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
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
Aristoteles Assembly-notes Athanasius Augustinus Author imperf Op. B Bartolus Basilius M. Baxter Beda Bellarminus Bernardus Beza Biddle Biel. Bonaventura Boys El. Brugensis Luc. Burgersdicius Buxtorfius C Cajetanus Calvinus Cameron Capreolus Catechismus Racoviens Cavellus Chamier Chrysostomus Collegium Complutense Crellius Cyprianus Cyrillus Alex. D Dailler Damascenus Danaeus Davenant B. Deodate Digest Diodorus Siculus Dion Dionysius Downham B. Drusius Durandus E Eckhardus Epiphanius Erasmus Estius Eusebius Euthymius F Fagius Paulus Field Forbesius Fulgentius G Gregorius M. Gregorius Naz. Grotius H Halensis Heinsius Henriquez Hieronymus Hilarius Hobbs Hooker Horatius Hùgo de S. Victore Hurtado de Mendoza Hyperius I Jansenius Javellus Juvenalis K Keckermannus L Lanfrancus Leo M. Liturgia Grae. Lombardus Lucianus Lutherus M Maldonatus Maresius Martialis Martyr P. Medina Morton B. Mountague B. Musculus W. N Navarrus Pet. Neopolitanus Nierembergius O Occham Optatus Orbellis D. Origenes Ovidius P Paulinus Paulus Jur. Piscator Plato Platus Plinius Sen. Q Quintilianus R Robuffus Reynolds Ed. Richardus Armachanus Riverius Ruerius Ruvio S Sales Fr. Salmasius Scaliger Ju. Scaliger Jos Scheiblerus Schenchius Scnedewinus Scotus Scultetus Selneccerus Sennertus Sextus Empiricus S. Joseph Smiglecius Soto Stupleton Strabo Strada T Tertullianus Theodoretus Theophylactus Toletus Tridentinum Conc. V D. Valentia Greg. Valerius Max. Victor Antioch Vincentius Lir. Virgilius Volkelius Vorstius Vossius J. Gâ—r Vrsinus W White B. Windelinus Wingate Wotton Doctor HAMMONDS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Defended c. SECT 1. 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 Eares 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 § 1. MAlum omen in limine The Romans counted it Ominous if they stumbled at the threshold when they first set forth on any business Though I am far from approving any such ridiculous superstitions and fond idle conceipts yet I cannot behold it as any prosperous Symptome of this Refuter's fair carriage in the Managing this controversie that he should thus palpably prevaricate in the very Frontispiece of his Pamphlet § 2. For whereas Doctor Hammond had thus stiled his Reply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or The degrees of Ardency in Christs Prayer Reconciled with his fulness of habitual Grace This Refuter has thus advantagiously changed it Doctor Hammond his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or A greater Ardency in Christ's love of God at one time than another proved to be utterly irreconcileable 1. With his fulness of habitual Grace 2. The perpetual happiness and 3. The impeccability of his Soul It is true indeed this alteration serves little to the real confutation of his Adversary yet in the issue and recess it will be very prejudicial to Doctor Hammond and the truth maintained by him § 3. For how many be there in the world whose business will not suffer them or whose curiosity will not carry them on to read further than the very Titles of Books And yet these from this Lantschap-Discovery can talk as confidently and censure as severely as if they had throughly read and weighed every line and Period in the whole Discourse How many are there that read Books out of Interest and faction that are passionately desirous that every one should be in the wrong confuted that is not of their party These weigh not reasons but names and put not judgement into the ballance but prejudice and advantage They had rather truth should suffer than the cause they are engaged in and are abundantly satisfied to see an Adversary answered whatsoever Arts or Means are made use of to blow up a Refutation How many also are there in the world that are not able to distinguish truth from Pretences and shapes and Pictures from solid bodies that think all is right that is vehemently pretended and every Apparition real that presents it self to their deluded sense and Imagination Nay how few are there even of those who have the skill and abilities to judge that either have the patience or the leasure in controversies of this nature to compare Author with Author and Reply and Rejoynder together § 4. And yet who seeth not but every one of those which together make up the only considerable number of Readers are likely to be imposed on by this Change and Doctor Hammond be concluded guilty in their Judgements of a gross and palpable mistake § 5. For who is there almost so green a Catechumen and Neophyte in the Christian faith that knows God to be the only good and the last end of Man but will be ready to reply against the Doctor that we cannot love God sufficiently and that we must therefore love him to the utmost height we can that he who loves not God with all his heart with all his soul and with all his might doth not love him as much as God deserves or as much as man ought and therefore to maintain a greater Ardency in Christ's love of God at one time than another must be a dangerous Error bordering on that Heresie that denyes the God-head of our Saviour an Error that pulls the Crown of innocence and happiness and perfection from his head Doctor Hammond right or wrong is now abundantly confuted in the Judgement of the Many and it will be almost an impossible Task and an unpardonable crime to undertake his defence So great a School-man as Mr. Henry Jeanes of Chedzey has lost his labour in this rejoynder and has been only too curteous in honouring Doctor Hammonds gross Error with a Scholastical Refutation His Arguments and Pains might have been spared in opposing that so palpable mistake which at first-sight discovers it self in the naked proposal of it § 6. Indeed this Phrase The love of God to English eares carries with it nothing less than that high and transcendent Act of the Soul that immediately fixes on God as it 's proper Object And therefore if the Doctor had undertaken to maintain that this Act of Divine Love had not alwayes been at the ful height in Christ who by virtue of the Hypostatical Vnion so cleerly alwayes knew God and so perfectly enjoyed him his learning and parts would in the Judgement of most have only served him to parget o're an Error too gross and palpable to be defended by any man that owns and glories in the name of a Christian and a Preacher of the Gospel and his work would be justly accounted fit to be joyned to the monstrous Paradoxes of the age and the Panegyricks of Nero and the Altar of Busiris would have been reputed as true though to carry infinite less danger in them than this Assertion So successful has this
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
though in the words acknowledged and cavilled at by this Refuter he only mentioned the outward sensible expressions yet there the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love Which inward Acts alone and nothing else he makes to be specifically distinct from the Habit of Love § 8. But in a Parenthesis to his second Argument he tells us that by the expressions of Love the Doctor expounds himself to mean § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love which are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination § 9. True Sir But is it with exclusion of the inward Acts How then are they expressions of them But let us view the Doctors own words in the 21. § that our Refuters fair dealing may notoriously appear I must only say saies the Doctor there that is a mis-apprehension 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 expressions of Love the outward expressions of those inward Acts and of these Acts only I speak and of these expressions when I say they are more intense at one time then another § 10. But now though it be so clearly evident that in the places already quoted the Doctor by the expressions of Love still refers to the inward Acts which only he makes specifically distinct from the Habit yet this was hint enough to give our Refuter advantage to make a noise and a Book He has now found new matter of Dispute and with might and main he labours to prove that which no man ever doubted and the Doctor never thought of We shall now have Reasons and Authority no less then a whole Page-full in this puisny Pamphlet to prove that which might have been granted for asking And O what pitty it is that our School-man should not have Truth more often on his side because he makes so much of it when he chanceth to meet it though it be out of his rode § 11. But in good sadness Sir why no less then four Reasons to prove that which was never denied you Has Doctor Hammond asserted any thing to the contrary Did he ever affirm that Love was univocally predicated of the Habit and the outward sensible expressions as its Species If he has pray quote us the place that we may also confess and acknowledge his mistake If he has not as without doubt he no where has then you only fight with a shadow of your own casting and much good do you with the Conquest If you set up a Shroveing-Cock from your own Dunghill I shall not any waies forbid you to throw as many Cudgels at him as you please § 12. But yet Sir I cannot chuse but take notice of your Craft you have cunningly raised a Cloud of Dust to amuse your unwary Readers who will think that all this while you fight with the Doctor because they see you so zealous in your Mood and Figure and have urged no less then four Reasons backed and confirmed with two venerable Authorities most demurely against No body § 13. And now I assure you Sir it is well that your Conclusion is a Truth sufficiently evident of it self For otherwise so profound a Disputant you are your Reasons would very very hardly enforce it § 14. Your Third to begin with that for I shall not tye my self to your Methode is most ridiculously false You say not to trouble our selves about the Mood and Figure 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 praedicated of them equally as a Genus § 15. Your Major Sir your Major by all means have a care of your Major For what think you Sir of all * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 2. Gener. Animal c. 4. in fine univocal productions When Fire produces Fire and Corn brings forth Corn when a Man begets a Man and one Heat makes another does not one and the same word as a Genus comprehend the Efficient and the Effect And is it not in these a certain Maxime that Qualis est causa talis est effectus such as the Cause is in nature such also is the Effect And I hope you will think it lawful for things of the same nature to be comprehended under the same Genus Nay are not these distinguished from (a) Quaedam est quae effici◠Effectum ejusdem rationis haec dicitur Vnivoca ut Ignis quum generat Ignem universaliter Causa quae operando per virtutem suae formae similem reddit Effectum est Causa univoca in suo ordine Principalis ut recte notat D. Thomas 3. p. q. 62. art 1. Alia vero est Causa producens Effectum alterius rationis quam oportet esse nobiliorem Effectu et haec appellatur Causa Aequivoca quia non convenit formaliter cum Effectu in eâdem formâ sed eminenter illam continet Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 17. sect 2. §. 21. Vid. cund disp 26. sect 1. §. 6. sect 5. §. 13 14 15 16 c. Aequivocal productions because in these Effectum est ejusdem rationis cum Efficiente but in the other Efficiens non convenit cum effectu in eâdem formâ sed eminenter illam continet Nay does not your own (b) Scheibler Metaph. l. 1. c. 22. tit 9. n. 116 117 c. Scheibler as well as Suarez both whom you so seriously commend to the Doctors perusal tell you that Causa univoca est quae producit effectum similem in specie But me thinks Sir if since your more noble more serious imployments in the study and writing of Scholastical and Practical Divinity you had thought fit to neglect such vulgar Authors and to forget the common Notions and Maximes delivered by them yet you should at least have observed this in your Reading of Aquinas that in his Summes (a) Vid. Aquin Sum. p. 1. q. 4. art 2. in corp Cajetan Javel alios in loc 3. part q. 62. art 1. in corp alibi saepissime does frequently deliver this Doctrine and makes very good use of it And now Sir I hope you will think it lawful for things of the same nature to be comprehended under the same Genus For where I pray will you rank the several Individuals of the self-same Species for such are all Vnivocal Causes and Effects as is plain from sense and experience if not under the same Genus § 16. I might prove the gross and palpable falshood of your Major Sir by divers instances drawn from Aequivocal Productions where the cause and effect must be placed in the same Praedicament and consequently under the same remote Genus at least which is sufficient to
