur ratione sed rationem excedit Nec est simile de interiori actu charitatis which is the passage our Refuter insists on exterioribus actibus c. Nor is there the same Reason for the love of God and the acts of all other virtues and graces which have their set bounds and limits proportionable to charity and right reason Though a man can never love God too much in respect of the formall act yet his neighbour he may as has already been shewed from Durand on this very Question § 50. And thus also Cajetan in his Commentary on the Cajetan in loc place understands his Master Author sayes he comparat interiorem actum charitatis ad actus exteriores imperatos qui sunt ad finem § 51. But let Aquinas explain himself in the places he himself referrs to 2. 2. q. 23. art 6. in corp art 7. in corp vid. etiamque 44. art 1. in corp art 2. art 3. in corp where also in his answer ad secundum he sayes Alii actus charitatis consequuntur ex actu dilectionis sicut effectus ex causâ ut ex supra dictis patet unde in praeceptis dilectionis virtute includuntur praecepta de aliis actibus c. And this will also further appear from the places already quoted from Aquinas § 52. And now that this doctrine may not onely appear full and home to the meaning of Aquinas but commonly also received among the Schoolmen I shall for confirmation add a passage or two from the very accurate Suarez as our Refuter himself calls him and one as well acquainted I suppose with the meaning of this Author as any Commentator new or old Duplices esse solent sayes he virtutum Suarez de Relig tom 1 l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. moralium actus interni sc externi Quoniam verò hae voces varias habent significationes ut supra attigi in praesenti per internos actus solum intelligimus eos qui proxime ac per se fiunt vel fieri possunt ab ipso habitu proceduntque ex immediatâ inclinatione ipsius quando ex habitu fiunt aut si illum praecedant ipsum secum afferunt vel efficiendo ut in acquisitis vel proxime ad illum disponendo ut in infusis Externos autem actus voco omnes illos qui non fiunt ab habitu nisi mediantibus his prioribus actibus c. And then in his second Chapter of that book he adds further to this purpose Et juxta hunc loquendi modum hi exteriores actus distingui Suarez ibid. c. 2. §. 2. utrum praeter actus internos habeat Religio actus externos qui illi sunt possunt nam quidem sunt corporales quidam vero spirituales Rursus spirituales distingui possunt in actus intellectus voluntatis nam utrisque coli potest Deus ut infra dicetur latius dixi in 1. tom ad 3. Partem Aquin. Hic autem cultus qui per actus mentis fit communi usu interior potius appellatur ut distinguatur ab illo qui exhibetur per actus corporis nos autem explicuimus proprium respectum quem tales actus habent ad ipsam virtutem Quanquam adverti potest aliud esse loqui de cultu sub nomine cultus aliud verò sub nomine actus Cultus enim solum dicitur cultus internus vel externus quia intus in animâ vel extra per corpus fit uterque autem cultus dici potest actus externus ipsius Religionis quia sic denominatur per habitudinem ad virtutem tanquam ad principium suum quodam modo extrinsecum seu remotum Actus autem ipse immediate procedens à religione quem vocamus internum non est propriè cultus neque intrinsecus neque extrinsecus sed est affectus celendi Deum qui à cultu distinguitur sicut actus à materiali objecto Nihilominus saepe confundi solent hae voces ita ut omnis cultus interior dicatur etiam actus interior religionis quomodo nos saepe cum multis loquemur advertendo illa duo non converti quia non omnis actus internus potest dici cultus sed ille tantum qui remotus imperatus est nam alius qui est propinquior elicitus non est cultus sed affectus cultus Est enim as he had before delivered maxime advertendum Suarez ib. l. 1. c. 7. S. 2. quod supra indicavi in his virtutibus moralibus eosdem actus externos qui à virtute fiunt sunt effectus internorum actuum elicitorum à virtute secundum se sumptos ut priores inordine intentionis ut sic dicam esse objectum seu materiam talium virtutum Thus he § 53. The case is very clear let the terms onely be changed and it will aswell fit the place of Aquinas as the subject matter he is upon And I doubt not but he that shall consult the same Authors Commentary on that very place of Aquinas here cited by our Refuter shall find it thus expounded But for want of books I must content my self with what is here produced § 54. And now let the world judge Is not our Refuter a very profound Schoolman And does he not read Aquinas to purpose That after his acquaintance with that Author and his very accurate Suarez cannot learn to distinguish between actus dilectionis Dei extrinsecos and actus voluntati extrinsecos That is so easily captivated in his intellect and confounded with the ambiguity of a word and cannot perceive a difference between the outward sensible expressions of the acts of divine love and the imperate acts of it the interiour and elicite acts of all virtues and graces performed at the empire and command of this love and therefore called the exteriour acts of this love because that is the outward and remote cause and principle of them § 55. How then can I hope that his second reason should prevail
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
behaviour as if you were some Novice or Fresh-man in the Schools and knew not how to speak but in a Criticall way But what is worst of all he craftily accuses you as a Factor for Popery and broaching such doctrines that â—a â—9 30 31. the Protestants generally oppose in Bellarmine and his Complices Nay he is not ashamed to charge your Doctrine as if it were little less then * Pag. 27. Hereticall and speaks in plain terms that your Assertion is * Nay not only Aquinas but generally all the Schoolmen and Civilians too are so precise in this Particular as that among the Degrees of Damnable Propositions are ranked by them not onely Propositions downrightly Hereticall but also Propositio sapiens Haeresin Propositio male sonans every Proposition that doth but smell that hath but a smack of Heresie that sounds but ill and suspiciously c. Mr. H. Jeanes of Abstinence from all Appearance of Evill 8o. Oxon. 1640. p. 34 35. and for this