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
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
destroy your Major When the Sun and Stars produce Gold and Silver and Brass and other Minerals when they produce Stones of all sorts and kinds in the bowels of the earth are not the cause and effect at least as Species subalternae placed under the same Genus of Substantia corporea When an Asse begets a Mule or a Man produces Worms and Vermin in his head and entrailes and when a woman brings forth monstrous births in stead of legitimate issues as Serpents Moles and Froggs and other such like of which among (b) Ita nonnullas mulieres Serpentes Talpas Ranas Mutes Aves aliaque animalia enixas fuisse inter historias relatum est Imo verò in Apuliâ Lombardiâ frequentem esse talium animalium generationem multi Authores referunt idque Genus animalium ideo vocari Fratrem Lombardorum à Gordonio Tornamirâ aliisque Barbaris Medicis Arpa seu Arpia nominatur quod hujusmodi monstrum multos plerumque habeat pedes quos etiam sermone illo barbarico Arpas nominant Lazar. River Observ med Cent. 2. observ 100. p. 201. Vid. Schenckium Lycosthenem de Prodigiis Physitians there are many true stories I pray Sir must not the cause and effect be both ranged under the same immediate Genus proximum which is Animal So when light produces heat are not the cause and the effect both put in the same Praedicament under the same Genus of Patible Qualities To keep closer to the business more immediately in controversie The habit of Love (c) Dicendum est habitum simul cum potentia efficere actum hunc esse proprium finem ejus Vid. Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 5. n. 6. sect 6. n. 12. Scheibler Metaph. l. 2. c. 8. tit 4. art 2. n. 59. art 4. punct 2. n. 104. Vid. etiam Aquin. 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. in corp Et Cajetan in loc latè Scot. l. 1. Sent. dist 17. q. 2 3. 4. Sent. dist 49. q. 1. effectively concurs with the Will to the production of the inward Acts of Love and yet I say that Love as a Genus is equally praedicated of the Habit and the inward Acts of Love as has already been demonstrated and may in due time be further proved notwithstanding any thing you have or can say to the contrary And this is abundantly more then sufficient to shew the falshood of your Major when you say that no one word can as a Genus whether proximum or remotum summum or subalternum for you absolutely deliver it equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect § 17. But perhaps you had read somewhat like it concerning the First most universal Cause God and his effects or perhaps you had heard the like concerning the Cause and the Effect in Actu Signato and therefore you would apply it to all Causes and Effects in Actu also Exercito And so much be spoken to your third Argument § 18. I come now to your First And this though it be not altogether so absurd yet is false enough in conscience For whereas you say that nothing can as a Genus be equally predicated of things put in several Predicaments but the Habit of Love and Expressions of Love are put in several Predicaments therefore Love as a Genus doth not equally comprehend them both Here Sir your Assumption is too infirm For let me ask you Quanta est Minor Is it not universal And if it be not your Syllogism will be false and you will conclude an Vniversal contrary to all Rules of Art and Reason from a Praemisse particular If it be universal as the Mood and Figure and Conclusion requires for rightly framed it is in Celarent thus Whatsoever things are put in several Praedicaments cannot have the same Genus But the Habit of Love and the Expressions of Love in general are put in several Praedicaments Ergo the Habit of Love and Expressions of Love in general cannot have the same Genus I say it is false and you will never be able to prove and make it good if any one instance can be produced to the contrary What say you now Are not Joy and Grief and the other Passions of the mind frequent expressions of Love * Joh. 11. 35 36. when Jesus seeing Mary and the women weeping for Lazarus groaned in the Spirit and was troubled and also wept said not the Jewes truly Behold how he loved him But now I hope you will not say that these Passions of the mind are any thing else then Patible Qualities and ranked in the third Species as Habits are in the first And consequently true it is that all the Expressions of Love are not though true it is I grant of many or most of them that they are put in several Praedicaments And if so your Conclusion though most true in it self does not follow by virtue of these Praemisses because your Assumption is false And so much for your First § 18. Your Second and Fourth have somewhat in them I confess of the Face of an Argument An argument I say For though you have slit it into two and divided it from it self by another what-ye-call't between yet it differs no more then Socrates in one suit does differ from himself in another The matter is the very same though the words be different and both the Minors depend upon one and the same Medium § 19. But good Sir let me advise you that though now you have the good luck to light upon a right proof of your Conclusion yet do not for the future obtrude your Arguments upon the world without any more confirmation then your bare Ipse dixit For I assure you Sir you have all-along in this Discourse shewed your self so unhappy a Disputant that even now when you have clear and evident truth in your Conclusion men would not believe that it followed from your Praemisses if Raynaudus had not been brought in to your assistance who has said more to the purpose in that small passage you have quoted from him then you have done in the whole page besides § 20. And yet I must be bold to tell you that though Raynaudus be your Friend you do not throughly understand him and that Author in the place quoted means more then you seem to apprehend Your words are these Raynaudus makes mention out of Gab. Biel of a distinction of Love into Affective Effective and what is this Effective Love but the Effects and Expressions of Love Thus you Now the subject matter of your present discourse leads me necessarily to understand your interrogation of the outward sensible effects and expressions of Love And if this be your meaning I must tell you that Raynaudus is not so to be understood and plain it is from that Author that Love effective is not only the outward sensible effects and expressions but also something else For though it be true that all the outward sensible effects and expressions of Love be Love
of necessity be gradually different from one another § 17. And now because our Refuter seeks for Refuge under Vide Crellii Ethic. Christian infra citat the Ambiguity of this phrase the Love of God and to bring the debate between the Doctor and him to a final issue it will be necessary in the first place to distinguish that Term that so every thing may be clear before us in the present Debate and the Truth and the Doctors Innocence may be evidenced to the world and the Sophismes and mistakes of this Refuter be discovered § 18. First then this phrase the Love of God which the Refuter alwaies construes in a different sense from the Doctor and only for his advantage may be and is commonly taken in a threefold sense First more generally as it signifies the Divine Grace of holy Charity as the Schooles call it from Saint Paul 1 Cor. 13 the greatest of the three Theological Graces and that alone which never faileth that Grace which the Apostle there most excellently describes and the Schoolmen treat of l. 3. Sent. d. 27. 2. 2. q. 23 24 25 26 c. the Grace that in its latitude or amplitude conteins the whole duty of man towards God and our Neighbours whatsoever is good and excellent in him And therefore the Master of the Sentences defines P. Lombard 3. Sent. dist 25. B. Vid. Aquin 2. 2 q. 25 art 1. it thus Charitas est dilectio quâ diligitur Deus propter se proximus propter Deum vel in Deo and it is approved by all his Scholars for ought that I can find to the contrary § 19. Secondly more specially for Piety and Holiness and Devotion towards God and the Duties of the first Table § 20. Thirdly most strictly for that most sublime and perfect Love immediately terminated and concentred in God the only Good in which alone all the Acts of Piety and Charity are founded and from whence alone they stream and flow This is that which Aquinas frequently calls Charitas ut finis the other Vid. Aquin. 2. 2 q. 44. art 3. in Corp. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 44. art 1. in corp Aquin. ibid. art 3. ad 2. he calls Charitas propter finem Finis saies he spiritualis vitae est ut homo uniatur Deo quod fit per Charitatem ad hoc ordinantur sicut ad Finem omnia quae pertinent ad spiritualem vitam unde Apostolus dicit 1 Tim. 1. Finis praecepti Charitas est de corde puro conscientia bona fide non ficta c. And now because as the same Aquinas that alii actus Charitatis consequuntur ex actu dilectionis sicut effectus ex causa hence is it that by a Synecdoche generis or a Metonymy of the Efficient Tropes familiar in all Writers all the Acts of Piety and Mercy and Charity and Vertue are called the Love of God because they flow from it § 21. And now that this is no new-coined distinction invented on purpose to salve the present sore will appear from the Scriptures themselves where we have it in express termes § 22. For though to English eares this phrase The Love of God seems especially to import the prime and more principal Love that has God for its immediate Object yet in Scripture-phrase Tertull. cont Marcion l. 4. c 27. p. 548. A. B. ex edit Rigalt Vide Bezae major Annot. in loc Luc. Brugens tom 2. in Evangel p 802. Piscator Maldonat Theophylact. alios in loc it frequently does not And therefore saies our Saviour as we find it S. Luke 11. 42. Woe unto you Pharisees for ye tithe Mint and Rue and all manner of herbes and pass over Judgement and the Love of God these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone It is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judicium charitatem Dei. So Beza and the Vulgar Latine But in the vulgata vetus in use in Tertullians daies it is vocationem dilectionem Dei and accordingly we translate it the Love of God The true meaning of the place Tolet methinks has fully reached Majora mandata praeteritis nempe Judicium Charitatem Judicium quidem nocendo aliis rapiendo aliena contra leges Justitiae Charitatem verò non miserendo proximi nec eleemosynam pauperi conferendo Non solum ergo rapinas injustitias non recompensatis eleemosynis sed illas perpetratis contra judicium eleemosynas non facitis contra charitatem quae sunt majoris momenti quam decimas dare tales Addit Dei quia charitate Deus diligendus est proximus Pharisaei autem nec Deum nec proximum diligebant qui enim non diligit proximum non diligit Deum 1 Jo. 3. Qui viderit fratrem suum necessitatem habere clauserit viscera sua ab eo quomodo Charitas Dei manet in illo 1 Jo. 4. Qui non diligit fratrem quem videt quomodo Deum quem non videt diligere potest Tolet. in Luc. 11. 42. p. 690. in Commentar I know the place is otherwise expounded by * Vide Erasm in loc H. Grot. in Annot. ad Matth. 23 23. divers and we have no need of doubtful places S. John the beloved Disciple whose argument is Charity and the Love of God whose Text and Sermons were as Ecclesiastical Story testifies nothing else but this does in one short Epistle afford us instances sufficient beyond all exception 1. Ep. John 2. 5. But whoso keepeth his word in him verily is the Love of God Charity as Saint Paul or Love as the same Apostle and Saint John himself often indefinitely and generally stile it perfected Hereby 1 Cor. 13. Rom. 13 10. Gal. 5. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 5 14. know we that we are in him It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So again 1 Joh. 3. 17. But whoso hath this worlds good and seeth his Brother hath need and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how dwelleth the Love of God in him So again 1 Joh. 4 20. If a man say I love God and hateth his Brother he is a lyar for he that loveth not his Brother whom he hath seen how can he love God whom he hath not seen And therefore in the close of his Epistle 1. 5. vers 3 thus he describes the Love of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this is the Love of God that we keep his Commandements and his Commandements are not grievous Plain then it is that in Scripture-language the Love of God is put for the Grace of divine Charity in general extending it self to that Love that is immediately centred on God himself and on our neighbours for Gods sake This is that Love which the Apostle tells us is the fulfilling of the Law Rom. 13. 10. 1 Tim. 1. 5. and the end of the Commandement § 23. And therefore sure it can be no