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 〈◊〉
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
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 REFUTER REFUTED OR Doctor HAMMOND'S 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 DEFENDED Against the impertinent Cavils of Mr. HENRY JEANES Minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Somerset-shire BY WILLIAM CREED B. D. and Rector of East-Codford in Wiltshire LONDON Printed for R. Royston and are to be sold at the Angel in Ivy-lane 1660. Mr ROYSTON I Have received four of the Refuter Refuted which I have spent some time in and by all that I have read finde it excellently well done and doubt not but it will finde Readers of all into whose hands you can put it I wish the success of this may encourage him to make himself known on other occasions and subjects for surely he is a man of excellent learning and parts I judge much better of it now then I did by the little I read at your house I am Your true friend H. H. Westwood Novemb 29. 1659. To the Learned Doctor H. HAMMOND Health SIR whosoever I am is not much materiall to know I humbly beg your Pardon for intermedling with your Quarrell without your Privity and Knowledge which you of all men are best able to maintain without Abettors or Assistants And I hope you will look upon it onely as an Errour of Love that I should presume to answer that Pamphlet which your self had so severely condemned to Neglect and resolved to confute onely by your learned Silence For all the world knows how speedily you could if you pleased in so just a Cause as this have set forth a Rejoynder because you have already so soon answered far abler Adversaries then this Refuter whatsoever Opinion himself and his Friends have of his Scholasticall Abilities Indeed it was my desire and in my own Judgement it would have been more for my interest and quiet if I had been silent or at most served onely as an under-workman to have fitted and prepared Materialls for an abler Artist to have raised a more lasting Monument and Obelisck to your Name and Memory And so conscious I am to mine own Weakness and inabilities to endure the Wind and Sun and so little thoughts I had when I first set upon this Business of doing any thing for the Publick that now all is finished and exposed to the world I cannot but wonder that it could be drawn from my Retirement to run so hazardous a Course And howsoever I may be concealed yet I cannot but frequently blush at the many Censures that will pass upon the Unknown Author though no man speaks or thinks of me But now such as it is I humbly throw it at your feet not for approbation and applause but for pardon and patronage It has nothing to commend it but the chearfulness of the Oblation It is no ambitious nor covetous Exhalation but a perfect Nidabah and Free will offering of Love And such I doubt not will be acceptable It was this alone that made the poor Widows two mites a richer present to the Corban then the Gold and Silver talents of the more wealthy but less willing Votaries and the very Heathens could smell that one grain of this Incense made a sweeter Perfume in the nostrills of their gods then the greatest clouds of smoak that arose from other Hecatombs But you well may wonder how a Defence of two sheets should swell into such a Volume and what strange over-ruling Influence should raise a Cloud of a hand-breadth to fill and overspread the whole face of Heaven And the very truth is Sir I my self am much astonished at the Bulk now all is finished But I shall give you my Reasons that made the work to enlarge thus insensibly under my hands Sir you have an Adversary more Confident then strong one that as I could tell you from credible information does not only Publickly brag that he has made you a Dunce but in every Sermon almost of note that he makes has one Use of Confutation against the learned D. Hammond Nay that his ordinary Countrey Lectures and Homilies to the People are full of such Ovations and not the meanest Pulpit round about him but has been turned into a Divinity Chair where Professor-like he has disciplined and arraigned and condemned you in a Scholasticall way But I insist not on Report it is his Pamphlet I fix on That you and the world may see I do not wrong him especially because he †It is my desire and purpose to have fair wars with you and my Pen shall not drop a disrespective syllable of you pag. 17. I hope it may contend with your reply for Civility and fairness in carriage of the Controversie between us pag. 39. professes Respect I shall here with your Patience give you in a short List of his Fair and Civill usage First then in a Sarcasticall Irony and Jeer he calls you great Critick that is in plain Terms an empty whiffling Grammarian and sayes he is a Pag. 10. loth to enter into a Contest with so great a Critick as your self touching the meaning of a word And what is it The poor English Monosyllable Mince Then in the very same Section he ranks you among the number of those b Pag. 10. erroneous Persons no less then Hereticks without doubt that in the first broaching of their Errours Mince the matter and speak more Cautelously then afterwards when they are fleshed and encouraged with success Next he tells you and in the very same breath where he professes Respect that he is c pag. 17. resolved to swallow none of your Proofless dictates and that d pag. 15. you must pardon him if he entertain not your vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae But he has hitherto used you kindly For in another place in plain terms he challenges you e pag. 19. to shew any thing for the justification of your Tenent from any Schoolman to be had in Pauls-Churchyard or at least in the Library at Oxford the great Bodleys Library And as if this had been too little again he tells the world that he is f pag 37. confident that no learned man either Protestant or Papist did ever ascribe such growth to the Ardency of Christ as you this Replyer does Then almost in every Section he slyly questions * Pag. 2 3 4 7 8 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 24 34 37 38 your Philosophy and Logick and skill in the Art of Reasoning and Syllogism or sayes †Pag. 6 9 11 12 16 18 21. you are impertinent and speak little sense or * Pag. 3 13 14 19 21 22 25 26 27 30 31 34 35 38 39. scornfully puts you to learn what you are yet ignorant of from such a place in Scheibler and Suarez in Thomas or Scotus in Petrus Hurtado de Mendoza Capreolus Albertinus Raunandus and Collegium Complutense hard names and that make a deep and reverend sound in our English ears not acquainted with such charms and this with such slighting
the Crimination otherwise I assure you the Boldness will be unpardonable although as you somewhat insolently say you shall assume the liberty to fix it on him and the shame must light on you since you cannot make good your Charge § 24. It is true indeed the Doctor saies that Christs Love was more intense at one time then at another viz. in his Agony and dying for us more intense then in his suffering Nakedness and Hunger for us § 25. And does not the Apostle tell us the same when he saies (a) Phil. 2. 6 7 8 9. That he being in the form of God though he thought it no robbery to be equall with God yet made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man and being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross wherefore God also hath highly exalted him His birth his life his death were all Acts you see of Divine Love or holy Charity but the greater the lower still the Humiliation the more intense the more high the more noble Act of Divine Charity both in respect of God and us And therefore God also has proportioned his exaltation in the humane Nature to his a basement and sufferings given him the (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 6. 20. 1 Pet. 1. 18 19. People he had so dearly purchased and advanced his Name to that height that it should transcend every name besides and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father § 26. But then the Habit of Divine Love or holy Charity in Christ as of all other graces else was alwayes (b) There is no doubt but the Deitie of Christ hath enabled the nature which it took of man to do more then man in this world hath power to comprehend forasmuch as the bare essential Properties excepted he hath imparted to it all things he hath replenished it with all such Perfections as the same is any waies apt to receive at least according to the exigence of that oeconomy or service for which it pleased him in love to be made Man Luk. 2. 47. For as the parts degrees and Offices of that mysterial administration did require which he voluntarily undertook the Beames of Deity did in operatione alwaies accordingly either restrain or enlarge themselves vid. Theodoret. Iren. l. 3. advers haeres From whence we may somewhat conjecture how the Powers of the Soul are illuminated which being so inward unto God cannot chuse but be privy unto all things which God worketh and must therefore of necessity be indued with knowledge so far forth universal vid. Col. 2. 3. though not with infinite knowledge peculiar to Deity it self The Soul of Christ that saw in this life the face of God was here through so visible presence of Deitie filled with all manner of Graces and Vertues in that immatchable perfection for which of him we read it written that God with the oyle of gladness anointed him above his fellowes Vid. Esai 1. 2. Luc. 4. 18. Act. 4. 27. Heb. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 1. 21. Ioh. 2. 20 27. Hookers Eccles Policie lib. 5. §. 54. p. 298. Vid. Field of the Church l. 5. cap. 15. who from the Schoolmen has most judiciously and profoundly stated this question of the fulness of all Habitual Grace in Christ full and perfect so full and so perfect that it was not in him capable of any further addition without any possibility of want or encrease And so it must be acknowledged by all Christians when the Apostle tells us Coloss 2. 9. that in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell Col. 1. 19. So acknowledged it must be by all Christians when the Evangelist Jo. 1. 14. expresly asserts that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father full of grace and truth and that of his fulness we have all received and that Grace for Grace Vers 16. Habitually so full he was that as the same Saint John assures us c. 3. 34. God giveth not the Spirit by measure to him § 27. Most certain it is say the (a) Quod qudem elogium ipse Christus ante suum in Coelos ascensu◠sibi tribuit nor quod rem encomio isto notatam tunc reverâ possidebat cum nondum in Regni sui gloriam ingressus esset sed quia certò idque mox futurum erat ut in Imperii istius possessionem constitue retur c. Volkel de vera Relig. l. 3. c. 21. ubi late illud prosequitur Quemadmodum ad ipsius Regnum viam quandam ei mors ejus aperiebat ideoque nondum plane regnare tunc cum mortem pateretur dici potuit ita cum illius Sacerdotium idem fere reipsa sit quod ejusdem Regnum eandem mortem principium seu praeparationem quandam istius Sacerdotii in coelo demum administrandi extitisse c. Vid. Volkel de vera Relig. li. 3. c. 37. pag. 145. ubi late illud prosequitur Socinian what he will to the contrary and it might be very largely demonstrated were it not eccentrical to the present Dispute that Christ was alwaies Christ as well so in the womb as at the right hand of God For otherwise Elizabeth had never called Mary the (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luc. 1. 43. Mother of her Lord before he was yet born Nor had the Angels said unto the Shepherds at his birth Behold I bring you tidings of great joy which shall be to all people for unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour which is not as the (c) Quae verò ipsius Regni ratio est Ea quòd Deus eum suscitatum à mortuis in coelos assumptum à dextris suis collocavit ei potestate in coelis in terrâ omni datâ omnibus ipsius pedibus se excepto subjectis ut fideles suos gubernare tueri aeternùm servare posset Catechis Racoviens de offic Christ Reg. pag. 275. Quid an non erat sacerdos antequam in coelos ascenderet praesertim crucifixus penderet Non erat c. Ibid. de offic Christ Sacerdot pag. 291. Socinian perversely which shall be after his ascension and session at the right hand of God but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Christ the Lord. Impossible it is he should be otherwise since he was God as well as Man from the first moment of Conception And therefore it was resolved justly against the Heretick Nestorius that his Blessed Virgin-Mother was truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God § 28. Whosoever then he be that against Arrius Photinus and Socinus acknowledges the Divinity of our Saviour