he quotes Albertinus and Alphonsus à Castro vid. loc Propositio male sonans harshly sounding in the ears of Christians that are jealous of their Masters honour and that now since his Resutation is published he hopes it will be ingeniously confessed by your self upon a review of it And then for a close he declares in his very Title Page that he has proved it to be utterly irreconcilable with the 1. Fullness of Christs Habituall Grace 2. The Perpetuall Happiness and 3. the Impeccability of his Soul I confess at first reading I was troubled at this usage but since I see it is the Mode of confuting D. Hammond And therefore finding the Adversary Confident and Scornfull but withall very weak I resolved to display both his Ignorance and Folly to the view of all even the meanest spectators Nor could I in Justice do less to one that had so unworthily handled you without any Provocation Indeed what course was else to be taken to answer such severe but uningenuous Criminations Should I onely have tamely replyed that I had well weighed your Reasons and considered his Replyes and carefully consulted the Authors he referrs to and had found he was mistaken and so left him to a further Proof and Confirmation of his Objections I confess that this had been a very short way and satisfactory enough For by the Laws and Rules of Disputation nothing more is required of the Respondent but to deny or distinguish where he sees cause or else plainly to grant the Argument and the Opponent whose place your Refuter evidently sustains is bound to prosecute his Objection till he make the Defendent to yield to the force of his Reason or by Distinction to shew that it concerns not the Question But then withall I considered that if I should have taken this course I should have said little to the greatest part of Readers in your Apologie and Defence For first I saw that his Reply was Printed I suppose with Licence and Approbation of the present University at Oxford And then secondly I understood that he had many Admirers especially among Countrey Divines and young Students for his skil in Schoole-learning now a stranger among us And thirdly I considered that he being a writer of tall Name and strong repute among many I should have gained nothing but contempt among them for such Answers and that the Denyall of a Nameless Author without Credit and without Fame would not at all have Ballanced against the weight of so valued a Schoolman But lastly which most moved me I was not ignorant that as the Books he referrs to were very rarely to be had especially in Private Studies so even those that had them would rather have believed his suggestions against mine then put themselves to the Trouble and Expence of consulting and perusall of Authors to umpire the difference And therefore I judged it necessary for the Readers satisfaction and the full defence of that Truth you maintain to lay down the Authors words at large and clearly thence prove either his prevaricating or mistakes And this is one main Reason of the increase of the Bulk A second Motive that drew me to this length was my unwillingness altogether to spend time in the unprofitable discoveries of an other man's errours but I rather desired to be didacticall and instructive And therefore where I saw reason and the argument was profitable and materiall I let my pen run beyond the ordinary limits of an elenchticall discourse And because I saw little or nothing as yet said on either side to explain the nature of that ardency and love which was the subject matter of the Dispute I resolved as occasion offered to state it as clearly as I could and to my poor abilities open the true nature of it that so the Reader might be satisfied in the business of the Controversie and not altogether lose his prospect after the substance amidst the clouds and smoke of contention but aswell discover the full lineaments and pourtraicture of that truth you maintain as the mistakes of your adversary and his false shapes and phantasms of it A third Reason was because I found your Refuter having upon the matter done with your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall to oppose your Doctrine in gross by Arguments drawn from the fullness and perfection of Christs habituall grace his perpetuall uninterrupted happiness and impeccability and from thence had largely digressed to censure a passage in your Treatise of Will-worship about the sense of the first and great Commandment of Love and this I must confess made me willing to amplifie and digress as well as he Nor have I onely contented my self to answer his Arguments and acquit and vindicate your Doctrine from the coarse aspersions thrown upon it of Popishly affected but in a Scholasticall way have treated of the Themes themselves as well as discovered the gross ignorance of your Adversary And because his discourse lead me to consider those high and noble Themes of the Love of God and perfection both Legall and Evangelicall as also Christs two fold state of Comprehensor and Viator I was willing to treat of them with that Industry and care as so weighty Arguments deserved and have as well Didactically as Eristically considered them And withall upon occasion where M. Jeanes and M. Cawdrey did agree upon the same common principles of opposition to you I have though contrary to my first design and aim fallen upon a vindication of some passages in your Tract of Will-worship which M. Cawdrey and he had censured and upon that occasion also I have cleared and confirmed diverse passages in your Account to the Triplex Diatribe And then which is the last great Reason of the bulk of this Discourse I have taken occasion to prove the Invariability of Gods love and to demonstrate that it is no changeable transcendent quality but one immutable and substantiall act against Crellius and the Socinians and yet withall declare how God notwithstanding