tergiversation if we say that Doctor Hammond does take this phrase the Love of God or sincere Love wheresoever he uses it as Saint John does in the general notion for the Grace of Divine Charity and holy Love which to distinguish from all other Loves he calls the Love of God 1. because he is the giver and the alone infuser of it by his holy spirit and 2ly because he also is the prime and principal Object of it and for whose sake alone we love our Neighbours and 3ly because this alone is the root on which all the other parts and branches of holy Charity are grounded and from whence they all spring and without which they are nothing worth § 24. And that I shall prove by such clear Arguments as the Doctors writings afford If then as the great Philosopher tells us that Words are but the images and expressions of the Thoughts of the mind and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 1. de interpretatione c. 1. §. 1. Writings are the pictures and indications of Words then if the meaning of any word be questioned as doubtful the best way to unfold it is by considering the subject matter of the Discourse and the scope and purpose of it § 25. And now I doubt not but it will appear obvious to the most ordinary capacity that the subject matter of the Doctors discourse could not possibly tempt him to make use of this phrase the Love of God in any other sense then what we have given of it and that the cause he undertook to defend had utterly been betrayed and lost not supported by the meaning that the Refuter puts upon it For the main business and scope of the Treatise of Will-worship and the defence of it against Mr. Cawdrey is only to shew that there be certain Degrees and Acts of Piety and Charity and Vertue that no particular law enjoines which yet God accepts of as free-will Offerings from the Christian when performed For this we shall not need further proof then what one short Passage affords wherein the Doctor has briefly summed up his Opinion in both Treatises so largely insisted on It is in his Preface to the Reader prefixt to the Account § 5. And besides these there is somewhat of more sublime consideration on occasion of that of Will-worship the free-will Offerings which will very well become a Christian to bring to Christ rewardable in a high degree though they are not under any express precept such are all the Charities and Devotions and Heroical Christian Practices which shall all not only be degraded but defamed if every thing be concluded criminous which is not necessary if all uncommanded Practise be unlawful § 26. And now though this in the general might suffice to clear the Doctors meaning from any possible mistake unless to the wilfully perverse yet because the remainder of the Refuters Reply is wholy built upon this abused Notion of the Phrase and what he calls his threefold Demonstration so industriously placed in the Frontispiece of his Pamphlet to amuse vulgar Readers and those that look not beyond Titles has no other Basis and Foundation I shall with the Readers patience descend to a more particular confirmation of it § 27. The task I confess would be endlesly tedious to search for Proofs as they lie severally dispersed in those Treatises And therefore for brevity sake I shall confine my self to that very Section in the Account that first occasioned the Vse of Confutation § 28. In the very first § of that Section the Doctor tells us Doctor Hammond's Account to Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe cap. 6. sect 9. p. 221. that those large inclusive words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. denoted only two things 1. the sincerity of this Love of God as opposed to partial divided Love to which I now adde for further explication that what we do according to the precepts of Gods Law we do out of Love towards God not hypocritically or as by constraint and 2ly not admitting any thing else into competition with him this sincere Love of God mean while being capable of Degrees so that it is very possible for two men to love God with all the heart and yet one to love him more intensely then another as was exemplifyed among the very Angels nay for the same person which so loves him to love him and express that Love more intensely at one time then another as appeared by the example of Christ Luc. 22. 44. To this I shall subjoin the very words upon which the Refuter grounds his Charge in the Vse of Confutation § 5. of that Section But sure this answer is nothing to the matter now in hand for the evidencing of which that example of Christ was brought by me viz. That sincere Love is capable of Degrees This was first shewed in several men and in the same man at several times in the several ranks of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one act of Prayer then in another wherein what is affirmed of Christ is common to Angels and Men c. And now I appeal to our Refuter himself and desire him to tell me whether the Doctor can possibly mean any thing else by this Phrase the Love of God and sincere Love in these places then the grace of holy Charity that in its general comprehensive notion contains in it whatsoever is holy good or vertuous for kind or degree that the Christian out of a sincere Love to God either freely or by way of Duty performs Can he possibly here mean by Christs Love of God in these places that Beatifick Love of God which was alwaies in termino and was proper to him as Comprehensor Does he not expresly adde in the Close of those words that what herein is affirmed of Christ is common to Angels and Men And do not his several instances speak as much Let our Refuter himself judge what other Love can the Doctor mean that is common to Christ to Angels and Men except that Love and Charity which the Doctor constantly makes a Genus to habitual and actual Love § 29. That this and no other was the Doctors meaning will 2ly appear from Mr. Cawdrey's Reply and the Doctors answer to it § 2. For whereas the Doctor had affirmed that this Grace of holy Love or Divine Charity consisted in a sincere endeavour after perfection Mr. Cawdrey now returns that it consisted in an absolute sinless Perfection such as was that of Adam in innocence and therefore perfect Love such as did cast out fear 1 Jo. 4. 18. Now to this the Doctor returns 1. that that perfect Love of Adam in innocence consisted not in an indivisible point in the several Acts 2ly that S. John 's Love was not that of Adam in innocence which is confessed not to be attainable but that other which is in every Confessor and Martyr which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Grace in Christ he knew it was not necessary so precisely to distinguish that phrase the Love of God which the whole subject matter of that argument must needs clear to be understood as parallel and aequipollent to habitual Grace and the Acts of it § 37. Besides the Doctor in the very entrance of that Treatise § 2 3. had so fully cleared his own and the Refuters meaning saying expresly that the Refuters meaning was this that he had affirmed Christ's Love of God meaning thereby the habitual Grace of divine Charity to have been capable of further Degrees so as that capacity of further Degrees is the denial of all fulness of that habitual Grace already in him and accordingly in that Treatise he makes answer to that Charge that no other sense could by any ingenuous man be affixed unto that Phrase § 38. Adde to this that the Doctor expresly denies that he ever said these words That Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees And now I shall desire our Refuter to shew me so much as the very subject of it Christs Love of God in terminis either in the Treatise of Will-worship or the Defence of it against Mr. Cawdrey The truth is the Proposition is none of the Doctors and all that the Refuter pretends to is that he rightly inferred it from these words in the Account That Sincere Account to Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diat c. 6. sect 9. §. 5. Love is capable of Degrees as appears among other instances from the Example of Christ more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another and therefore in all equity must have no other meaning and signification then what the place from whence it is pretended to be deduced does admit of which can be no other then what we have given of it And though the Doctor here acknowledge that those other words not found in his Papers are yet not illogically inferred from them viz. That Christ's Love of God was capable of further Degrees more intense at one time then at another yet he that best knew his own meaning there expresly declares that they only import that Christs Love of God or holy Charity in the general Notion as he distinctly expresses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 12. it § 14. had in its Latitude or Amplitude several Degrees one differing from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in that full all-perfect Love of God which was alwaies in Christ so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees Besides that this and no other could be his meaning is evident from his instancing in that Place whence the Proposition is pretended to be inferred in the different Ardency of Christ in several Acts of Prayer which is rather an Act of Religion then Charity And though it be founded in Charity and flowes from it yet Prayer that is Deprecation or Petition such as that of Christ's then was is rather an effect of that Love of God which the Schooles call Amor Concupiscentiae a love of God for our own sakes then that which they call Amor Amicitiae a love of God purely for himself Vid. Durand l. 3. Sent. d. 28 q. 1. art 1. B. and nothing else Beseech God indeed we do to help us because we believe he is the fountain of all goodness which makes the Act formally an Act of Religion and rather to be radicated in Charity then formally and immediatly an Act of Love the Effect and issue of Charity rather then it § 39. Adde to this that the Doctor expresly saies that the Vide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 14 15 16 18 21 22. word Love in that Passage was to be taken by a Synecdoche generis for the Acts of holy Charity and not for habitual Love § 40. And then he explains his meaning by an instance taken from the Refuters own Confession thus The Death of Christ §. 22. saith he was an higher expression of Christ's Love of us of us but for God's sake then his Hunger c. To this I sub join That such as the expression was such was the Act of inward Love c. And so the same person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely then at other times Love but what God as the immediate Object no that was neither the meaning of the Refuter nor the Doctor But us he loved and expressed that Love to us more in his Death then any other Act of holy Charity and Love to us An Act of Charity Love of God this was without doubt which he bestowed on us but us in these Acts he loved immediatly for Gods sake § 41. This will further appear by the several other Phrases he uses as aequipollent to this of the Love of God For sometimes nay most commonly he rather uses the word Love absolutely then the Love of God sometimes he expresses it by Graces sometimes by Acts of vertue sometimes in the Concrete thus a sincerely-pious man a true lover of God c. § 42. I confess I have been over tediously curious in this part of the Reply But I conceive it necessary to shew how beyond all possibility of defence this Refuter is unjust in affixing that other sense to the Doctors words which he never meant nor could possibly serve his turn But so it was that the Doctor had so fully acquitted himself from the Vse of Confutation that nothing now but Consequences and new-devised meanings of words and phrases would help him and he was forced of necessity to prevaricate otherwise it had not been possible to have found out a Medium to have confuted Doctor Hammond a second time And as the Reader will see a necessity of this Travel before the Discourse is ended so I doubt not but the ingenuous will therefore pardon it § 43. Well then it being plain that this phrase the Love of God may be taken generally in confuso as they speak in the Schooles and as it prescinds or abstracts from this or that particular Act or else specially as it relates in particular to the prime and most noble Act of Divine Charity that is immediatly terminated in God and it being as plain that Doctor Hammond takes it in the first sense when he saies that The Love of God or the Acts of that Love do consist in a latitude and if we compare them one with another are more intense at one time then another it now remains that I make good the Assertion for the full and absolute acquitting of the Doctor Which I do by these Arguments § 44. Where there is and of necessity must be a gradual rence and more in respect of the goodness of the Objects of the Habit of Charity or the Love of God there is and of necessity there must be also a gradual difference in respect of the several Acts of this Habit of Charity or the Love of God