17. MEan-while it is manifest and his own confession that there these were my words and those so Cautious that this sense of the words which he undertakes to refute could not be affixt on them And this I should have thought sufficient to have preserved my Innocence and forestalled his Use of Confutation JEANES SVppose that in your tract of Will-worship those were your words and withall that they were so Cautious that this sense of the words which I undertake to refute could not be affixt on them yet this is nothing at all unto the purpose and contributes nothing to the clearing of your Innocence and forestalling my Vse of Confutation and the reason hereof is very evident Because that which I undertook to refute was affixt by me not on these your so Cautelous words in your tract of Will-worship but on a passage in your Answer to Mr. Cawdrey Indeed I censured those your words in themselues impertinent unto your matter in hand and withall proved them to be so But if you had gone no further then these words you should not have heard from me touching this subject for time is more pretious with me then to wast it in medling meerly with the impertinencies of any mans discourse § 2. And here in all this we find very little to the purpose but an empty Contest about words and phrases which he carps at in the Doctor who is a little too old to be taught the meaning of his Mother-tongue and the usual import of it Only I observe that though he profess in the Close of this Tongue-combat That time is more pretious with him then to wast it in medling meerly with the impertinencies of any mans discourse yet he is so much at leasure for all that as to spend the compass of two pages at least in his puisny Pamphlet upon some words and phrases of the Doctors He is a man of business indeed § 3. But I cry him mercy Did I say it was only a controversie about words this I am afraid I was mistaken For he will offer to consideration no less then two reasons to prove the impertinency of the Doctors first Papers to ascertain him of the meaning of the latter The first is because the Doctor there mentions only the Habit and the expressions of Love which are called Love only by extrinsecal denomination but here he mentions the inward Acts themselves The second is because the Doctor now extends the Love of God which he affirms to be capable of Degrees beyond the outward expressions unto the very inward Acts. § 4. And with your Patience good Sir ought he not so to extend it why else did you so lately blame him for not doing so But what then Sir what then Conclude man with your Ergo Pot-lid What 's all this to the purpose Suppose the Doctor there speaks only of the outward expressions of Love and yet we have clearly evidenced that he speaks also of the inward Acts yet must not these of necessity imply and relate to the inward Acts of Love whereof they are Expressions Why then could you not guess at his meaning in this passage Can you be so uncharitable as to think the Doctor was a man of so slender shallow parts as to take the outward Expressions of Love for Love it self and a coordinate Species of the same Genus If not without doubt the Doct. must of necessity mean nothing else then what he professes that best knew his own meaning of any man in the world § 5. The truth is the Doctor then thought he writ to men ingenuous and candid that would not look for knots in Bull-rushes But after finding by sad experience that he was to deal with some that endeavor to move every stone to throw at those that are not in every thing of their Judgement though never so ridiculous and false though never so disadvantageous to the peace and welfare of the Church he was forced clearly to express that which before he had sufficiently implyed § 6. And yet now he must be told that at first he did mince the matter and speak more cautelously then afterwards as Hereticks indeed are wont Before he was condemned for speaking too little and now he is upbraided for speaking too much Nay our Refuter can do no less then to appeal to both vulgar and learned eares whether or no we may not say truly of divers erroneous persons such as without doubt the Doctor is that in the first broaching of their Errors they mince the matter and speak more cautelously then afterwards when they are fleshed and encouraged with success § 7. It is readily granted Sir and for your further confirmation I refer you to Lysimachus Nicanor and to Sleidan's History of the Anabaptists in Germany and other true stories and Pasquills and practises of later times § 8. And now though it be high time to leave this Tongue-Combat yet I cannot part with this Section without expressing my just indignation at this Refuters so contemptuous undervaluing the Doctors excellent Learning I am very loath saies he to enter into a contest with so great a Critick touching the meaning of a word The Doctor in our Schoolmans opinion is some petty Grammaticaster that knowes the meaning of Musa and can tell how to decline Lapis some great Critick forsooth one fit to teach Schoole-boyes perhaps the meaning of a Greek or Latine Author but for any skill in the Arts and Reserches of Philosophie he is a very Dunce and not at all seen in the curious Speculations and Subtleties of Schoole-learning § 9. And now I see this under his hand in print my wonder must cease that he even among his Apron-men of Bridgewater so fastidiously decries the Doctor for a Dunce For it has been assured me from very credible witnesses that he every where braggs he has made this Doctor a very Dunce § 10. This minds me of the Fate of the great Erasmus that Phosphorus to all curious learning which so brightly shines in the Christian world whose wit and Judgement and industry and skill all Scholars admire and very few equall and scarce any exceed whose Country-men thought themselves so highly honored in his Birth as once the Graecians did in that of their Homer that at the publique charge they erected a Brasen Statue for him as well to their own honour as his memory And yet this Erasmus whose Writings shall outlast ten such Brasen Statues was so highly undervalued by our Country-man Lee and the Paris Divines and some such Pretenders to School learning as our Refuter is as to be counted no Scholar no Divine but a Critick and a whiffling Grammarian His Apologies for himself in this kind are swelled into a Volume and in this Work he has shewed as much Judgement and Learning as in any that he ever wrote and has clearly demonstrated the advantage of the Critick above the Pretender to the Summes and the Sentences and that more goes to the making a true
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
Qualitatis You may see it proved in that place if yet you doubt it ibid. § 14 15 16. To the same purpose look the same Suarez disp 44. sect 8. § 14 15. disp 42. sect 5. § 13 14 15. disp 48. sect 3 4. per tot And thus I hope I am out of your debt for your observations from Scheibler § 37. And now our Refuter having spent no less then one whole Page to no purpose to charge Doctor Hammond with an untruth he never thought of nor had any Temptation in the Controversie to let fall from his pen he is now at leasure to tell the world that suppose this Opinion were true in it self yet it will no waies advantage the Doctors cause in hand § 38. Well grant Sir that this opinion of those divers great Philosophers and Schoolmen against whom you dispute is not only untrue but also nothing to Doctor Hammond's purpose yet what is all this to the Confutation of your Adversary Did he ever say that immanent Acts in general or that Love in particular were as some say in Suarez * Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. §. 10. purae qualitates non actiones nisi aequivocae vel ut alii loquuntur Grammaticales quia significantur per modum actionis tendentis ad objectum ut in terminum cùm tamen in illud nihil producant If even the same Suarez himself who confutes this opinion which you deliver in his very phrases and language translated do yet also maintain that the Habit and the Act are both Qualities specifically distinct how then could this reach the Confutation of Doctor Hammond that only saies that Love was divided into the Habit and Act as a Genus into it's Species Or would you be so uncharitable as to proclaim him to the world a man of so shallow Judgement as not only to speak gross untruths but that which also is most impertinent Well Mr. writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity far more able adversaries then your self have felt the force of his Judicious pen and found that it is not his custom in any kind though you count him no Schoolman no Philosopher but a Critick forsooth a great Critick nay a very Dunce to make use of other mens errors to gain Credit to his own but to speak true and to the purpose § 39. But good Sir let us see how well you prove this Opinion is to no purpose that your admirers may behold what a Schoolman and a Philosopher you are § 40. You say 2ly Suppose this Opinion were true in it self yet it will no waies advantage the Doctors cause for the Patrons of it range immanent Acts under the first species of Quality they do indeed and for this you may see Suarez Smiglecius Ruvio and others and then they are either Dispositions or Habits If you say they are Dispositions as most of the above-named Schoolmen hold them to be against this I object that however they may be in other men yet they cannot be so in Christ for a Disposition carryeth in it's Notion inchoation and imperfection and therefore to attribute it unto Christ is to throw an apparent dishonour upon him § 41. Would not a man wonder you should dispute so gravely and with so much confidence and yet so ridiculously that you should so often give us the same impertinent stuffe under your hand and in Print § 42. Though then Dispositions that are in order to Acquisite Habits and the Acts that produce and consequently precede them carry in their Notion inchoation and imperfection in respect of the Habit yet in Infused Habits of which alone you and the Doctor speak as also in the Acts that flow from Acquisite Habits now compleat and full the case is far otherwise § 43. For Infused Habits especially this of divine Charity in Christ are immediately supernaturally and instantaneously produced by God without any the least concurrence of humane endeavour They are all full and perfect in an instant For nescit tarda molimina Spiritus Sanctus God and his holy Spirit Ambrose being infinite in Power do all things like themselves They but speak the word and it is done they but say Let the Habit be infused and instantly it is created No Acts then can precede them to produce an imperfect quality in the soul to be advanced by after Acts unto habitual perfection And therefore the Acts that flow from them cannot are not by any called Dispositions as that is properly taken for an imperfect inchoate thing in order to an Acquisite Habit but for other reasons already mentioned § 44. And then as for the Acts that are the Consequents and Effects even of Acquisite Habits now compleat they neither can be nor are by any counted as Dispositions properly taken but for other Reasons And let Suarez and Smiglecius tell you them § 45. It would be too tedious a task for me to transcribe whole Disputations Take the summe of it in short from Smiglecius * Smiglec Log. disp 11. q. 2. p. 413. Vid. Sua. rez Metaph. disp 42. sect 6. §. 