this is and may be said to love some more and some less I have spoken also of the nature of Acts and Habits in order to that habituall and actuall love of Christ the main business of the Controversie I have proved and confirmed the fullness of Christs habituall grace I have treated of his merits and the nature of his sufferings and the greatness of them in his bloody agony of his twofold will and how as God-man he was in capacity to pray of his ardency in prayer and how he might earnestly desire a removall of that cup which yet he came to drink off I have treated also of the severall kinds of love agreeing to him as viator and comprehensor of his zeal and hope and trust in God and shewed what love of concupiscence and complacency in him was capable of increase and how all these are different from ardency in Prayer I have also taken occasion in order to M. Cawdrey but with some reflexions on M. Jeanes to treat of counsels Evangelicall and Gospel-freewill-offerings of perfection of life and perfection of state of works of supererogation to speak of originall sin and the opinion of S. Austin in it of Man's threefold state of growth in grace of different degrees in glory of the inequality of the Saints and Angels love of God in heaven and of Adam's possibility of proficiency in grace in the state of Innocence of lukewarmness and sincerity of justification and of the difference of the two Covenants and Mans severall obligation under them with other points of this nature together with some Metaphysicall and Philosophicall notions interspersed All which as they are themes of high nature and would not admit of a running discourse so they are not altogether digressions from the main Argument especially in order to the Refuters manner of reasoning that in many parts required it And becausethe Reader will not ordinarily meet with such arguments treated on in our language especially in a Scholastical way I was willing to gratifie him in them to the utmost of my power And if he be offended with this my labour of love and too officious desire to please him I here promise before you that if he pardon me this once he shall not have occasion to blame me for a second-such-offence And now having given you the true Reasons of the length of this Discourse it will be fit I also make you some account of my stile and my manner of handling it As then your Refuter every where pretends to Philosophy and the Schools so fit it was I should treat him in a Scholasticall way and in writings of this kind The best ornament arises from the strength and reason of the discourse and he is most eloquent that can express his matter clearest and make such knotty stuff plain I have seen the statue of a Roman Gladiator pourtrayed naked and as combating his enemy in the midst of the Amphitheater And it was a piece of high worth and curious art and more rich in the lively representation of the wrathfulness of the look the stretched and well set muscles the strong and brawny parts and the vigour and agility of the limbs then if he had been carved in the robes of a Senator And therefore since my work was for argument and defence I chose to build my Fabrick not curious but strong and because much of my materials were of marble I laboured onely to polish not to paint it And this is the genuine true beauty that springs from the naturall compactedness and solidity of the stone and he that strives to trim it with painting though of gold and vermilion doth but hide not adorn it Such embellishments are onely fit for less solid materials And therefore Sir as I cannot tempt my Reader or beguile his patience to the end of the discourse with artificiall expressions and curious conceits and lively flashes of wit so I must tell him that if he look for colours and varnish and eloquence he must not seek after Architects and Schoolmen but Limners and Romances For though Embroderies and lace rich jewels and curled tresses are the usuall ornaments of brides yet they are as unhandsome and commonly suspected as meretricious in matrons I care not then for neatness if you that are best able judge me solid and strong And I doubt not but the knowing Reader will be better contented with the plain demonstration and proof of a conclusion then if I had written in a strain of the declamations of Quintilian and Seneca's controversies But yet Sir because the age is more for phansie then reason and better pleased with fine and aery discourses then with solid and plain and because I have known some exquisite Architects that have been curious Painters too I was willing where the matter would bear and needed rather illustration then proof to let my phansie take wing and to range and sore about like a haggard Hawke that in a Sunshine day more minds her weathering then her prey And willing I was though in the middest of the Schools not to be alwayes severe but amidst business and reason to yield a little to the garbe and mode of the age and to gratifie the Printer so far as to let the world see that where my expressions are plain and after the manner of the Schools it arose not altogether from barrenness of wit and a lowness of expression but election and choice And for this as I have the authority of a great Master of wit and method at Rome so I have seen in noble buildings where the foundation has been of rough and solid stone and the pillars of marble and the walls of plain Ashler yet the Pillasters and Capitalls and the Architraves and Freezes that bear no stress in the building have been artificially carved And now having said this Sir I have but onely told you my design and platform I speak not of my performance That were a piece of vanity unpardonable This was onely in Idea in my prospect and aim and what I desired to accomplish and perfect when I undertook your defence For I thought you deserved the best Apology could be writ which pardon me your modesty if I say none can make but Doctor Hammond If I have done any thing in order to the vindication of the truth and you I have then my ambition and all the reward that I desire is that you will not enquire after me nor ask after my name But if you and the Reader shall find nothing in me to content you then inflict upon me the worst censure that can befall a bad Author and enquire not at all after me but let me be forgotten and thought unworthy of a name Whether then you approve or condemn I have my sole aim if I continue unknown THE ADVERTISEMENT to the READER Courteous Reader THou art to be advertised of three things The first is that though the Author be assured that things once well done are alwayes done soon and