For since the * Vide Estium l. 3. Sentent dist 27. §. 5. p 92. col 1. D. E. F. unity and distinction of Habits arises from the Formal unity and distinction in the Objects it necessarily follows that where two things materially different such as God and our Neighbours are beloved for one and the same formal reason and respect to be found in them that the Habit of Divine Love towards them must be one and the same But now that infinite goodness which is alone found in God is the first and most proper and immediate Object of Divine Love and this Habit of holy Charity carries the Soul on to love other things but secondarily only and in regard of the participation of that goodness which infinitely shines in God As for Gods sake we only love them because they share and partake of his goodness so it is in order only to God and his goodness and glory that this our Love aimes And therefore since we love our Neighbours only for Gods sake and his goodness shining in them is the sole Object of our Love it evidently follows that though the material Objects are different yet the Habit of Divino Charity and holy Love is altogether one and the same And therefore saith Aquinas Dicendum est quod charitas sicut dictumest est quaedam amicitia hominis ad Deum Diversae autem amioitiarum species accipiuntur quidem uno modo secundum diversitatem finis alio modo secundum diversitatem communicationum in quibus amicitiae fundantur Neutro autem istorum madorum charitas potest dividi in plura nam charitatis finis est unus soil divina bonitas Est etiam una communicatio beatitudinis aetennae super quam haec amicitia fundatur Vnde relinquitur quod charitas est simpliciter una virtus non distincta in plures species Aquin. 2. 2. q. 23. art 5. in Corp. So again Dicendum quod virtus specificatur ex objecto suo secundumillam rationem quâ-principaliter in ipsam tendit unde cum Charitas diligat Deum principaliter omnia alia non diligit nisi in quantâ—m sunt Dei constat quod ex Vnitate divinae bonitatis quam charitas primo respicit unitatem respicit est una virtus Aquinas l. 3. Sent. d 27. q. 2. art 4. in corp primae quaestionis To this purpose may be seen Scotus l. 3. d. 28. q. unica and those that H. Cavellus there quotes Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 27. § 5. and the rest of the Commentators on the Sentences and the Summes § 56. Since then the Habit of Divine Love or holy Charity iâ— one and the same both in respect of God and our Neighbours it must of necessity follow * Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self As truly as thy self sincerely though not without some inequality of degrees as John 17. 21. Acts 3. 22. Assembly Notes Annot. in Matt. 22. 39. that the several Acts of this Love respecting God our neighbours for Gods sake must differ in regard of height and intension according to the variety of Goodness to be found in the several Objects beloved And therefore your own †Suarez in 3 part Thom. tom 1. disp 40. sect 2. p. 549. col 2. D. Suarez will tell you Verissimum est Christum Dominum magis amare velle gloriam suam quam nostram quia juxta Charitatis ordinem ita amare debet quia illud bonum in se excellentius est magis conjunctum Deo Christo And it is agreeable to the determination of Saint Austin who in his book of Christian Doctrine expresly discoursing on this very Theme tells us * August de doctrina Christiana c. 27. Ille justè sanctè vivit qui rerum integer aestimator est ipse est autem qui ordinatam dilectionem habet ne aut diligat quod non est diligendum aut non diligat quod est diligendum aut amplius diligat quod minus est diligendum aut minus vel amplius quod aequè diligendum est § 57. And so notwithstanding this Answer our former Argument holds good and stand unshaken § 58. If our Refuter shall make use of the second as sometimes in this Reply he referres to it as when he saies that nothing hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from Acts of Love gradually the same § 59. To this I return that though some in Peter Lombards time did seem to maintain quod pari affectu omnes diligendi sunt sed in effectu id est in exhibitione obsequii distinctio observanda sit and did ground this their assertion on some mistaken passages of Saint Austin yet he and generally the Schoolmen after him have resolved the contrary and they have great reason and authority on their side as we have already demonstrated and it were vain to trouble the Reader with the repetition of what we have already delivered so largely to this purpose § 60. But then secondly suppose it were granted as is pretended that all men are to be loved with the same equal affection though our expressions and outward observances may be different yet this will not conclude that therefore God and our bours are so to be loved with the same equality of affection as all other men are and even these very men that referred this order of Charity to the different outward respects to be shewed to Parents and Children and Kindred and Strangers did also maintain that God was to be loved with an inward affection answerable to his own goodness and not only in hand and tongue but also in the heart Deum verò say they as I find it in the Master of the Sentences tam affectu quam obsequii exhibitione ante omnia diligendum § 61. And so I proceed to a second Argument It cannot be denied but that there were in Christ during the state of his Humiliation those Acts of the Will that the Schools call efficaces and inefficaces such Acts of holy Love that were compleat and perfect in themselves and in the issue and accomplishment and such other Acts of holy Love that were imperfect in themselves and also ineffectual in the event The first are sometimes called Absolute acts of the Will the second are called conditionate Quia Actus efficax saies †Suarez in 3. p. Tho. tom 1. disp 38. sect 1. p. 524. col 1. E. F. Suarez absolutus est in ordine ad executionem est enim talis Actus principium operandi solet explicari hâc voce Volo Actus verò inefficax est complacentia quaedam seu displicentia ut bene explicuit Scotus in 2. dist 6. q. 1. Et dicitur Actus conditionatus non quia ut est in voluntate conditionem includat id enim intelligi non potest cum sit simplex quaedam affectio re ipsâ adhaerens voluntati simpliciter absolute sed quia ex parte objecti conditionem
feel the motion of it yet we know not whence it comes nor whither it goes since thus it is with every one that is born of the Spirit since we cannot so much as think a good thought as of our selves but all our sufficiency 2 Cor. 3. 5. Phil. 4. 13. is of God through whose assistance and strengthening we can do all things he therefore will own every fruit and degree of Grace that flowes onely from his own holy Spirit and gracious assistance and will not break the bruised Reed nor Mat. 12. 20. quench the smoaking flax but in due time blow it up into a bright and glorious flame and set the bones which he has broken And consequently I must conclude that the highest degree is not commanded and that an Inferiour degree of Love even of Actuall love is no sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod erat demonstrandum § 39. To recapitulate all for the Readers better satisfaction 1. First the highest degree of Love absolutely such or rather the one infinite height and simply perfect Act of Love commensurate with the Perfection and amiableness of God no body sayes is required in this Love 2. The loving God according to sinless Perfection and the abilities and originall righteousness Adam had in innocence the Apostle against the Jews and the †Vid. White against Fisher point 8. §. 1. 2. p. 510. D. p. 522. B. C. D. E. Mountague's answer to the Gagger c. 15 17 19. Davenant de Justit Habit. Actual Protestants against the Romanists say is required to Justification and according to the Tenor of the first Covenant which therefore they say is necessary because the Papists speak of a Justification by works a fullfilling of the Law and merit ex condigno Perfection and works of Supererogation This our Refuter undertakes to maintain to be now required of Christians to Justification otherwise he has no opposite But then the Doctor maintains that this Law requires not that Love and that Charity that consists in this sinless Perfection to the Justification of believers now because they are not under the law but under Grace And if our Refuter be his Adversary in this let him try his School-skill and answer our arguments in a School-way and leave his begging of the question 3. The loving God according to the Abilities and advantages we shall have in heaven when we shall see God face to face is the Perfection of Saints and those of the Church Triumphant not the duty of Christians and those of the Church Militant more then sincerely to endeavour after it and by comparing their weakness with the uprightness of the Law and the Perfection of this Love they may have wherewithall to humble them and long for and to fly to Ckrists Righteousness and Mediation and Gods Mercy And though our Refuter bring after the Authorities of Austin Bernard Aquinas and Scotus to prove that to this we Christians are obliged by the Law yet I shall demonstratively prove anon that they say it not but the contrary and so our Refuter stands alone and naked like the Shrub on the point of a Rock or the top of a Mast in open Sea in a storm that has nothing to succour it 4. That there is no one degree in this Quality and Grace of holy love so high beyond which there can be no higher or it cannot go but it must cease to be love and become somewhat else and consequently we cannot be obliged to love God in any one degree precisely much lesse in the eighth degree which is the highest as our Refuter and Master Cawdrey maintain 5. That believers by this old this new Commandment of Love as * Mat. 22. 39. Joh. 13. 34. our Saviour and S. John †1 Joh. 2. 7 8. 2 Joh. 4. 5. calls it are obliged to Love God to the utmost of their Power and sincerely to endeavour to grow more in grace and the knowledge of our Lord that so they may be enabled still to love him the more The onely measure of love here being to love him without measure not fixing upon any bounds or limits of love And this is that the Doctor and the most learned of Protestants maintain and let him see if he can disprove it and make what advantage he can by it § 40. But now though all this is said and demonstratively proved I must tell our Refuter that all this is nothing to the present controversie depending between him and the Doctor I must grant it indeed to be very usefull in it self and very fit to be known and better considered then oftentimes it is And in this respect I thank our Refuter for his digression that has thus occasioned mine And withall I must adde that though all were granted which now he contends for it would no whit at all concern the Doctors assertion Because the Doctor expresly in very many places especially in the defence of his Treatise of Will-worship professes not to speak of sinless perfection but of the sincerity of this or that virtue or Grace in this or that performance when he sayes it consists in a latitude and admits of uncommanded degrees And so much for his first reason I follow him to the next SECT 28. His Second Reason proves not yet granted God by more Obligations then he expresses to be Loved Acknowledged by the Doctor This Love infinite Not Positively and Categorematicè but Negatively and Syncategorematicè Acknowledged by Bellarmine and others Hinders not Freewill-offerings of Love These asserted by Bishop White Doctor not confuted though Bellarmine may Bellarmine and Ames at no great odds here Concerns not the Doctor Refuters Artifice censured Doctors Comfort and Precedent in this Persecution of the tongue 1. HIs second Reason whereby he undertakes to evince that this Commandment enjoyneth a most intense actuall Love of God a love of God with as high a degree as is possible to the humane Nature now follows and it is this JEANES A most intense Love of God a love of him with the utmost of our forces and endeavours is due unto God debito connaturalitatis debito gratitudinis 1. Debito connaturalitatis by an obligation of congruence for it is fitting that we love him as much as we can who is infinitely good in himself and therefore the chief good and supreme end of man The Protestants are brought in by Bellarmine de Monach. l. 2. c. 13. thus objecting against their Popish Evangelicall counsels of perfection that he that is unwilling to love God as much as he can doth hereby deny to wit virtually and interpretatively that God is the chief good of man and whereas he is so bold in his answer to affirm that non requiritur ut quis summum bonum tam ardenter amet quam forte posset Ames hath hereunto a round and acute reply tum non requiritur ut in bonum omni ratione summum feramur affectu omni etiam ratione summo 2.