16. Sciendum igitur est Dispositionem dupliciter accipi Primò in Communi pro Qualitate bene vel male afficiente Subjectum abstrahendo ab hoc quod sit facile vel difficile mobilis sic est veluti Genus ad Habitum Dispositionem secundò pro Qualitate bene vel male afficiente Subjectum leviter inhaerente Subjecto ità ut facile sit mobilis à subjecto sic distinguitur ab Habitu intra latitudinem speciei sed accidentaliter tantùm When therefore the Act and the Habit are both ranged under the first Species of Quality both the Habit as well as the Act are called by the name of Dispositions as that is taken in the first sense and makes the first distinct Species of the four in the Praedicament of Quality § 46. The reason why the Acts that follow and are the Effects of Habits are ranged under this Species may be seen in the forecited Authors and already we have quoted some of them from Suarez § 47. But if these should not content our writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity I shall refer him for further Instruction to Aquinas * Aquin. 1. 2. q. 49. art 2. ad 3m his Summes Dispositio-dupliciter acciptur uno modo secundum quod est genus Habitus nam in 5. Metaphys text 25. tom 3. Dispositio ponitur in definitione Habitus alio modo secundum quod est aliquid contra Habitum divisum Et potest intelligi Dispositio proprie dicta condividi contra Habitum dupliciter uno modo sicut perfectum imperfectum in eadem specie ut scilicet Dispositio dicatur retinens nomen commune quando imperfecte inest ita quod de facili amittatur Habitus autem quando perfecte inest ut non de facili amittatur sic Dispositio fit Habitus ut Puer fit Vir. Alio modo possunt distingui sicut diversae
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
quandam includit vel implicitè quatenus fertur in objectum sub una praecisa ratione consideratum ac si esset separata ab aliis conditionibus quae illius executionem impediunt vel etiam interdum explicitè per intellectum consideratâ appositâ conditione ipsi Objecto ut in 1. 2. latius explicatur Of these two Acts of Christ's Will and Affection the Scripture affords us many clear and apposite instances § 62. Of the efficacious Acts of Christ's Will and holy Love we may find a clear proof Heb. 10. 5 6 7 10. Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith Sacrifice and burnt-offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou had'st no pleasure Then said I Loe I come in the volume of the book it is written of me to do thy will ô God By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all And this free-will offering of Christ for our Redemption had been foretold by Esay c. 58. 7. Oblatus est quia ipse voluit as the Vulgar reads it or as our Translation He was oppressed and he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb so opened he not his mouth § 63. For the inefficacious Acts of Christs Will and Affection we have also clear proofs Matth. 23. 37. Luke 13. 34. O Jerusalem Jerusalem thou that killest the Prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee how often would I have gathered thy Children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and ye would not As out of his abundant Love he came unto his own though his own received him not so to testifie his Affection he now weeps that after all his care and pains his preaching and miracles their sins and obstinate impenitency should render this his Love ineffectual Another instance we have of these inefficacions Acts of his Will Mark 7. 24. And he entred into an house and would have no man know it but he could not be hid Our Saviours prayer in the Garden during his bloody Agony gives us clear instances of both Mark 14. 35 36. And he went forward a little and fell on the ground and prayed that if it were possible the cup might pass from him And he said Abba Father all things are possible unto thee take away this cup from me nevertheless not what I will but what thou wilt And again and again he prayed O my father if it be possible let this cup pass from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt Matt. 26. 39. From these and other like passages the Fathers in the sixth general Council concluded against the heresy of the Monothelites and established the true doctrine of a two-fold Will in Christ not contrary to themselves but still subordinate the one unto the other at least in the final issue § 64. I shall not now enquire whether these Acts of Christ's Will and holy Love did issue and proceed from him per modum naturae or per modum rationis as they speak in the Schools or both that is whether they were only the natural weights and inclinations and desires of the Will and Propriè non dicitur operari Voluntas ut Ratio nisi quando ex efficaci intentione finis de mediis deliberat quando hoc modo non operatur semper Actus procedit ex naturali pondere vel ipsius voluntatis vel alicujus virtutis in ea existentis ut Charitatis vel alterius similis ad hunc modum operatur semper illos actus imperfectos Suarez in 3. p. Thom. disp 38. sect 2. p. 525. col 2. F. Dicit Thomas rationem fuisse in oratione Christi sensualitatis advocatam Aquin. 3. p. q. 21. art 2. Iidem actus qui sunt à voluntate ut naturâ quatenus aliquo modo liberi sunt possunt dici esse à voluntate ut ratione Deinde interdum potuit habere Christus hos actus circa objecta quae non pertinebant ad proprium commodum sed vel ad amorem amicitiae vel ad alias superiores honestas rationes sic enim potuit desiderare omnium salutem ex charitate quamvis sciret non omnes esse salvandos Similiter etiam Hilarius Hieronymus exponunt appetivisse Christum fugam mortis non solum ex inclinatione naturae sed etiam propter vitandam ruinam Judaeorum quae etiam fuit expositio Originis l. 1. contra Celsum quae si non excludat affectum naturalem supra explicatum sed praeter hunc illum alium adjungit neque impossibilis est neque ullum habet inconveniens Ratio verò est quia hi actus sunt honesti non repugnant perfectioni Christo Domino debitae Suarez ibid. D. E. Similiter tristitiam habuit Christus de perditione Judae ruina Judaeorum adeo ut Hieronymus Hilarius dixerint magis doluisse Christum de morte sua propter ruinam Judaeorum quam propter suum incommodum sed hoc etiam pertinet ad portionem superiorem erat enim opus insignis charitatis Et ex his exemplis facile constat ratio hujus conclusionis quia hic etiam affectus est optimus honestissimus valde consentaneus statui Christi in carne passibili ad satisfaciendum pro hominibus valde accommodatus Suarez ibid. sect 3. p. 526. col 2. B. C. Habit of Charity to his own self-preservation without any deliberation such as is to be found in children before the use of Reason or whether they proceeded from him out of a deliberate consideration and pondering not so much of the now-impending evils and the fury of his Fathers wrath as the love he bore to his own people the Jewes whose destruction and casting off he foresaw would be the consequents of his death though Suarez seems to me to have proved the latter as well as the former Sufficient it is to the present argument that since Christ was himself holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners that all his actions thoughts desires and inclinations were holy just and good and issuing from that all-full and all-perfect Habit of Divine Love and Charity in him § 65. From hence I thus argue Those Acts of holy Charity that were most perfect in themselves were gradually distinguished and secundum magis minus different from those that were imperfect in the same kind But the efficacious Acts of Christs Love and holy Charity were most perfect the inefficacious Acts of the same holy Love were imperfect Ergo These Acts of holy Love and Charity in Christ were gradually distinguished and secundum magis minus different one from another And consequently all the Acts of his Love were not equally intense in themselves and with the Habit from whence they proceeded § 67. There can be no doubt
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
3. et ejusd Part. Orat. lib 4. c. 13. rightly inferred from his repetition and multiplication of the same words and Prayer thrice For have you not heard of those Rhetorical Schemes where the same word or words are repeated And are not these repetitions by the Masters in that Art accounted as arguments of the vehemency or aggrandation of the inward affections When the * 1 Kings 18. 26. Priests of Baal cryed out from morning to noon O Baal hear us did they not express their inward false zeal to their Idol by repeating still the same prayer When the †Matth. 6. 7. Gentilâ—s used Repetitions in their prayers our Saviour did not condemn those repetitions as if they could not be arguments and testimonies of their inward zeal and Devotion but because they expected to be heard for their very much babling Continuance then in prayer and repetitions of the same words may be arguments Nec prohibet longas Christus orationes qui alibi perpetuas imperavit sicut D. Paulus neque loqui cum oramus neque repetitionibus uti cum ipse orando locutus sit ter eundem sermonem repetiverit infra sed prohibet eo animo multum loqui ut hominibus bene orare videamur de hoc enim agebat existimantes facilius Deum multa quam pauca auditurum verba ut statim exponit Putant enim quod in multiloquio suo exaudiantur Maldonat in loc Vid. H. Grotium alios in locum praecipue Luc Brugens Jansenium Vid. Augustin epist 121. ad Probam viduam de orando Deo cap. 8 9 10. of a great Ardency in those that are truly zealous and religious as appears by the example of our Saviour and S. Paul and the whole world of Christians § 12. For first as to continuance in prayer did not our Blessed Vid Hookers Eccles Pol. l. 5 §. 32. Lord evidently demonstrate the vehemence of his intension and ardor of his soul when he continued * Luke 6. 12 whole nights together in prayer When (a) Nehemiah 8. 3. Ezra continued reading the Law from morning till noon and the people patiently continued in their Attention was it not an evident argument of a high and advanced Zeal and Devotion in both When (b) Act. 20. 7. S. Paul prayed and preached to the Disciples and continued his speech till midnight he gave as evident a demonstration of a strong desire of their instruction as Eutychus by his sleeping at the Apostles Sermon did argue the dulness of his zeal and the want of attention You know the (c) Luke 18. 1 2. Parables of the importunate Widdow and the (d) Luke 11. 5 c. Friend that would not be satisfied with denyals They were spoken to this end to teach us that men ought alwaies to pray and not to faint But then * Effectus exterior non pertinet ad charitatem nisi in quantum ex affectu procedit in quo primo est charitatisactus Aquin. l. 3. Sent. d. 29. q. 1. art 2. in Respons in corp Totum opus externum nullius momenti est apud Deum nisi quatenus fluit pendet ab interno actu debito imperato uti docet Apostolus 1 Cor. 13. 3. Davenant de Just Act. c. 42. p. 481. Perseverance in prayer and a multiplying those Acts are therefore only acceptable to God because they are the fruits and indications for (e) Matth. 12. 33. a good tree is known by it's fruit saies our Saviour of true fervour of Spirit and sincerity of the heart The more we can patiently continue in this exercise the greater is the fire of holy Love as the Iron the more it has of fire in it the longer it continues hot Though the Apostle bids us to (f) 1 Thess 5. 17. pray without ceasing and our Saviour saies to us (g) Luke 11. 9. Matt. 7. 7. Ask and it shall be given seek and ye shall find knock and it shall be opened unto you yet it is not the copiousness of our tongues in prayer nor our continuance in our Prostrations till we have made our knees hard as a Camels are as it is reported of the Sister of Greg. Nazianzen as I take it or till we have worn our own shapes and effigies in the Pavement as they say S. Jerome did but only the †Suppono ex 1. 2. q. 20. 21 proprium formale meritum esse in actu elicito à voluntate actus vero externos per se non addere meritum actui voluntatis neque esse formaliter intrinsecè meritorios sed solum per extrinsecam denominationem ab actu meritorio voluntatis à quo imperantur extrinsecè seu moraliter informantur sicut etiam ab illo denominantur liberi studiofi Suarez tom 1. in 3. p. Thom. disp 39. sect 2. p. 540. c. 8. Vid. Luc. Brugens in Matt. 6 8. truth of our Affection the sprightliness of our zeal and the piety of our minds that God doth accept of One single sigh and ejaculation one (a) Luc. 18. 13. Nihil interest ad perfectionem meritum quam multa aut quam magna opera externa faciâ—s sed quantâ fide charitate internâ feceris Verbi causâ non est in perfectiori statu aut magis meritorio qui sapius jejunaverit qui plures longiores orationes Deo obtulerit qui pauperibus plura largitus fuerit quique in caeteris operibus externis excelluerit nam in hisce omnibus Pharisaei vicorunt discipulos Christi sed is in perfectiori statu reputatur qui praecellit internâ fide charitate pietate atque externa opera exercet prout charitatis ac prudentiae lex dictaverit Nam ut loquitur Schola quorumcunque actus interiores sunt ejusdem rationis intentionis eorum merita sunt aequalia Davenant de Justit Actuali c. 41. p. 476 477. Lord have mercy on me from the mouth of an humble Publican is more pleasing to his eares then a prayer of eight and forty houres long and such a one we read of in Ecclesiastical story that proceeds from Superstition and a vanity of mind And yet God accepts of the Fruits for the goodness sake of the Tree from whence they spring And even the multiplyed Acts of Prayer are more valuable in his sight when they come from true zeal and integrity of Spirit and not from hypocritical pretences and customary Profession As our over-quick dispatch in so important a duty would give the world occasion to suspect we did but little value that service wherein so little time is bestowed so continuance in prayer and the multiplying the Acts of it to a greater degree of length as also standing kneeling and prostration on the face have been all the world over approved of as marks of Devotion and they are not only justified by our Saviours practise but God Almighty has declared his acceptance of them for
because they were not in respect of the same circumstances for Death as Death is to be avoided neither did superiour Reason ever dislike the judgement of the inferiour Faculties but shewed further and higher considerations where it was to be accepted and embraced There was no repugnance or resistance because one yielded to the other For as the sick man considering the Portion to be bitter declineth it while he stayes within that Consideration but when he casts his eyes further on the happy operation he willingly accepts it So Christ considering Death as in it self evill and contrary to nature while he stay'd within the bounds and confines of that consideration shunned and declined it and yet as the means of mans Salvation joyfully embraced it accepting that he refused and refusing that he accepted Field of the Church l. 5. c. 18. p. 452. Edit Oxon. Ad hoc ergo quod sit contrarietas voluntatum in aliquo requiritur primo quidem quod secundum idem attendatur diversitas voluntatum Si enim unius voluntas sit de aliquo fiendo secundum quandārationem universalem alterius voluntas sit de eodem non fiendo secundū quandam rationem particularem non est omnino contrarietas voluntatum puta si Rex vult suspendi Latronem propter bonum publicum aliquis ejus consanguineus nolit eum suspendi propter amorem privatum non erit contrarietas voluntatis nisi forte in tantum se extendat voluntas hominis privati ut bonum publicum velit impedire ut conservetur bonum privatum tunc enim circa idem attenditur repugnantia voluntatum Secundo autem requiritur ad contrarietatem voluntatis quod sit circa eandem voluntatem si enim homo vult unum secundum appetitum sensitivum non est hic aliqua contrarietas nisi forte appetitus sensitivus in tantum praevaleat quòd vel immutet vel retardet appetitum rationis sic enim ad ipsam voluntatem rationis perveniret aliquid de motu contrario c. Aquin. 3. part art 6. in Corp. In hoc articulo explicat Aquinas hanc diversit atem non fuisse talem ut veram oppositionem aut contrarietatem induceret aut inter voluntatem divinam humanam aut inter voluntatem humanam appetitum sensitivum inter se quia illi diversi motus harum voluntatum quamvis interdum circa eandem materiam versarentur sub diversis tamen rationibus ita erant moderati inter se compositi ut unus alium minime impediret Suarez ibid. in Comment ad loc If therefore it appear that any of these conditions be wanting and the seeming repugnance be not in the same thing and after the same manner and respect and in the same time there will be no real clashing or opposition between them And confequently if it may be demonstrated that in Christ these seeming contrary volitions 1. did arise from different principles the divine and humane will of Christ and the superiour rational appetite and the inferiour sensual desires and natural inclinations and 2ly that they were also grounded upon different respects and aimes and 3ly that they did neither thwart and cross one another in their several proper motions and inclinations nor in the event and issue there will be found a most exact harmony and consent even in this apparent discord To prove this by parts § 47. First then I ask Why may not Christ have contrary desires in contrary respects about one and the same thing yet without any repugnance in the Acts themselves For may not the Judge on the Bench and it is storyed of †Aelian Var. Hist l. 13. c. 24. Valer. Maximus l. 6. c. 5. Extern 3. Zaleucus out of zeal to Justice and the Laws most innocently will the execution of his Son a Malefactor whose pardon or Reprieve out of a fatherly affection he may as innocently desire What opposition yet is here And the Judge may execute that Son whom the Father would spare if the laws would permit But then indeed if one desire proceed so far as to thwart and oppose the other that it cannot be accomplished as in the case of Zaleucus where his natural affection would not suffer the sentence to be fully according to the letter and tenor of the law put in execution there is truly an opposition because it is circa idem about one and the same thing and the desires cannot now be reconciled and stand together But then it was not so in the desires of our Blessed Saviour Abhorr death indeed and Torments he did as terrible in themselves but then he willingly embraced them as the means God had appointed for the salvation of the world And we need no instructions to fear what is destructive to our well-fare and being for Nature instantly suggests it without any deliberation But if Reason teach us against the Motions of Nature not to fear and the Will follow the dictates of the Vnderstanding notwithstanding the dreadful apprehensions of sense and so masters Nature that it makes it willing to yield even against her own preservation and to suffer for a farr nobler end that Reason proposes here is no opposition The desires indeed are diverse For the sense of Nature and inferiour Reason presented the ignominy of the Cross unto him as they are in themselves evill without the consideration of any good to follow and so caused a desire to decline them expressed in the prayer he made but superior Reason considering them with all circumstances and knowing Gods resolution to be such that the world should thereby he saved and by no other means perswaded to a willing acceptance of them Field of the Church l. 5. c. 18. pag. 452. and issue they do from different respects and considerations but then they are not repugnant in the event because the inclinations of the one hinder not the prosecution and accomplishment of the inclinations of the other If Christ then had not been afraid of death we might have doubted whether he had been truly flesh and blood but when notwithstanding the dreadful apprehensions of Nature we see him patiently and cheerfully submitting to it we now magnifie his Love that was stronger then death Consider we then Death in it self and Nature teacheth Christ to shun it And if now it had not been Gods peremptory Decree that he should suffer at this time for the Redemption of the world at this time as innocently he might according to this natural instinct have declined it as we read that he did before that his hour was come But then consider we death as a means to procure the salvation of the world and Piety and Mercy and his Transcendent Philanthropy raises in him a most earnest longing and desire to embrace it If then 1. he had out of a natural instinct abhorred Death and out of the same natural instinct had embraced it or 2ly if the desires of Nature had withstood and hindred
tell us that for the joy that was set before him he endured the Heb. 12. 2. Crosse and despised the shame and is now set down on the right hand of God Does he not also say that when Christ had by Heb. 1. 3 4. himself purged our sins he sate down on the right hand of the Majesty on high being made so much better then the Angels as that he hath obtained a more excellent name then they what are these also Propositions harshly sounding in the ears of Christians that are jealous of their Masters honour Review your assertion Sir and confesse and acknowledge your own thoughts or will you write uses of Confutation against the pen-men of sacred writ as well as against Doctor Hammond For can a state of Sorrow and Grief and Misery and Want consist with an absolute and compleat uninterupted heaven happiness where the Scripture testifies there shall be no more death nor sorrow nor crying neither Revel 21. 4. shall there be any more pain for the former things are passed away If in the dayes of his flesh he were so absolutely and compleatly happy that this blessedness could in no respect be interrupted how then as the Apostle testifies did he offer up prayers supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to help him For how can he pray for assistance that is in an absolute incapacity of want that is alwayes as happy as God and heaven-happiness can make him If he were so absolutely and compleatly happy so that in no respect it could be interrupted why then for the joy set before him which sure was not therefore yet Heb. 12. 2. obtained did he endure the cross and despise the shame why prayed he so earnestly for his own after-glorification Why John 17. 1. 2. said he to his Disciples after his Resurrection Ought not Christ Luke 24. 