all things not any thing without God nor all things together equally and comparable to God § 25. But then as to the second member he sayes Some meaning Henriques and others do distinguish and say that one love may be said to be more Intense and exceed an other first because it is ferventior seu tenerior more tender and melting and effeminately Passionate a tumult in the affections sometimes enlargeing the heart with joy and then strangling it for some lovers have dyed with it as the Father at the news of his sons victories and triumph and sometimes contracting it or melting it into tears Or secondly because it is fortior sive firmior of a more strong and masculine temper and can make a man bold as a Lyon and resolve to lose life and all things and suffer the utmost can be inflicted for the great affection that is in it And now when Henriques and they had resolved quod dilectio Dei c. that we must love God above all things quoad firmitatem with a more manlike affection so that nothing may be able to draw or remove us from the love of Christ yet it is not necessary that we should love God above all things with that Passionateness and ravishing and tenderness of affection because many are found thus to love the Creature suppose their wives or their children more then God himself and yet would rather forsake wife and children part with all things then renounce God And then secondly because if thus both wayes God may be loved above all things then the commandment Thou shalt love the Lord thy God Deut. 6. might be fullfilled in this life contrary to what the Master and Austin and Anselme determine qui nolunt quod hoc praeceptum sit nec quod teneamur illud implere sed quod implebimus § 26. Against this the subtle Doctor resolves that the masculine Love that can make us bold as Lyons and ready to die for Christ is the onely true Love which is seated in the will the other but a Grosse materiall thing a Passion of the sensitive appetite And if any man love more tenderly and passionately then others and yet less firmly and strongly and valiantly this proceeds not from any height and excess of the true genuine intellectuall love but from a meer effeminate and passionate delight and melancholy temper or melting complexion and disposition as some Votaries and Recluses find many times more ravishing joyes in their contemplative course of life then many more solid and well setled and grounded Christians that an hundred times more readily and cheerfully can suffer Martyrdome A passion more frequently found in women then in men in newly recovered Penitents and Converts then well grown Christians nec dulcedo est actus voluntatis elicitus sed passio quaedam actui retributa quâ Deus allicit nutrit parvulos ne deficiant in viâ The fragrancy of the Apple and the perfumes of the flaggons of wine wherewith Christ comforts his beloved when she begins to swoon and faint the milk for new born babes not the strong meat for men § 27. And then secondly he resolves God ought to be loved above all things as well intensively as extensively not onely super omnia alia extensivè sed etiam majori affectu quam aliquod aliud Et dico majori simpliciter quia scil magis repugnat effectui opposito quia facilius posset inclinari ad oppositum dilectionis cujuscunque alterius quam Dei that is if I rightly understand him according to Chamier non solùm comparatè adres alias sed etiam ad nos ipsos not onely with a higher affection then that which we bestow on any thing else for that though the highest may be but low in it self but also with an affection as high as we can because that is most opposite to sin and most repugnant to those effects and Acts that trash and hinder our love and is therefore most proper for this present state wherein we are more easily inclined to love sensuall objects then spirituall the creature then God whence it follows that we should love God with such a height of affection that shall enable us and encline us with more readiness and ease to oppose and withstand the love of any thing else rather then the love of God § 28. And then he adds further that the reason grounded on the authority of Lumbard and Austin signifies nothing quia pari ratione fuisset dandum praeceptum de visione Dei non ut impleretur sed ut sciremus quo esset tendendum cujus oppositum satis Patet and they might have said as well that there should have been a Precept to command us to see God face to face not that it should be fullfilled by us but that we might know whether to bend our hopes and aimes § 29. And now having thus plainly laid down all things and fully cleared his way he comes to give his resolution in the words our Refuter referrs to But then I must tell the Reader that he has pruned and pared off what makes against himself and is necessary to understand Scotus his opinion and he has brought him as well as he could to the size of his own Bed Dico igitur quod illud praeceptum extensivè intensivè secundum viam praedictam potest impleri in hac vitâ which is the full resolution of the Question according to the Doctors exposition and therefore these words were craftily left out by our Refuter lest he should be discovered by his Reader sed non quantum ad omnes conditiones quae exponuntur per illas additiones ex toto corde ex totâ animâ quia non potest esse in vitâ tanta recollectio virium ut amotis impedimentis possit voluntas tanto conatu ferri quanto posset si vires essent unitae non impeditae quoad talem intensionem actûs expulsis impedimentis recollectis viribus debet intelligi dictum Augustini Magistri quod praeceptum illud non impletur in viâ nam pronitas virium inferiorum pro statu isto impedit superiores ab actibus perfectis That is we are bound by the precept to love God above all things extensively and intensively and secundum viam praedictam according to the exposition that we have already given it may be fullfilled by Christians in this life although it cannot be fullfilled according to all those conditions which some expositors give of those additions ex toto corde the whole heart and the whole soul c. because there cannot be so great a recollection of strength that all impediments being removed the will may so vigorously endeavour as it might if the forces of the soul were all united and not hindered and according to this intension and fervour of the Acts of love all impediments being removed and the strength and forces of the Soul being recollected and joyned must the saying of Austin and Lumbard be
love of concupiscence which goes before Amorem gratuitum free Love For as the Apostle saith that is not first which is spirituall but that which is naturall or carnall and then that which is spirituall so free Love of God for himself is not first but first we love him for his benefits and then for himself and this is true love c. That which is naturall will be first concupiscentia before Amicitia or benevolentia and this is the inchoation of the other Perfect love is not attained at first for nemo repente fit summus Now Saint Chrysostome wondreth how men can slip themselves out of this Love for if they will love any for his Benefits none bids fairer for this Amor mercenarius then God for he offereth for it the kingdome of heaven c. And therefore it is lawfull to Love God for his benefits for God uses them as motives to stir us up to love him and the best of Gods servants have so practised Moses looked at the recompense Heb. 11. but we must not rest there nor love him onely or chiefly for them but for himself c. I love the Lord saith the Psalmist and why He is my defence Psal 18. 1. And in another place Because he heard my voyce yet seeing David did not Love God onely or chiefly for his benefits his love was not properly mercenary but true though not Perfect Thus far this most excellent Bishop whose words I have made use of as Jewels and ornaments to this discourse and because I think it impossible to me I am sure to express it better § 23. Now Christ being made like to us in all things sin onely excepted he must also have in him this naturall love of God for his benefits and protection and assistance that he had and might have from him and the Schools do resolve so For it was in its self naturall and therefore not sinfull and his present slate of a viator in the dayes of his flesh required it For though the Foxes have holes and the birds of the Air have nests yet the son of man had not where to lay his head He was truly vir desideriorum a man of desires as well as a man of sorrows This as it was naturall to the flesh and proper to him in the state of a viator so it agreed to him in respect of the Inferiour part of the Will and the sensitive Appetite which desired things naturall and necessary for it self but yet onely those things that were lawfull and fit And therefore the Schools though they resolve that there was not that hope Vid. Estium l. 3. sent d. 26. §. 8. alibi Aquin 3 part q. 7. art 4. Et Cajetan Suaresium alios in Loc. in Christ which is virtus Theologica Deum ipsum ut principale Objectum spectans yet there was in him another lower kind of hope bona quidem vera good and lawfull and true in it self which respected those things he had not yet obtained in the dayes of his flesh as his Resurrection the Glorification of himself in the humane Nature at the right hand of God and the honour of his Name and Enlargement of his kingdome In which respect saith the Psalmist in the Person of Christ in the Passion-Psalm 22. 10. I was cast upon thee from the womb thou art my God from my mothers Belly So again in the eighth and ninth verses He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him But thou art he that took me out of the womb thou didst make me hope when I was upon my Mothers breasts there are many other places in Scripture to this purpose but these are sufficient to our business This hope as it was the ground of his Love of God for the benefits he did expect and the assistance he stood in need of in the dayes of his flesh so it was the foundation of all his prayers either in regard of his present pressures and wants and reliefs he stood in need of or else in respect of the future blessings he expected after his resurrection As then as Aquinas tells us Christus habuit spem respectu aliquorum quae nondum erat adeptus so he did Aquin. 3. part q. 7. art 4. in corp truly in this respect divinum auxilium expectare In the midst of his afflictions and in the height of his Passion he trusted in God and he was heard in that he feared or delivered from it And as he trusted in God hoped in him and expected aid and assistance from him so he truly had a naturall love of God a love of desire and concupiscence towards God for the benefits and assistance he daily received and hoped from him And out of the abundance of this Love he cryes out upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me § 24. But then though this Love of concupiscence be ordinarily first in men and then afterwards the Love of Complacency though we love God first for his benefits and goodness to us and afterwards for himself yet it was not so in Christ For first as Comprehensor in his mind he loved God naturally and necessarily with the highest degree of complacency benevolence and friendship And this from the first moment of the souls union with the body And secondly as viator by reason of the fullness of the habit of Divine Grace he loved him alwayes as high with this love as the present state was capable of Though he loved God alwayes for his owne sake yet this supernaturall divine Love was not the fruit of his love of concupiscence and because he was sensible of Gods blessings and favours but it was the effect of the Beatificall vision and the fullness of divine Grace supernaturally infused from the first moment of his conception and de congruo both flowed from the Hypostaticall union § 25. But then as the Schools distinguish of a threefold knowledge in Christ the one which they call beata the other infusa and the third Experimentalis and Acquisita so there is also observed by them a threefold love of complacency in Christ The first is the beatifick Love proper to him as Comprehensor the second the Acts of the infused habit of divine Love And the third a Love of Complacency flowing from the frequent experiences of Gods goodness to him in the dayes of his flesh For he also did taste and see how good and gratious to him the Lord was in that state when he was truly that man of sorrows This was Acquisite and experimentall and this we may without any dishonour to Christ or the least disparagement to divine truth say was the issue of that other Love a Love of God for his blessings and gratious assistance This was a ravishing contentment arising in the Inferiour part of his soul a sweet delight and complacency in God from the experience of his goodness answering and satisfying those desires