16. to suffer these things and to enter into his glory § 10. If here now you say that Christ in the state of his humiliation may be considered 1. Either in respect of the present state of his soul in the soveraign part of it his Mind and understanding or else 2ly in respect of the present state of the Inferiour sensitive part of his soul and the frail mortal passible condition of his flesh In the first respect he was Perfectus Comprehensor and enjoyed the fulness of heaven-happiness and therefore alwaies did love God to the full height that he enjoyed him And of this only you now spake But then in the second respect he was in a state of frailty and misery and sorrow and want and because truly a Viator he was not yet possessed of heaven-happiness and of this speak the Scriptures I shall accept of your answer and acknowledge the truth of it But withall I shall desire you to apply this distinction to your own argument and the assertion of Dr. Hammond § 11. And now I pray deal ingeniously with the world and tell us whether ever Dr. Hammond did deny the fulness of Christs happiness in the soveraign Part of his Soul Does not he allow him to be truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God man from the first indued with the fulness of habitual grace And does not of congruity a fulness of happiness in Christs soul flow from this Vnion and fulness of grace And does not an absolute uninterrupted Act of divine Love in its utmost height and intenseness flow necessarily from this happiness shew us then whether ever this was brought into debate betwixt you and the Doctor Nay do not you your self acquit him of this charge in your first argument when you conclude that the Inward Acts of the habits of all virtues and graces were alwaies full in him because the habits themselves were so will you say that the habits of virtues and other graces were proper to him as Comprehensor and that he could watch pray Tast suffer be meek patient humble c. as now in the state of heaven-happiness And have we not most evidently proved that Doctor Hammond understands by The Love of God only that Love and that Charity which was proper to Christ as Viator in the daies of his flesh and not that other necessary Act of Divine love proper to him as Comprehensor § 11. And therefore I pray now what is become of your argument and your grave Propositio malè sonans do you not all this while build upon an empty Sophism argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and conclude because Christ was perfectly happy in his Soul as Comprehensor and did therefore necessarily love God at the height therefore he must be absolutely so too in every respect and happy equally happy he must be also as Viator and according to that respect and so must also all his other Acts of divine Charity towards God himself and his Neighbours be equal all in themselves and with that high transcendent Act of Love immediately seated on God And is not this now a weighty argument well deserving to be put in the Title page of the Book to tell all the world how Doctor Hammond is subdued by it But because I see you sufficiently ignorant in this point I shall adde something for your instruction § 12. Plain it is that there was a twofold state of Christ during his abode upon earth The one was status Comprehensoris in respect of the soveraign Part of his Soul the Mind The other Status Viatoris in respect of the Inferiour Faculties of his soul and his frail mortal passible condition in the Flesh In this he was in statu merendi in the other not And consequently the Schoolmen do distinguish and observe a twofold Act of Divine Charity or holy Love in him The one †Necessary Vide Suarez in 3 part Thom. tom 1. disp 39 Sect. 2. p. 540. col 1. pag. 541. Col. 1. qui non potuit esse meritorius quia non erat liber sed necessariò consequebatur visionem beatam This they call Actus amoris Dei beatificus and Actus Comprehensoris and is the same with that of Christ and the Saints and Angels now in heaven who because they see and enjoy God face to face cannot chuse but perfectly love him The other * a Free Act and though it is Vid Suarez ibid. supernatural as flowing from the all perfect Habit of Divine Charity in Christ yet distinguished it is from the Beatifick Love that necessarily flowes from the Fulness of heaven-happiness this was proper to him as Viator § 13. Now though the habit of this Love was alwaies in Christ full and without any interruption even as he was Viator yet the Acts that flowed from this Habit were de facto some or other still interrupted because his present finite state and condition could not actually apply himself to the performance of all at once and the acts themselves were not all compossible in the same subject in one
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
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
highest degree is required to this Crasis and temperature of health If the lowest degree then the Naturall heat and Temperature of men must be the same with Plantanimals or vegetables nay with stones and mineralls and the dead and the living would be of the same naturall heat and temper If you say some one of the middle degrees betwixt the lowest and the highest it concerneth you to determine and specifie what degree this is below which all degrees of heat bring a Gangrene a deadness and mortification of the Parts and beyond which all degrees of heat are a Feaver and if you cannot do this as I know you cannot I shall conclude that the highest degree of heat is naturally required to a healthy constitution and then the Madman was in the right that in a fit of his phrenzy cryed out that he was perfect fire and the burning Causus will not be our tormenting killing Disease but our Nature and we may not onely live with the Salamander in the fire but by this argumentation we shall be Metamorphosed into it § 13. And therefore notwithstanding our Refuters rare Argument there may be a graduall difference of intensness and Perfection in the Acts of that Love that is required by this Law as well as in the habit which the Schools do determine may be increased in infinitum and has no precise term to bound it beyond which it cannot go It is not with Grace as it is with Nature Though Naturall Forms and Qualities that are capable of graduall intension have set terms beyond which they cannot go and below the first degree they are nothing and at the highest degree they are something else as Heat in the eighth degree becomes Fire yet God may increase his Graces in us how and in what manner he pleases Though Christ the sun of righteousness still moved in his Ecliptick of Perfection yet all the other Planets that receive their light from him move in a Zodiack and under a line of Righteousness that consists of a breadth and latitude of degrees and sometimes they in their Excentricity move without it as David in the case of Vriah and Bathsheba but then by the power of Gods Grace they return into their Compass § 14. But then I shall make no scruple to grant our Refuters Conclusion though his Premises infer it not if he will admit me to distinguish and declare in what sense I take it For still to speak in generall ambiguous undistinguished terms as he does is to confound and not instruct not to state controversies but involve them not to clear truth but to cloud and mask it § 15. Love then whether in the Habit or the Act may be the highest either absolutely or comparatively or to make use of Aquinas his distinction for the greater authority it may be said to be the highest in a threefold consideration 1. Either ex parte diligibilis so that the Love shall be commensurate and equall to the Object a love as high and perfect as that is lovely and amiable Now this love of God that is as high as his own goodness is absolutely and simply the highest because it is infinite as God is a Love Proper and Peculiar unto God himself that is infinite and essentiall love one entire Act Loving and beloved whose love must still be equall to himself because it is no other but himself The Creature cannot possibly be obliged thus to love God because being naturally finite in its being and all its operations it is absolutely impossible to be attained to because between that which is naturally necessarily finite and that which is infinite there can be no proportion and there can be but one infinite because but one God And therefore here the Digest de Regul Juris leg 185. Rule of the Law is undoubted and nemo tenetur ad impossibilia and God might aswell oblige us to be omnipotent to raise the dead and make an other world in short be God as thus to love him § 16. Secondly Either Ex parte diligentis so that the Love be commensurate to the power of the Lover and he cannot transcend it and this is comparatively the highest And thus I grant that the Law obliges us to love God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all our soul our mind our heart our strength every faculty both of soul and body must be wholly and to the utmost of our strength still imployed in this love And if our Refuter mean no other but this by his ex toto posse suo he shall not find an Adversary of me or the Doctor in this § 17. But then because this is yet too generall and our Refuter I perceive has other thoughts and means another thing by these terms then the Doctor does and because latet dolus in generalibus I shall to come out of these mists and clouds of discourse yet be more Particular For the Abilities of man being diverse in sundry respects it will be necessary clearly to expresse of what Abilities we speak when we say man is obliged to Love God to the utmost of his Power § 18. I say then further That mans Abilities may be considered according to his threefold state Past Present and Future § 19. If we consider Man according to those Abilities he had in his first estate in Paradise we shall find that as he came innocent and spotless from the hands of so pure and undefiled an Artificer so God bestowed upon him the Habit of Originall Justice and righteousness whereby he was enabled to serve God and love him to the height of sinless perfection But then as we have already observed even this very state of sinless Perfection was a state of growth and Proficiency because it was a state of Merit And Adam was left in a capacity to improve his Talents of grace and to grow in Love as well as we are now Now the Law and Naturall gratitude obliging man to love God withall his strength must of necessity also oblige him to a sin-less perfection of love and service to God in all the Commandments And this was the Condition of the First Covenant Fac hoc vives Do this and thou shalt live whereby man was to have been Justified § 20. But though God made man upright yet he found out many Inventions he fell and forfeited those Abilities God Eccses 7. 10. gave him not onely for himself but for all his Posterity The Attainder did extend to the Race for the grand Treason of the Father and impossible it is that by the works of the Law flesh and blood can be Justified § 21. But then this sinlesse perfection and height of Love as it is impossible now to be attained so it is not obligatory to the Justification of believers that are not under the Law but under Grace The Condition of the second Covenant whereby we must all be justified is Faith and Repentance and sincere holy
in this sense can and shall onely be fulfilled there Commanded indeed they say it is in the Law but onely to be endeavoured after in this life and attained to in the next And more then this we shall prove by and by they say not and as much as this I and those of the Doctors opinion shall most willingly acknowledge And let our Refuter see what advantage he can make of it and if he requires more then this let him prove it and take all and make me also his Proselyte § 32. Thirdly the love may be the highest ex parte dilectionis seu Formae aut Actus Amoris praecisè considerati a love in the highest degree not as in this or that subject planted but in the utmost degree that the form or Quality it self is naturally and essentially capable of § 33. For the better understanding of which it is to be considered that the Philosopher the better to explain the nature of Intension and Remission of Naturall Forms and Qualities whose essence consists in a latitude divides this latitude of Essence into eight degrees of Intension or Remission below which they are nothing and beyond which they become something else substantiall forms and not Accidents Now though this be true of all Naturall forms because naturally they have their intrinsick bounds of being and growth it being as true of Naturall Forms as of Naturall Bodies because Nature or rather God works all things of this kind in number weight and measure yet it is not so in respect of Grace and those infused Qualities that are the immediate issues and fruits of the Spirit These being purely dependent upon Gods good will and pleasure have no determinate bounds and limits as all Naturall Formes have but may be greater or lesser more or less perfect gradually higher or lower as God himself thinks fit There is no one degree of Grace can possibly be so high that it can be no higher or cease to be Grace nor can we love God so fervently but that by the assistance of the Spirit we may be enabled to love him more fervently § 34. Though then Philosophy acknowledges but eight degrees of latitude in the graduall intension and Remission of naturall forms yet Theology allows no such precise number for spirituall Forms and Graces They may by Gods Power be intended in infinitum and the more they are augmented the perfecter still they are And consequently no man can assign any one degree of Love that he can in respect of the Form perfectly call the highest degree of Love no more then he can shew me any one Number so great that cannot be made greater by an Addition of numbers or Multiplication of it self upon its self And therefore as we have observed Aquinas and the Schoolmen determine that charitas potest augeri in infinitum 2. 2. q. 24. art 4. And yet our Refuter that calls himself a Schoolman tells us of a first and middle degrees of Love and an eight which he calls the highest § 35. And yet if we should allow degrees of Love as we must and for argumentation sake we should pitch upon a precise number suppose of eight as the Doctor does in his Account to Master Cawdrey yet then every degree must be allowed as the Doctor excellently observes to be like the Astronomers degrees in their Circles for instance of Longitude and Latitude that are divided into Seconds and Thirds and Fourths c. and every one of these Fractions into sixty parts and fractions more and so on in infinitum if their Observations and Art so require it § 36. And therefore our Refuter might as well tell the world of the Production of the Quadrature of a Circle or a Naturall Temperature ad Pondus or the existence of a Platonicall Idea as of the highest degree of holy Love that is precisely the eighth no more nor no less to which all men are obliged But he because he is a Schoolman may talk or write any thing and the world must admire him for speaking in School-terms which because they make a strange noise and sound in English must needs be deep stuff though neither the Writer nor the Reader understand them But Oracles and Riddles are therefore Oracles and Riddles because they are dark and obscure and they therefore gain the more veneration and respect the less they are understood Now this is that height of Perfection to a degree that the Doctor denyes for the reasons formerly assigned and our Refuter undertakes to make good by this Argument § 37. And now that the Doctor is in the right besides the Reasons formerly alledged I thus further make good by our Refuters own Argument § 38. Thus then I retort it If neither the lowest degree of love nor the highest degree of Love be required by this precept then certainly some one or all of the middle degrees are commanded or else none at all but some degrees of love at least is required and not the lowest nor the highest ergo Not the lowest for the reason assigned by our Refuter which for Arguments sake and onely ad hominem we will admit of nor the highest which our Refuter contends for because then every degree of love which is not thus the highest would be a sin because a transgression of that commandment of Love that our Refuter sayes requires the highest But then this is most notoriously false and directly contrary to many places of Scripture that command growth in grace that tell us that every degree of Grace is the fruit and effect of his holy Spirit which is the onely fountain of holiness and cannot therefore be Author of any thing that is not pure and holy Regeneration new birth and inchoate sanctification are the works of the Spirit as well as growth and the Perfection of Grace and Love and every good gift and every perfect gift as that signifies James 1. 13 14 15 16 17 18. any fruit of the Spirit and holiness comes down from above from the Father of lights with whom is no variableness nor shadow of change with whom is neither variation declination nor Parallax but one infinite point and Act of holiness one Perfect sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings that like the sun it self the fountain of naturall light according to the Hypothesis of Galileus Copernicus Philolaus stands still in one immoveable Center of the world and gives light and heat and Influence and motion to all things in the world A sun of Righteousness not like Joshuahs sun that stands still for a day or two A sun of Righteousness not like that in the diall of Ahaz that goes back but a sun alwayes fixed in one constant and immoveable Zenith and height of Perfection and alwayes and in every respect the same because infinite And therefore I must unavoidably conclude that since Gods Spirit is like the wind and blowes how and where Joh. 3. 8. it listeth and though we see and
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
against the Popish Doctrine of Merit ex condigno Justification by works and supererogation and the fulfilling of the Law according to this perfect rule of Righteousness and the Covenant of works they are unanswerable and I must also say with Chamier Magnum hoc inevitabile telum est senserunt adversarii momentum Itaque omnem movent lapidem ut eludant Chamier tom 3. l. 11. c. 14. § 1 2 3 4. § 48. But then I must adde that this nothing concerns the Doctors opinion and as little the Schoolmen and that there is little or no difference between theirs and Saint Austins and Bernards opinions as the Reader will soon perceive if he be pleased to compare them § 49. All that is said in those passages or that as I conceive can be rationally inferred from them I shall briefly summ up in these Theoremes 1. That the Law of God is the perfect Rule of Righteousness 2. That Perfection of Righteousness consists in an exact and sinless obedience and conformity to this Rule 3. That no man can be Justified by this Law according to the Covenant of works that does not thus perfectly observe it 4. That our Saviour has briefly summed up this Perfection of Righteousness and the whole drift of the Law in these two precepts Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. and our neighbours as our selves 5. That he that perfectly keeps these has fulfilled all Righteousness 6. That in our lapsed condition we do not we cannot so observe it because experience and Scripture teach us that in many things we offend all 7. That though we do not we cannot now observe it yet by Faith and Repentance promised in the Gospel according to the tenor of the second Covenant we shall find mercy and grace 8. That even Adam in innocence though he had persevered in that state could not have arrived to the utmost perfection of Love that is contained in those precepts because 9. This utmost perfection of love depends upon a clear intuitive knowledge of God 10. That here we walk by Faith and hereafter only in heaven we shall walk by fight where onely we shall know as we are known 11. That since our Love depends upon our knowledge of God and the more that increases the more will our Love then so much must be wanting to the perfection of our Love as is wanting to this knowledge 12. That though the utmost perfection of Love that a Saint now in viâ and in his Pilgrimage to heaven can arrive at consists as our Saviour himself testifies in laying down our lives for the faith and the Brethren yet that perfection of love that the Saints now injoy in heaven and we hope and patiently look for far exceeds this and all else that we can pray for or understand And yet 13. This love of the Saints now made perfect in heaven is no more then what is contained in this Precept it is no more then a love of God with all the heart c. Because nothing can be added to that which is perfectly the whole and if any thing might be added as yet it were not the whole And therefore 14. This of loving God with all the heart is the first great precept of that all full all perfect righteousness and the second it like unto it and they shall both then be perfectly fullfilled by us when we come to heaven where we shall see God face to face 15. That this perfect Rule of righteousness and love though it cannot be fullfilled in our lapsed estate according to the perfection of innocence much less according to the perfection of glory yet it was imposed upon us for this end that we might know what to aim at and hope for and endeavour after as much as we can and forgetting what is behind we might earnestly press toward the mark set before us 16. That this love in this utmost height and perfection which the Saints now enjoy belongs not to sinners but Saints not to this frail mortall life but that other which is immortall 17. That the righteousness and Perfection of Charity that belongs to believers in this life is that we strive against sin and suffer not sin to reign in our mortall bodies that we should obey it in the lusts thereof And therefore 18. Since this sinless perfection of Charity much less that Perfection of glory is not possible to be attained by us in this our lapsed estate God imposed this impossible command on us who well knew our frailty and the moment and weight of this Law not to judge us by it as transgressors at the last day but onely to humble us and that every mouth might be stopped and the world be convinced that by the works of the Law no flesh can be justified but that reading our own weakness and frailties and miseries and sins and wants in this perfect Law we might come to the throne of Grace to find Grace to help in time of need from him in that day who then not by works of righteousness which we have wrought but according to his mercy must and will save us 19. That God saw it reasonable even in this lapsed estate to prescribe us this rule of Perfection though no man can attain unto it that we might know the end of our race and the crown and reward of our endeavours which awaits us at the end of the Goale and to what perfection of righteousness and holyness we should aim at and endeavour and labour after and consider not what we yet have attained and then lazily sit down as if we had done sufficiently but still look forward and consider what yet we want 20. That he is the greatest proficient in this School of Perfection and has arrived highest to it that considering the excellency of the mark set before us does humbly acknowledge how much he is short of it and still labours to go higher so long as he continues in the race and way to it so long as he is a stranger and Pilgrim on earth and a traveller toward heaven § 50. This is the utmost those two Fathers drive at and I desire our Refuter to sit down and consider whether he can possibly make more of them then here I have done And if this will content him I shall here subscribe to the truth of every Theoreme and so will the Doctor Indeed there is nothing here but what is fully contained in the Doctors writings especially in the Practicall Catechism as the Reader will soon perceive if he be pleased onely to review the places already quoted And if Bellarmine or any Papist else deny the truth of any one of these or maintain any thing contrary to them I shall lend our Refuter my helping hand if he will accept of such poor assistance to oppose him in his errours § 51. But then for all that I must tell him that he will never be able to prove that S. Austin or
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