Charity here signifie not outward sensible expressions but morall duties Proved from Aquinas Cajetan Suarez His second Reason His Ignorance and Confusion in it Necessity Liberty of three kinds What. He denyes Christ to be the meritorious Cause of our Salvation He confounds Christ's naturall liberty of Will with the morall liberty of the Action Contradicts Scripture Christ how no more free to the outward Expression then the inward Act. How indifferent Actions determined Christ how free to the use of outward Expressions how not Proof from Suarez examined Grossely misunderstood What Suarez intends Defenders advise to the Refuter JEANES As for the second sentence that a Tempestuous time a time of Christs affliction was a season for his zeal to pour it self out more profusely then in a calmer season This is not I grant denyed by me if by this more profuse pouring out of his zeal you onely understand the outward expressions of his zeal but I cannot but extreamly wonder that you affirm this to be the utmost that you undertook to demonstrate to M. Cawdrey or to justifie now against me For first in your answer to M. Cawdrey c. § 1. SIr I must here declare to all the world that I am quite tyred with your Impertinencies What The Doctor so weak and shallow as to think zeal and the more profuse pouring it out at such a time to be nothing else but a louder Noise and a deeper sigh and perhaps a Groan Is this all the honour our Refuter will allow to this heightned Ardency of our Saviours Devotion Is this the encrease and all the Earnestness of it was this worth the recording by the Evangelist for our after-instruction No Sir the Doctor knows too too well the difference between true zeal and loud noise He knows this is a Fruit of the Spirit a Flame in the soul that mounts up to the throne of Grace a Flame that is quickned and made active and vigorous by the Wind and Storms of Affliction that blow upon it It is of the heightening these inward Acts of Piety and zeal and fervency in Prayer that the Doctor understands Saint Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the graduall Intention of these and the like Inward Acts the Doctor has not onely justified against M. Cawdrey but I also all along have demonstrated against you And therefore your following Reasons to prove a difference between the Inward Acts and the outward Expressions might have been spared and you lose time to no purpose in evidencing that which was never denyed and is so plain in it self that it needs no confirmation § 2. But let us hear Reason howsoever for now perhaps we shall find it at parting JEANES For first in your answer to M. Cawdrey you affirm by ††If it be not a fault in the Printer Master Jeanes is much mistaken for it should be by consequence if I understand Logick consequent that Christs Love of God was capable of further and higher degrees but Love is predicated of the outward expressions thereof onely analogically Analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas dicitur de urinâ Secondly In this your reply c. § 3. To the first I could wish Sir you had told us the Place for as yet I know not where to find it I remember indeed the Doctor asserts and makes good in his Treatise of will-worship that Christs Ardency in Prayer was heightened in his Agony and M. Cawdrey in his Triplex Diatribe acknowledges Cawdrey Triplex Diatribe p. 116. the Proof and sayes Christ was above the Law and did supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and so in the degree of affection in Prayer it self c. And as this is all the Ardency that the Doctor either directly or by consequence affirms of Christ so this of M. Cawdreys is the very distinct confession of all that the Doctor in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contends for And will you be so cruelly passionate to wound a Friend that you may strike him you count an Enemy because he tells you the truth If M. Cawdrey be Orthodox then surely Doctor Hammond is unjustly opposed and if the Doctors Tenet be erroneous then M. Cawdrey himself must fall under that use of Confutation that was first written in his Defence Either then Sir take in your bloody flagg of defiance that you hang out with such Terrour and Menace in your Title-Page or let the world plainly understand your new and exquisite Policy to confute by an Apology and though you name onely Doctor Hammond yet you also mean M. Cawdrey though as the world now goes you must seem to abet him Compare your Title-Page and this very passage together and see whether it fits best M. Cawdrey or the Doctor But not to intrude upon your secret thoughts and designs you plainly here manifest to the world that you have read the Doctors Account and Answer to the Triplex Diatribe And therefore I must proclaim you inexcusable as well for not understanding if not plainly perverting the Doctors sense so expresly there declared as for not taking notice at all of the Answers he made to many of your Objections before you undertook to Refute his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 4. And therefore what you add But love is predicated by the outward expressions thereof onely analogically Analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas dicitur de urinâ is nothing at all to this purpose § 5. For the Doctor confounds not the Outward Expressions with the Inward Acts but onely à posteriori concludes the heightening of the one by the multiplying and aggrandation and growth of the other As then the Philosopher collects and demonstrates the Cause by the Effect as the Mariner portends the greatness of the storm by the leaps and playing of the Porcpisce and other signs and observations as the Mathematician from the print of Hercules foot in the sand or snow did find out the true dimensions of his Body so S. Gregory has told us that probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis that the performance of the outward work is the true Index and Touchstone and proof of our Love And nature it self teaches us without any other Tutor to conclude the Inward Affection to be greatest where the Outward Expressions of Love are most eminent § 6. Though then Love as you say is predicated of the Outward Expressions thereof onely analogically analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae sicut sanitas de urina yet since the Outward Expressions if true and genuine and not hypocriticall and counterfeit are the Fruits and signs of the Inward Affection we may then by the Graduall difference of them conclude the Rise or Abatement of that Love as the Physician judges of the health or sickness of his patient by his urine and other symptomes § 7. And therefore Sir if you will but grant me as you do the Doctor that a Tempestuous time a Time of Christs affliction was a season for his zeal to pour
behaviour as if you were some Novice or Fresh-man in the Schools and knew not how to speak but in a Criticall way But what is worst of all he craftily accuses you as a Factor for Popery and broaching such doctrines that â—a â—9 30 31. the Protestants generally oppose in Bellarmine and his Complices Nay he is not ashamed to charge your Doctrine as if it were little less then * Pag. 27. Hereticall and speaks in plain terms that your Assertion is * Nay not only Aquinas but generally all the Schoolmen and Civilians too are so precise in this Particular as that among the Degrees of Damnable Propositions are ranked by them not onely Propositions downrightly Hereticall but also Propositio sapiens Haeresin Propositio male sonans every Proposition that doth but smell that hath but a smack of Heresie that sounds but ill and suspiciously c. Mr. H. Jeanes of Abstinence from all Appearance of Evill 8o. Oxon. 1640. p. 34 35. and for this he quotes Albertinus and Alphonsus à Castro vid. loc Propositio male sonans harshly sounding in the ears of Christians that are jealous of their Masters honour and that now since his Resutation is published he hopes it will be ingeniously confessed by your self upon a review of it And then for a close he declares in his very Title Page that he has proved it to be utterly irreconcilable with the 1. Fullness of Christs Habituall Grace 2. The Perpetuall Happiness and 3. the Impeccability of his Soul I confess at first reading I was troubled at this usage but since I see it is the Mode of confuting D. Hammond And therefore finding the Adversary Confident and Scornfull but withall very weak I resolved to display both his Ignorance and Folly to the view of all even the meanest spectators Nor could I in Justice do less to one that had so unworthily handled you without any Provocation Indeed what course was else to be taken to answer such severe but uningenuous Criminations Should I onely have tamely replyed that I had well weighed your Reasons and considered his Replyes and carefully consulted the Authors he referrs to and had found he was mistaken and so left him to a further Proof and Confirmation of his Objections I confess that this had been a very short way and satisfactory enough For by the Laws and Rules of Disputation nothing more is required of the Respondent but to deny or distinguish where he sees cause or else plainly to grant the Argument and the Opponent whose place your Refuter evidently sustains is bound to prosecute his Objection till he make the Defendent to yield to the force of his Reason or by Distinction to shew that it concerns not the Question But then withall I considered that if I should have taken this course I should have said little to the greatest part of Readers in your Apologie and Defence For first I saw that his Reply was Printed I suppose with Licence and Approbation of the present University at Oxford And then secondly I understood that he had many Admirers especially among Countrey Divines and young Students for his skil in Schoole-learning now a stranger among us And thirdly I considered that he being a writer of tall Name and strong repute among many I should have gained nothing but contempt among them for such Answers and that the Denyall of a Nameless Author without Credit and without Fame would not at all have Ballanced against the weight of so valued a Schoolman But lastly which most moved me I was not ignorant that as the Books he referrs to were very rarely to be had especially in Private Studies so even those that had them would rather have believed his suggestions against mine then put themselves to the Trouble and Expence of consulting and perusall of Authors to umpire the difference And therefore I judged it necessary for the Readers satisfaction and the full defence of that Truth you maintain to lay down the Authors words at large and clearly thence prove either his prevaricating or mistakes And this is one main Reason of the increase of the Bulk A second Motive that drew me to this length was my unwillingness altogether to spend time in the unprofitable discoveries of an other man's errours but I rather desired to be didacticall and instructive And therefore where I saw reason and the argument was profitable and materiall I let my pen run beyond the ordinary limits of an elenchticall discourse And because I saw little or nothing as yet said on either side to explain the nature of that ardency and love which was the subject matter of the Dispute I resolved as occasion offered to state it as clearly as I could and to my poor abilities open the true nature of it that so the Reader might be satisfied in the business of the Controversie and not altogether lose his prospect after the substance amidst the clouds and smoke of contention but aswell discover the full lineaments and pourtraicture of that truth you maintain as the mistakes of your adversary and his false shapes and phantasms of it A third Reason was because I found your Refuter having upon the matter done with your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fall to oppose your Doctrine in gross by Arguments drawn from the fullness and perfection of Christs habituall grace his perpetuall uninterrupted happiness and impeccability and from thence had largely digressed to censure a passage in your Treatise of Will-worship about the sense of the first and great Commandment of Love and this I must confess made me willing to amplifie and digress as well as he Nor have I onely contented my self to answer his Arguments and acquit and vindicate your Doctrine from the coarse aspersions thrown upon it of Popishly affected but in a Scholasticall way have treated of the Themes themselves as well as discovered the gross ignorance of your Adversary And because his discourse lead me to consider those high and noble Themes of the Love of God and perfection both Legall and Evangelicall as also Christs two fold state of Comprehensor and Viator I was willing to treat of them with that Industry and care as so weighty Arguments deserved and have as well Didactically as Eristically considered them And withall upon occasion where M. Jeanes and M. Cawdrey did agree upon the same common principles of opposition to you I have though contrary to my first design and aim fallen upon a vindication of some passages in your Tract of Will-worship which M. Cawdrey and he had censured and upon that occasion also I have cleared and confirmed diverse passages in your Account to the Triplex Diatribe And then which is the last great Reason of the bulk of this Discourse I have taken occasion to prove the Invariability of Gods love and to demonstrate that it is no changeable transcendent quality but one immutable and substantiall act against Crellius and the Socinians and yet withall declare how God notwithstanding
this is and may be said to love some more and some less I have spoken also of the nature of Acts and Habits in order to that habituall and actuall love of Christ the main business of the Controversie I have proved and confirmed the fullness of Christs habituall grace I have treated of his merits and the nature of his sufferings and the greatness of them in his bloody agony of his twofold will and how as God-man he was in capacity to pray of his ardency in prayer and how he might earnestly desire a removall of that cup which yet he came to drink off I have treated also of the severall kinds of love agreeing to him as viator and comprehensor of his zeal and hope and trust in God and shewed what love of concupiscence and complacency in him was capable of increase and how all these are different from ardency in Prayer I have also taken occasion in order to M. Cawdrey but with some reflexions on M. Jeanes to treat of counsels Evangelicall and Gospel-freewill-offerings of perfection of life and perfection of state of works of supererogation to speak of originall sin and the opinion of S. Austin in it of Man's threefold state of growth in grace of different degrees in glory of the inequality of the Saints and Angels love of God in heaven and of Adam's possibility of proficiency in grace in the state of Innocence of lukewarmness and sincerity of justification and of the difference of the two Covenants and Mans severall obligation under them with other points of this nature together with some Metaphysicall and Philosophicall notions interspersed All which as they are themes of high nature and would not admit of a running discourse so they are not altogether digressions from the main Argument especially in order to the Refuters manner of reasoning that in many parts required it And becausethe Reader will not ordinarily meet with such arguments treated on in our language especially in a Scholastical way I was willing to gratifie him in them to the utmost of my power And if he be offended with this my labour of love and too officious desire to please him I here promise before you that if he pardon me this once he shall not have occasion to blame me for a second-such-offence And now having given you the true Reasons of the length of this Discourse it will be fit I also make you some account of my stile and my manner of handling it As then your Refuter every where pretends to Philosophy and the Schools so fit it was I should treat him in a Scholasticall way and in writings of this kind The best ornament arises from the strength and reason of the discourse and he is most eloquent that can express his matter clearest and make such knotty stuff plain I have seen the statue of a Roman Gladiator pourtrayed naked and as combating his enemy in the midst of the Amphitheater And it was a piece of high worth and curious art and more rich in the lively representation of the wrathfulness of the look the stretched and well set muscles the strong and brawny parts and the vigour and agility of the limbs then if he had been carved in the robes of a Senator And therefore since my work was for argument and defence I chose to build my Fabrick not curious but strong and because much of my materials were of marble I laboured onely to polish not to paint it And this is the genuine true beauty that springs from the naturall compactedness and solidity of the stone and he that strives to trim it with painting though of gold and vermilion doth but hide not adorn it Such embellishments are onely fit for less solid materials And therefore Sir as I cannot tempt my Reader or beguile his patience to the end of the discourse with artificiall expressions and curious conceits and lively flashes of wit so I must tell him that if he look for colours and varnish and eloquence he must not seek after Architects and Schoolmen but Limners and Romances For though Embroderies and lace rich jewels and curled tresses are the usuall ornaments of brides yet they are as unhandsome and commonly suspected as meretricious in matrons I care not then for neatness if you that are best able judge me solid and strong And I doubt not but the knowing Reader will be better contented with the plain demonstration and proof of a conclusion then if I had written in a strain of the declamations of Quintilian and Seneca's controversies But yet Sir because the age is more for phansie then reason and better pleased with fine and aery discourses then with solid and plain and because I have known some exquisite Architects that have been curious Painters too I was willing where the matter would bear and needed rather illustration then proof to let my phansie take wing and to range and sore about like a haggard Hawke that in a Sunshine day more minds her weathering then her prey And willing I was though in the middest of the Schools not to be alwayes severe but amidst business and reason to yield a little to the garbe and mode of the age and to gratifie the Printer so far as to let the world see that where my expressions are plain and after the manner of the Schools it arose not altogether from barrenness of wit and a lowness of expression but election and choice And for this as I have the authority of a great Master of wit and method at Rome so I have seen in noble buildings where the foundation has been of rough and solid stone and the pillars of marble and the walls of plain Ashler yet the Pillasters and Capitalls and the Architraves and Freezes that bear no stress in the building have been artificially carved And now having said this Sir I have but onely told you my design and platform I speak not of my performance That were a piece of vanity unpardonable This was onely in Idea in my prospect and aim and what I desired to accomplish and perfect when I undertook your defence For I thought you deserved the best Apology could be writ which pardon me your modesty if I say none can make but Doctor Hammond If I have done any thing in order to the vindication of the truth and you I have then my ambition and all the reward that I desire is that you will not enquire after me nor ask after my name But if you and the Reader shall find nothing in me to content you then inflict upon me the worst censure that can befall a bad Author and enquire not at all after me but let me be forgotten and thought unworthy of a name Whether then you approve or condemn I have my sole aim if I continue unknown THE ADVERTISEMENT to the READER Courteous Reader THou art to be advertised of three things The first is that though the Author be assured that things once well done are alwayes done soon and
as the Refuter calls it much prejudices an assertion of his own in his mixture but no whit the Doctor 345 SECT XX. The Refuters third argument reduced to form The major denyed His sophistical homonymy discovered His confounding the different acts of Christs love as Viator and Comprehensor The true assertions in his discourse severed from the false inferences Christ impeccable Thence iâ— follows not that the acts of his love are all equall but the contrary The great commandment of love enjoyns the most ardent love that we are able to reach to Thence it follows not that the acts of this love ought alwayes to be equal Christ as Comprehensor had on earth greater abilities to love God then Adam in paradise or the Saints and Angels in heaven Thence it follows not that the acts of his love as Viator were to be equall or if they increased successively that he sinned This discourse cleared and confirmed from Suarez The severall acts of charity by which Christ merited Hence the inequality of intension in these acts demonstrated Further proved from the Refuters mixture The Viator differs in abilities from the Comprehensor Proved from Scripture and reason Cajetan Scotus The Refuters following digression impertinent his design in it to amuse the Reader and to bring the Doctor into an unjust suspicion 365 SECT XXI As the Doctor needs not so is it not his custome to make use of former expositions This practise in the Refuter censured This digression not an answer to the Ectenesteron but a fling at the treatise of Will-worship His brief transcribing the Doctors exposition and large examining of it censured M. Cawdrey grants all in controversie between the Doctor and Refuter but contradicts himself The Refuters prevaricating and false suggestions to his Reader His first reason for this suggestion reduced to form Destructive to all religion Biddle Hobbes Leviathan Whatsoever answer he shal make for himself against a Socinian Anabaptist Quaker c. will secure the Doctor His five very false and proofless criminatious in his next reason mustered up His hasty oversight in citing Chamier 374 SECT XXII The occasion of the Doctors exposition of the first great commandment of love The reasons of his fundamental position in short If any one of them demonstrative as M. Cawdrey grants one is then all not bound to it to every act acceptable to God nor to perform it to a degree even then when they are obliged ad speciem This the utmost the Doctor undertook either against M. Cawdrey or the Refuter Reasonable the Refuter should answer these before he suggested to the Reader a need of further proof 383 SECT XXIII The Refuters two first charges Bellarmines explication at large The Doctors The defenders challenge hereupon The difference between Bellarmine and the Doctor examined What good in Bellarmine approved by the Doctor What erroneous not found in the Doctor or else declared against Bellarmine and the Doctor speak not of the same thing Chamier assents to the Doctors position The sixth Corollary of Bellarmine if found in the Doctor yet otherwise understood not censured by Chamier Ames Vorstius Two men may love God with all their hearts and yet one love him more then the other The Doctors exposition not borrowed from Bellarmine nor yet popishly affected 386 SECT XXIV The Refuters third and fourth charges The Doctors exposition parallel to that of Bishop Andrewss Davenant Downham White Hocker Field Grotius Ainsworth praised Assembly Annotations Vrsin Calvin Victor Antiochenus Imperfect work on Matthew Theophylact Theodoret Zacharias Austin Chamier The objections from Calvin Vrsin answered Chamiers conclusion against Bellarmine examined concerns not the Doctor advantages not the Refuter State of innocency a state of proficiency Proved from M. Cawdrey Saints and Angels love not God all to the same indivisible height Saints differ in glory The Doctor of the first and second covenant Perfection Legall Evangelicall Learned Protestants agree with him against Chamier The falshood of Chamier's inference as understood by the Refuter and M. Cawdrey demonstrated How to be understood Heresie of the Perfectists How not favoured by Chamier Thus more agreeable to himself Recapitulated in five positions Chamier and the Doctor agreed The Doctor justified from M. Cawdrey's concessions M. Cawdrey's contradictions in the point of perfection In what sense free will-offerings and uncommanded degrees and acts of piety and charity The question stated Davenant Montague White Hooker and generally the Fathers and divers Protestants agreeing with the Doctor in this point of perfection and counsel and doing more then is commanded This proves not the Popish doctrine of Supererogation 440 SECT XXV Heads of the reasons for the Doctors exposition and assertion of degrees in love and freewill offerings Refuters fifth charge examined Falshood of it Challenged to make reparations Calumny of Popishly affected how easily and unhappily retorted 433 SECT XXVI Artifice in refuting the Doctor in Ames words answering by halves Doctor asserts not lukewarmness How differs from sincerity What. Christianity a state of proficiency Growing grace true acceptable How differs from lukewarmness Bellarmine and Ames dispute concerns not the Doctor Artifice in citing Bishop White Doctor asserts sincerity as opposed to partiall divided love What. Bishop Whites words not to the purpose Love of God above all things objective appretiative intensive what Doctor maintains all Most intense love required yet not so much as is possible to the humane nature Perfection of charity how required of Christians how not 438 SECT XXVII His first reason proves not Intension and degrees of what love fall not under the commandment Modus of a virtuous act how under precept Aquinas how to be understood Opposes not the Doctor No one precise degree of love commanded First inference denyed Lukewarmness and first degree of love differ Second and third inferences denyed Vanity of his argument demonstrated Naturall spirituall qualities how differ His conclusion granted Love the highest 1 in respect of the thing beloved 2 The person loving according to mans threefold state In innocence obliged to sinless perfection Condition of the first covenant How urged by Protestants and S. Paul Condition of the second covenant How the Doctor denies legall perfection obligatory to Christians How bound to love God now Their love still growing Acknowledged by M. Cawdrey Opposed to lukewarmness Our loves future how the highest how not Degrees of this love proportioned to degrees of glory This the Saints crown not race 3 Love the highest in regard of the form No one precise degree highest in love as in naturall qualities May be increased in infinitum How a set number of degrees in love His argument retorted Doctors assertion proved by it Gods righteousness infinite immutable Inchoate sanctification a fruit of the Spirit Whole recapitulated No prejudice to the Doctor if all granted 450 SECT XXVIII His second reason proves not yet granted God by more obligations then he expresses to be loved Acknowledged by the
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
hanc etiam interpretationem verissimè dicitur nomen seu conceptum Dispositionis genericè specificè sumi posse Nam priori modo idem est quod Actus perficiens actuans potentiam operativam ut abstrahit ab actu primo secundo sic constituit hanc primam speciem Qualitatis quatenus est simplex quaedam species subalterna quae ulterius dividitur in actum primum secundum tanquam in Habitum Dispositionem strictè specificè sumptam § 44. And therefore Ringantur ut ilia Codro I must tell our Refuter that though he count the Doctor but a Critick yet he ha's shewed himself a true Philosopher and an acute Metaphysician and a solid Divine when he asserted that Love was truly a Quality of the first Species which as a Genus proximum was predicated of Habitual and Actual Love and therefore more truly deserves the Title of a School-man then our writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity that confesses himself to be ignorant of such vulgar common Truths which it is impossible a true Schoolman and Philosopher should not perfectly know § 45. And now for a close I shall adde that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first ground of this Refuters mistake all along in this Discourse arises from his misunderstanding of the nature of Immanent Acts which by a mistake and too hasty running over a Passage in Scheibler formerly quoted he makes to be simply Praedicamental Actions toto genere different from Habits and not at all Qualities either not distinguishing or not apprehending how in Immanent Acts the formal operation which is acknowledged to be a Praedicamental Action could be distinguished from the Quality that terminates and is still produced by that Action which as it is the first causa procreans so it is the constant causa conservans of it too For it is with these Qualities as it is with Light the Quality of actual Love that terminates the Action of Loving does still constantly depend on that Action in its being and preservation as Light does on Illumination The vanity and falshood of which Assertion of this Refuter as it hath already appeared so he will instantly give us further occasion to demonstrate § 46. And now for a breathing bait I shall be bold to ask our Refuter what he thinks of this his irrefragable Demonstration which at the beginning he so confidently submits to the Doctors severest examination Let him tell me whether it appear not to himself now as ridiculous as * 1 Kings 12. 11 25. Zedekiahs iron Horns when he fled at the news of the King of Israels rout and destruction Let him tell me whether his boasting and confidence of Success before an Enemy appeared make not his flight and overthrow more worthy to be scorned laughed at then otherwise it would have been Let him tell me how it is possible the first horn of his Dilemma or Captious Argument wherein all the strength and terror lay being broken and destroyed that the Doctor should be in any the least danger of the other What necessity now is there and let our Refuter himself judge that the Doctor must be forced to say that this Quality is a Habit and consequently what will become of his Inference That the Doctor must by consequence affirm what he seems to deny Indeed if the Doctor had asserted that the Habit the Principle of these Acts had been intended he had formally contradicted himself or if he had said that some Habit the terminus of those Acts and produced and acquired by them had been intended he had spoken and affirmed a kind of contradiction in adjecto for then he had affirmed that a pure supernatural Grace that solely depends upon the gift and infusion of God had been acquired by humane Acts and endeavors But then if he had so said this had not been to have contradicted himself He had spoken non-sense indeed but not a Contradiction to himself because he had not said that the all-full supernatural infused Habit had been increased but either a new Habit acquired or augmented by those Acts. And therefore our Refuter was as much mistaken in this attempt as in any of the rest § 47. But let me tell him that as the Doctor had no necessity to lay down such an Assertion so he was too sound and solid a Philosopher and Divine to do it though yet this Refuter does every where decry him for a Dunce and bragge he has so made him And therefore I shall only say that since the Doctor had so often and so early and withall so clearly disclaimed this Opinion in regard of the intensive growth of our Blessed Saviours Habitual Grace of Divine Love the Refuter in my Judgement could have no other aim in the re-doubling this charge in the close of his Argument but only to fill up his Paper and swell it into a volume He was sure at his * Martial aliter non fit Avite Liber or else he was willing to amuse the eyes of weak Readers and fill their heads with vain jealousies § 48. And thus we see * Horat. Suis ipsa Roma viribus ruit Though the Romans counted their City immortal and dedicated to it Temples and Altars with this Inscription Vrbi Aeternae yet Time and Roma Sotterranea has shewed that their Poet was the better Prophet And though our Refuter were so confident of this Argument that he proudly submits it to the Doctors severest examination yet as overladen with its own greatness it sinks into an empty and very impertinent Sophism If he had not put so much trust in it and swelled it with heterogeneous matter to this Bulk the Fall had not been so great But now as he said of Pompeys overthrow * Martial jacere Vno non poterat tanta ruina loco so as if it were not sufficient to have shewed the vanity of it once we shall be forced to hear of it again in very many places of his Pamphlet for there is scarce a Section to be met with where he grounds not his Reply upon this his first great but very unfortunate performance And therefore his Foundation being thus destroyed and not one stone left unremoved I shall with the greater security proceed to the examination of the rest They say of Mahomets Tombe though the more sober reports of later Travailers contradict it that being an Iron Chest it hangs in the Air in the Temple at Mecha drawn up suspended by the Magnetical force of a Load-stone roof that does cover it And such methinks is this following Discourse of our Refuter an empty Castle in the Air that ha's nothing to support it but the Magnetical chains of his own deluded Imagination And so we are come to a more solid building of the Doctors erection For thus he goes on SECT 5. The Doctor innocent of the former Crimination The Refuters new Endictment proved vain by a clear instance His