Confidence are most frequently begotten by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignorance upon Folly And the great Philosopher in his Moralls enquiring into the Nature of true Valour tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Ignorant are a most Confident generation because they are nigh of kin to Arist Eth. l. 3. c. 8. §. 9. the Hopewells And in his Rhetoricks describing the different manners and behaviours of young men and old he tells †Arist Rhetor l. 2. c. 2. us that the one are bold and confident for want of Practice and Experience but the other are * Ibid. l. 2. c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very diffident and distrustfull by reason of their knowledge and much Observation And therefore because they have lived long and have often been deceived and have had great tryalls of their own and other mens mistakes they are Cautious and wary how they confidently affirm any thing and think all things to be far less or otherwise then they ought to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still speaking with a Perchance and If it be so being peremptory in nothing And therefore upon this so sure Observation I am the more easily perswaded you will be mistaken because you are so confident § 58. For how is this Sir what no learned man either Protestant or Papist ascribe any such growth unto the Ardency of Christs Actuall Love of God Nemo hercule nemo Pers What none of all those numerous Author 's that in all parts of the world have published their Conceptions Not any even in Japan or the University of Mexico excepted For the Jesuites have many Colledges in the East-Indies and the Spaniards have also their Universities in America Strange wondrous strange we formerly heard of a Chedzoy-Challenge and now we shall heare of a Chedzoy-Confidence § 59. But not to travell far for Authors what think you Sir of Master Henry Jeanes Minister of Gods word at Chedzoy in Somersetshire what 's he nor Protestant nor Papist nor of the number of the learned what thinks he of the exquisite Hugo Grotius who though no Protestant nor Papist but a religious Hermaphrodite a Grotio-Cassandrian yet he deserves a name at least among the Learned of the Age But what thinks he of our own Judicious Hooker our profound Doctor Feild of his own Ames and Vorstius nay of Luther and Calvin Are not these all learned and Protestant enough What thinks he of his own accurate Suarez of the Order of Jesuites Of Estius Prime Professor of Divinity and Chancellor of the University of Doway Are not these learned Papists And yet all these with many others Antient and Modern Schoolmen and Fathers Protestants and Papists and learned to boot and himself among the number have all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Terms terminant affirmed what here he sayes all else do deny as we have already demonstrated And though I might well content my self with the Authors produced yet not to put him or the Reader to the trouble of looking back and to give a Check-mate to his Confidence for ever I shall now acquaint him with some fresh observations not from Writers Scholasticall but Practicall and Expositors of Scripture both Protestants and Papists and those as learned as any § 60. To begin with the great Erasmus whom though the Jesuites allow not to be either Protestant or Papist and therefore picture him hanging between Heaven and Hell not knowing where to rank him either among Hereticks or Catholicks yet he cannot be denyed a prime seat among the Learned Et Jesus proficiebat Non me fugit quibus rationibus explicuit Erasm Annot. in Luc. c. 2. v. ult p. 143 144. Edit Froben Basil 1521. hunc Locum interpres Christum profecisse non quod illi quicquam accesserit â— tempore quo conceptus est in utero matris sed quod dotes suas quibus erat cumulatissimus magis ac magis expromeret exereretque idque tum apud homines quorum saluti consulâ—bat tum apud Deum cujus gloriam illustrabat Rursum sunt qui sic expediant ut dicant Christo dotes easdem aliter contigisse quod prius afflatu tenebat mox usustudioque humano comparasse Quorum ego sententiam non refello tamen illud velim expendat lector num incolumi fidei sinceritate sentiri possit cum extra Controversiam sit dotes omnes quibus praeditus fuit Jesus ut homo beneficentiae suisse divinae Dictatemque per Gradus quosdam eas impartisse nature humanae assumptae praesertim cum id apud Lucam eodem capite bis legamus ait enim paulo superius Puer aut em croscebat confortabatur plenus sapientiâ Quod enim corroboratur auctu quodam virium fulciri videtur Ac rursum apertius hoc loco Et Jesus proficiebat sapientiâ aetate gratia apud Deum apud homines Cum enim tria conjungat sapientiam aetatem Gratiam sicut verè profecit aetatis accessu ita verè profecisse videtur dotium incrementis Nam quod asserunt quidam Jesum ab initio Gratiâ plenum fuisse non impedit profectum cum idem de Joanne deque aliis dictum sit quibus gradus accessionem virtutum nihilo secius tribuimus Neque vero pereinde nos moveat si id pugnet cum aliquo placito Scholasticorum aut alicujus hominis opinione sed an quod apertè scripsit Lucas fidei sincerae adversetur cui semper est modis omnibus adhaerendum c. Thus far Erasmus § 61. Cardinall Cajetan his Contemporary shall succeed for the learned among the Papists Thus then he Et Jesus proficiebat sapientiâ aetate gratiâ Non est Cajetan Comment ad quatuor Evangel Paris 8 1540 ad Luc. 2. vers ult immemor suorum verborum Ezangelisia ut quem paulo superius dixerat plenum sapientia modo oblitus dicat proficere sapientia Plenus siquidem fuit semper habitu Sapientiae proficiebat autem actibus sapientiae procedendo à sapientibus actibus ad sapientiores Et similiter intellige de profectu Gratiae Apud Deum apud homines quoniam erat in veritate progressus ad ampliora merita apud Deum apparebant apud homines Thus far Cajetan § 62. The learned Tolet the first Cardinall of the Order Tolet. Com. in Luc. c. 2. vers últ p. 212 213 214 215. edit Colon. 1611. of the Iesuites shall follow Thus then he A duodecimo aetatis anno usque ad trigesimum quid Christus gesserit brevissimo compendio Evangelista percurrit triplicem progressum ejus describens Primus est in sapientiâ proficiebat inquit augebatur in dies Sapientia non quod habitus ipse in se sapientiae augmentum reciperet sed quod indies sapientiora verba opera proferret verba enim opera sapientiam Evangelista appellat And then in the Close of his Annotation on that place he adds At quantum
tertiò illa quae remotiùs sunt ordinata ad attingendum Finem Cum igitur Deus rationabilissimè velit licet non diversis actibus sed tantum uno in quantum illo diversimodè tendit super Objecta ordinate primò vult finem in hoc est Actus suus perfectus Voluntas ejus beata secundò vult illa quae immediate ordinantur in ipsum praedestinando sc Electos tertiò vult illa quae sunt necessaria ad attingendum hunc sinem sc bona gratiae quartò vult propter illos alia quae sunt remotiora puta hunc mundum sensibilem ut serviat illis c. Patet igitur inaequalitas volibilium quantum ad ipsa volita non ut volitio est ipsius Voluntatis sed ut transit super Objecta modo praedicto Nec tamen illa inaequalitas est propter bonitatem praesuppositam in Objectis quibuscunque aliis à se quae sit quasi ratio sic vel sic volendi sed ratio est in ipsa Voluntate Divina quia sicut ipsa acceptat alia in gradu ita sunt bona in talia gradu non è converso Vel si'detur quod in eis ut ostensa sunt ab Intellectu ostenditur aliquis gradus bonitatis essentialis secundum quam debent complacere voluntati hoc saltem est certum quod complacentia eorum quantum ad actualem existentiam est merè ex Voluntate Divina absque alia ratione determinante ex parte eorum And then he adds in his Answer to the third Objection Et ista inaequalitas Dilectionis hoc est effectus Dilectionis concedenda est non solum quantum ad gradus specificos sed etiam in individuis ejusdem speciei nec ratio est in isto in illo sed sola Voluntas Divina c. Thus Scotus § 35. I might adde more from Durand l. 3. Sent d. 32. q. 1. art 3. Nichol. de Orbellis l. 3. Sent. d. 32. Dub. 1. Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 32. § 1. pa. 110. E. F. 111. A. B. Hales and Bonaventure Argentinus Gabriel Biel and others are quoted by H. Cavellus to this purpose in his Scholia on this place of Scotus But it were vain to fill paper with more quotations since in citing these I have pointed out all the rest And I believe there is not a writer on this distinction in the Sentences or on that question in the Summes but has expresly delivered himself to this purpose as the Master and these his Scholars had done before them § 36. And therefore I cannot chuse but wonder that our Refuter should take no notice of these or the like passages which to ordinary eyes would have shewed more to his advantage then all that he has quoted in his Pamphlet from the Schoolmen and Suarez and Scheibler to boot But this and some other Passages in his Book which offered themselves at first sight make me not value his School-learning at the same rate and price he has put upon it in the Title-Page of his Mixture But old Homer was blind though he were the prince of Poets and our writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity sees not all things in those Doctors that may most serve for his advantage § 37. Howsoever the Proverb is on his side and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his second thoughts may be wiser Now I have helped him to a Festcue and pointed him to the places we may in his next rejoinder meet with these and more the like observations For methinks I already hear him at his Dicite Io Paean Io bis dicite Paean and that as cheerfully he sings it as the great Archimâ—des did his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he had found out the Demonstration of that Probleme which a long time in vain he had attempted Here at least it is acknowledged that he has all the Schoolmen on his side and therefore did not he rationally challenge the Doctor in any of those Writers to be had in Pauls-Church-yard or the Library at Oxford § 38. But good Sir soft and fair For I doubt not but I shall yet be able to pull off the Wheeles from your Triumphal Chariot though you were now entring the very gates of the Capitol to sacrifice to your Goddesse Victory § 39. For in the third place I must tell you that though nothing naturally hinders but that the inward Acts of Love in Men may be gradually the same where the outward Expressions are gradually different yet ordinarily they are not but the inward affection commonly varies according to the intension and remission of the outward Expressions and Effects § 40. And hence it is that God Almighty is very frequently in Scripture that speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and after the manner of men said to love some more then others and the same person more or less at one time then he does at another though his Love in the inward Act must of necessity be still the same because it is most usual with men from whose custom this is borrowed and applied to God that the outward Expressions do carry a proportionable correspondence to the inward Affections and as the one gradually varies so most commonly do the other Nor would the Scriptures by an Anthropopathy have applyed this to God unless it had been most usual and ordinary with men § 41. Indeed this is in it self so familiar and obvious a Truth so commonly also received among the Schoolmen that I am even ashamed at our Refuters either Ignorance or Folly that he should put the Doctor because he is a Critick to prove that which every daies experience does manifest to all sorts of people For else how can we be able to distinguish true Love from that which is hypocritical and counterfeit but only upon the supposal of this Maxime That in the ordinary course of affaires among men there is and must be a Correspondence between the inward Acts of Love and the outward Expressions Upon what score but this did our Saviour reprove Judas for betraying the Son of Man with a kiss Luke 22. 47. Judges 4. 18. 5. 25 26. When Jael courted Sisera with fair language and profers of security and protection at the time she had resolved his destruction in her heart when in one hand she brought milk and butter in a Lordly Dish and the nail and hammer in the other when Joab strook Amasa under the fifth rib and killed him and at 2 Sam. 20. 9 10. the same time cried Hail Brother and took him about the neck and kissed him where else lay the cruel hypocrisie but only in this that the outward Expressions spake abundance of Love when there was warr and blood-shed in the Heart § 42. And indeed were not this a generally-received Truth amongst men that such as are the outward Expressions such also ought the inward Acts to be and that as the one does grow or