Blessed Saviour that he commanded it to be frequently inscribed and set upon his Palace walls If the Doctor had immediately before so fully and so clearly expressed himself in this particular that it is impossible it should be more evident why then did you not rather judge his meaning by the Plain then like another Delius Natator Dive for that in the Obscure which God knowes he never meant § 13. There are three very excellent Rules in the Civill Law which I shall recommend to our Refuter for a Vse of Instruction to guide and direct him better to mannage his Vses of Confutation The first is Semper in dubiis benigniora praeferenda sunt 1. Digest de Regul Juris l. 50. tit 17. leg 56. 2. Ibid. leg 96. In all doubtful cases the fairest glosse and construction is to be preferred as the best The second is In ambiguis orationibus maxime sententia spectanda est ejus qui eas protulisset That in all ambiguous doubtful speeches we must especially regard the meaning and sense of him that delivered them The 3. Ibid. leg 114. third is In obscuris inspici solet quod verisimilius est aut quod plerumque fieri solet That in things that are dark and obscure we must use to regard that which is the most probable and likely to be true or that which most commonly is wont to be done The reason and equity of them is so great that they are universally approved of For what writing or speech is there in the world wherein the obscure and doubtful expressions are not and in Justice ought not to be expounded by the plain Is not this the course in all Courts of Judicature in the world Is it not usual in all Contracts and familiar in all Discourses and Disputes And is it not a ruled case both in the Pulpit and the Schooles to unriddle the dark and doubtful intricate places of Scripture by the more clear and manifest How else Sir would you be able to Answer a Julian or a Porphyrie or make return to a Socinian § 14. And shall not the Doctor have so much favour allowed him as to obtain common Justice Or shall that be a fault in him which is not so in all other Writers It is not only the Fate of Riddles and Oracles to be obscure * 2 Pet. 3. 16. Saint Paul in his Epistles has many things hard to be understood as well as Ezechiel and the Revelation Words and Language Sir are too narrow to express the notions of the Mind nor are they alwayes faithful interpreters to others of those Thoughts they were designed to represent § 15. And therefore Sir I beseech you to allow this Plea at least for the Doctor and if there be in this Paragraph any seeming contradiction to his own true and proper meaning and former plain expressions let the one reconcile the other and though you and the Doctor differ in judgement yet be not so uncharitable as to make him at variance with himself § 16. But this only upon supposal that you have not misquoted the Doctor and that he had truly contradicted himself § 17. But the truth is the Doctor needs no such defence The matter is clear to any man that will not wilfully mistake And thus the Case stands The Doctor in the former Paragraph had declared his Opinion of Christs all-full perfect habit of Divine Love which he acknowledges was alwayes in him so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees And this he is not only willing to assert but also to demonstrate And an Argument he borrowes from that very Sentence that the Refuter first cavilled at and it proceeds à Posteriori from the Effect to the Cause thus If Christs Love of God in the Act and exercise was capable of Degrees more intense at one time then another and had in its latitude or amplitude several Degrees one different from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in because issuing from the Habit of Divine Love then this habitual Love of God must be acknowledged all-full and perfect alwaies in him so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees But the Antecedent is true and therefore also the Consequent The evidence of the Sequele is supposed grounded upon two very known Maximes Nihil est in Effectu quod non prius erat in Causa and Nihil dat quod non habet And therefore if the Acts be the Effect and the Habit the Cause * De Habitibus infusis longe diversa ratio est nam sine illis non habet potentia ullum principium intrinsecum proportionatum propriis actibus talium habituum Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 6. §. 14. especially in all supernatural productions where the Will can do nothing of it self but by the assistance of the supernaturall concurrence of the Habit whatsoever perfection is to be found in the Acts must also be acknowledged to have been in the Habit from whence the Act springs The Assumption he proveth in the 13 th Paragraph thus The Degrees of which Christs Love of God is capable are by me thus exprest That his Love was more intense at one time that is in one Act then at another in another Act but still the higher of those Degrees of Intenseness was as truly acknowledged to be in Christs Love at some time viz. in his Agony as the lower was at another and so all the Degrees which are supposed to be mentioned of his Love are also supposed and expresly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other To make this Discourse more clear and evident I shall put it into form and thus prove the former Assumption If the higher of these Degrees of Intenseness of which Christs Love of God is capable was and must be as truly acknowledged to be in Christs Love at some time viz. in his Agony as the lower was at another then all the Degrees which are to be supposed to be mentioned of his Love are also supposed and expresly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other and then by consequence it will follow as in the former Assumption But the Antecedent is true and therefore also the Consequent I confess the Doctors Discourse and manner of arguing is here Crypticall and * Brevis esse laboro Obscurus fio Horat. obscure and his labouring to be brief has made him leave out some words which has brought a cloud or'e his Discourse But he supposed he writ to a Schoolman to whom dark phrases are no strangers Howsoever I shall endeavor to cleer all by a familiar instance Suppose I should commend Titius or Sempronius for a most exquisite Musician that had the Habit of his Art in its utmost perfection and for proof of it should say he could play at first sight the hardest Lesson could be set as well as
the easiest and that at such a time he had actually done the one as well as the other would not this be an evident Demonstration of the perfection of this man's skill and Habit I suppose that it would nor can our Refuter doubt of it if he understand his own Maxime quoted from * Petr. Hurtad de Mendo. de Anim. disp 16. sect 8. p. 672. Hurtado and it be true as he sayes that Intensio Actus secundi supponit aequalem intensionem in Actu primo cum Actus secundus supponit primum The reason is plain because (a) Vide Suarez Metaph tom 2. disp 44. sect 5. §. 6. Quomodo si ab Actionibus fit Habitus ab ipso Habitu fiunt Actiones Circularis enim esset demonstratio in eodem genere causae quod cum per se fieri nequit in natura tum prohibetur ejusdem praeceptionibus Verum haud ita est ex Actionum crebritate c Jul. Scaliger ad Cardan de subtil exercit 307. sect 4. p. mihi 884. Vide eund supra ibid. Vide Suarez Metaph. tom 2. disp 44. sect 6 7. per tot sect 10. praesertim §. 17. Scheibler Met. lib. 2. c. 8. tit 4 art 6. punct 1 2 3. the Habit together with the Will is the principle from whence these Acts flow And though there may be some doubt of this Maxime of Hurtado in respect of Acquired Habits because these are the effects of Acts and attained by them yet of these Habits that are meerly supernatural and are alone bestowed by Infusion from God there can be none quia illi habitus sunt per se necessarii ad substantiam actus quia ob hanc rationem actus non possunt effective producere aut intendere illos habitus as Suarez very acutely § 20. Since then that these Acts are the effects of the Habit and the Habit as the Principle is only in ordine ad Actus acquired and infused only in order to this end it is generally resolved that as Actus specificantur ab Objectis so Habitus specificantur ex habitudine ad Actus and consequently the best way to know the nature and perfection of the Habit will be by considering the perfection of the Act. Nay indeed it is impossible either in regard of the essence or gradual intensive or extensive perfection of the Habit to know it any other way then by the Acts except by Revelation For (b) Tertio loco potest ex dictis facile definiri in quo subjecto sunt hujusmodi Habitus Dicendum est enim solum esse in viventibus intellectualibus proximè tantum esse in potentiis elicitivis actuum immanentium quae rationales sunt vel aliquo modo rationem participant c. Vid. Suarez tom 1. Metaph. disp 44. sect 1 2 3 4. Scheibler Metaph. l. 2. c. 8. tit 4. art 3. Habits being only seated in the Rationall Faculties or those that are some way partakers of Reason are not discernible to Sense and their Acts being all of them immanent and elicite Acts must only appear by some outward transient Acts and sensible expressions that have necessary dependance on and connexion with the immanent and elicite Acts of the Rational Powers And therefore the resolution of Suarez (c) Suarez Metaph. tom 2. disp 43. sect 1. §. 4. even in this sense is most true Quod ergo hujusmodi Habitus sint à nobis solum cognosci potest ex Actibus quatenus aliquam facilitatem consequenter novam aliquam facultatem in operando relinquunt And if this be true of all acquisite Habits it must be much more true of those that are per se infusi Because these quatenus per se supponuntur ad actus ut connaturali modo fiant magis censentur habere rationem potentiarum quà m habituum as the same Suarez does in that place very rationally determine § 21. He then that will assert a Perfection and all-full height of any Habit especially in those that are infused to be in any Subject he cannot possibly prove his assertion unless by Revelation and extrinsecal Arguments drawn from Authority firm indeed but inevident except by instancing in the several Acts that must demonstrate the in-being and Capacity and Perfection of the Habit. He must suppose that if the Habit be in that Subject in all Perfection that it is a Quality whole essence consists in a latitude and consequently has in its latitude or amplitude as the Doctor very Metaphysically severall Degrees one differing from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in the Habit supposed to be all-perfect For if it were a form absolutely indivisible it could not possibly be capable of gradual perfection And now when the Latitude of the form is supposed he cannot prove that this form is inexistent in it's utmost Latitude but by instancing in the several Acts gradually differing in Perfection one from another that flow from this Habit as the Doctor ha's done And therefore saies Saint James (a) James 2. 18. upon this very Principle of Reason Yea a man may say Thou hast faith and I have works shew me thy faith without thy works and I will shew thee my faith by my works In vain it is for a man to pretend to have the Habit of Faith or any other Grace unless he can demonstrate it to them by the Acts and workes and fruits and Effects of it For as the same Saint James (b) James 2. 14. What does it profit my brethren does it any wayes advantage him is he either the better man in himself or the opinion of others though a man say he have faith and have not works § 22. Though then a supposed capacity of further Degrees seems at least and is so resolved by this Refuter to infer that these Degrees were not in Christ yet the Proposition which the Doctor confesses is not illogically inferred from his words viz. That Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees more intense at one time then at another is a Proposition necessary to be supposed by any man that by true and natural Medium's would prove the full Perfection of Christs habitual Grace viz. by the fruits and effects and Acts of it which is the only rational way of proof And therefore the Doctor in this Discourse is so far from any direct or consequential denyall of the Fulness of habitual Grace in Christ that he has taken the best way to demonstrate it And strange it is that our Refuter should be such an unhappy Disputant as to draw from the Doctors Principles the direct contrary Proposition to that which the Doctor inferred from them and labours to prove by them § 23. And therefore good Sir I beseech you tell us where the Doctor has let fall the Assumption wherewith you charge him In what place has he said that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before Let us have you prove
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
effective or in plain English the issues and effects of Love yet the termes are not reciprocal and convertible For there are many effects of Love that are not sensible and thus external For instance good Wishes good Prayers are the effects of true Love so also are Joy at the wel-fare of the beloved Persons well doing and Sorrow and Grief at his miscarriage and yet they are not alwaies expressed nor does any prudent man alwaies shew his Joy or Grief or express his good wishes thoughts and desires to him he most tenderly affects The truth is Raynaudus speaks clear and plain to any man of understanding and with him Love effective is nothing else but the effect of the Affection of Love This an Imperate Act which is the Effect the other an Elicit Act the Cause This performed by any of the other Faculties and is purely a transient Act that an immanent Act of the Will wherein this Love affective is subjected His words as you cite them for I have not the Author by me are these Effectivum dicit ipsum illius amoris eliciti effectum translato quippe causae nomine ad effectum is dicitur amare effective qui non ostentat infertilem sterilem amorem sed cum se dat occasio erumpit in fructus dignos amoris Quam esse admodum impropriam amoris divisionem fatetur Gabriel quia amare propriè est in sola voluntate tanquam in subjecto ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur estque Actus transiens uno immanens Voluntatis § 21. And the truth of it is Love cannot as a Genus comprehend nor be equally praedicated of the Habit and the outward expressions of Love 1. Because this Love the Genus of the Habit is seated in the Will and not in any other Faculty wherein the outward expressions are subjected Now since (a) Vid. Keck Log. l. 1. c. 3. can 2 a. Generis perfecti p. 55. Ar. 4. Top. c. 1. tota natura generis continetur in qualibet specie (b) Vid. Burgersdic Log. Institut l. 1. c. 11. §. 15. if the Genus and Species be Accidents they must have both the same Subject Hence it is that Science is not cannot be the Genus of Moral Vertue quia Scientia est in intellectu Virtus in appetitu And therefore (c) Aristot l. 4. Top c. 3. mihi pag. 314. A. Aristotle tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 2. I might adde if it were needful in a case so clear that the outward expressions of Love are either Actions or Passions or Patible Qualities but never any thing belonging to the first Species of Quality wherein the Love we now speak of is alwaies placed 3. That Love is an Elicit Act of the Will but the expressions of Love are alwaies Acts imperate 4. That Love is an immanent Act of the Will but the expressions of it are transient and performed by the other Faculties in obedience to the Dictates and Commands of the Will as Raynaudus has well observed § 22. Sed jam dic Posthume de tribus Capellis Martial What is all this Pro or Con to Doctor Hammond who never said any thing to give just occasion to this Digression of our Refuter Go we on then to the next SECT 8. The Refuters Tongue-combat He a man of Business The Pertinency of the Doctors first papers to explain the meaning of the latter Vnjustly censured for speaking cautelously The Refuters understanding the Doctor for a Critick and a Dunce Erasmus's fate the same with the Doctors Critick an honorable title The best Scholars Criticks and who The true Critick an universal Scholar Sextus Empiricus and Crates character of a Critick Quintilianus character of the true Grammarian Aristotle the first Author of Criticisme and Grammar Necessary to compleat the Divine The best way to advance Learning to unite Criticisme and School-learning Pitty the Refuter had not been a Critick His mistake of the word Salvo what it signifies The method of the Schooles in Polemical discourses observed by the Doctor The Refuter saying and unsaying Doctor HAMMOND § 1. ONly I guess not what Temptation he had to chuse that expression which he there makes use of viz. That there Doctor Hammond minceth the matter and speaketh more cautelously adding that what he there saies is nothing to the matter now in hand Whereas 1. those of Will-worship being the First Papers written on that Subject are sure very pertinent to ascertain him of the meaning of the latter written in defence of them JEANES THat your first Papers written on this Subject are very impertinent to ascertain me of the meaning of your latter is easily discernable unto any man that will compare both together however I shall offer to your consideration two reasons to prove the impertinency of them for that purpose 1. In your first papers you speak only of the Expressions of Love i. e. as you interpret your self the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love in your latter Papers you speak of Love it self Now the outward expressions of love are termed love only extrinsecè denominativè participativè from the inward act of Love as some say the imperate acts of the Will are said to be in this sense only free or voluntary 2ly That your first Papers are very short in explaining the meaning of your latter is apparent by this your Reply wherein you extend the Love of God which you affirm to be capable of Degrees beyond the outward expressions unto the very inward acts of Love Doctor HAMMOND ANd 2ly the early cautelous speaking there might have made further latter caution unnecessary JEANES I Had thought that in Polemical writings it had still been needful for a man to continue on his caution for otherwise he may expose himself unto blowes and knocks which he never dream't of Early cautelous speaking is no Salvo unto after-unwariness Doctor HAMMOND ANd 3ly I could not be said to mince which to vulgar eares signifies to retract in some degrees what I had said before and again speak more cautelously when that was the first time of my speaking of it JEANES I Am very loath to enter into a contest with so great a Critick touching the meaning of a word however I shall adventure to say thus much That a man may be said to mince a matter and speak more cautelously at the first time of speaking of it then afterwards at a second time of speaking of it Neither shall I be beaten from this mine assertion by your bare and naked affirmation that to mince to vulgar eares signifieth to retract in some degrees what hath been said before for I appeal to both vulgar and learned eares whether or no we may not say truly of divers erroneous persons that in the first broaching their Errors they mince the matter and speak more cautelously then afterwards when they are fleshed and incouraged with success Doctor HAMMOND
then another Act of the same habitual Love which did not so ardently express it self JEANES THat Love is not a Genus equally comprehending habitual and actual Love as it 's two Species I have already proved by this Argument Because they are in several Predicaments Habitual Love in the Predicament of Qualitie and Actual in the Predicament of Action There are I know divers great Philosophers and Schoolemen 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 this opinion is untrue in it self and no waies advantagious unto your cause in hand 1. It is untrue in itself and to confirm this I shall offer to your consideration two arguments out of Scheibler which clearly prove immanent acts to be true proper and predicamental actions in the Predicament of Action In universum id sine incommodo potest dici Actio quod sufficit ad constituendam causalitatem Efficientis Atqui dantur causae efficientes quibus non convenit alia causalitas quà m quae sit actio immanens Ergo actio immanens vere est actio Propositio patet Quia praedicamentum Actionis ponitur ad locandam causalitatem efficientis causae in genere entium ut supra disputatum explicando divisionem praedicamentorum Et confirmatur Quod actio sit adaequata causalitas efficientis ut supra visum est lib. 1. c. 12. Assumptio patet Nam Homo absolutè est causa efficiens in quantum denominatur videre aut intelligere et tamen isti sunt actus immanentes That which is the Causalitie of an efficient Cause is a true and predicamental Action in the predicament of Action But immanent Acts are the causalities of efficient causes and therefore proper and predicamental Actions Deinde ad actus immanentes sunt potentiae activae Sed potentiae activae sunt per ordinem ad veras actiones Ergo actus immanentes sunt verae actiones Et si hi solum titulo tenus sunt actiones Ergo etiam potentiae illae activae titulotenus sunt potentiae activae That which terminates and actuates an active power is a proper and predicamental action But every immanent act terminates and actuates an active power and therefore every immanent act is a proper and predicamental action Met. lib. 2. cap. 10. n. 27. You may perhaps slight Scheibler as a trivial author but I urge his reasons not his Authority and if you can answer his reasons you may speak your pleasure of him and of me for alledging of him But I can press you with an Author far greater then Scheibler our great Master Aristotle of whom you make somewhere in your writings honorable mention He lib. 10. Ethic. c. 3. tells us roundly that the operations of vertues and even happiness it self are not qualities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but these are immanent Acts and therefore in his opinion immanent acts are not qualities But secondly suppose this opinion were true in it self yet will it no waies advantage your cause for the patrons of it range immanent acts under the first Species of quality and then are they either Dispositions or Habits If you say they are dispositions as most of the above-mentioned schoolmen hold them to be against this I object That however they may be so 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 If you say they are habits why then you cannot deny them to be gracious habits and so you will fall upon that opinion of which in this reply you so studiously endeavor to acquit your self viz. that the same habits of Grace in Christ may be more intense at one time then another and consequently that his habitual Grace was not alwaies full and perfect § 1. Whereas the Doctor had been forced again to mind our Refuter of the useful distinction of Love into it's Species Habitual and Actual he tells us again that Love is not a Genus equally comprehending them as it 's two Species as he has proved by this argument because they are in several Predicaments habitual Love in the Predicament of Quality and actual Love in the Predicament of Action § 2. It is true indeed that you have told us seven or eight times already that this you have proved And what pitty is it that since you are a man of such Gravity and parts that we should not take your word for it But my good Pythagoras since we are out of our five years Probation give us more then your bare word for the proof of this part of your Assumption that actual Love is in the Predicament of Action and not of Quality Review your former Pages that I may retort your own language and tell us whether you have attempted any thing to this purpose Do not then begge the Question like a Puisny Sophister but prove it like a Schoolman Shall I again bestrew your way with your own Rhetorical flowers * Jeanes Answer to the Eclenest pag. 15 17. I am resolved as well as you to swallow none of your proofless Dictates seeing I have entred the Lists with you you must not think me irreverent and sawcy if as the Souldiers speak I dispute every inch of ground with you and be so bold as to call upon you for the Proof of whatsoever you assert touching that which is in controversy between us Said indeed you have often that actual Love is a Predicamental Action and not a Quality but you have no where proved it § 3. And give me leave to tell you that it will be impossible to make it good till first you shall demonstrate against Suarez and the best Metaphysicians and Philosophers that Actio ut sic non dicit essentialem respectum ad terminum and that there can be any Motion whether instantaneous or successive and not from a Terminus à Quo to a Terminus ad Quem and give us a solid answer to their Arguments § 4. And now that you may see that Suarez is not singular in this Doctrine besides the Authors I have already quoted to this purpose for I am willing to move your Palate with a fresh Dish I shall now refer you to Smiglecius Logick a book of solidity and clearness in matters of this nature He tells us Non solum sunt in corpore passibiles Qualitates sed etiam in anima Nam etiam in anima oriuntur affectus ex passione alteratione corporeâ ut ira gaudium timor tristitia Amor c. Quod si objicies affectus istos esse Actiones mentis in Praedicamento Actionis reponendos how say you Mr. Refuter Respondeo in Actione duo considerari primò Actionem secundò Terminum qui est effectus Actionis Ratione primi affectus spectant ad Praedicamentum Actionis
qualitates and Suarez and your Scheibler and others have demonstrated the falshood of that assertion But then this said not the Doctor and so falls not under the lash of this Vse of Confutation § 17. He said indeed that Actual Love was a Quality specifically distinct from Love that is the Habit. But he never denyed that the Action of loving comprehended under the same common name with actual Love was a predicamental Action § 18. Prove then good Sir if you will acquit your self like a Schooleman either 1. that the immanent act of Love in no respect or consideration is or can be a quality or 2ly that all immanent acts in general or 3ly that this immanent act of Love in particular has no terminus or Quality produced by it which is called by the same name When you shall have done this I shall not then blame you for starting a new Question § 19. If you will be pleased to consult you may find that the same Suarez * Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. n. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. who proves that all immanent acts are not simply Qualities but in some respect also true predicamental actions does also demonstrate †Suarez Met. disp 42. sect 5. n. 13 14 15 that immanent acts are not only actions but also qualities called by the same name with the Actions themselves and that it is de intrinseca ratione Actionis ut sic ut habeat intrinsecum terminum ad quem tendat ut producendum per ipsam and consequently that the immanent Act of Love as well as all other immanent Acts is not only a predicamental action but includes in it's essence a transcendental respect to the quality of actual Love that is it's Terminus and which is that very Quality which the Doctor truly makes the opposite species to habitual Love and equally comprehended under one and the same immediate Genus § 20. Though then true it is that all immanent Acts that are causalities of efficient causes are consequently predicamental Actions which is all Scheibler saies in his first argument yet as true it is as Suarez and others say that all predicamental Actions and consequently all immanent Acts that are truly such must of necessity relate to some term by them produced which in the present case is a Quality called by the same name as the Action is And therefore Doctor Hammond must be concluded to be in the right till you shall answer Suarez his arguments and prove his Doctrine to be in the wrong § 21. Though secondly it be granted to your Master Scheibler that immanent Acts because they terminate active powers must be concluded to be predicamental actions yet it cannot be denied to Suarez and others that immanent Acts because they are predicamental Actions must have some Quality to terminate them As there cannot be an efficient Cause without it's Causality * Suppono quod impossibile est esse motum vel mutationem realem sine termino reali Ex hoc arguo sic c. H. Cavell in Addit ad Scotum l. 1. Senten d. 17. q. 5. n. 3. so impossible it is there should be any Causality where nothing is produced and caused by that Causality As it is impossible there should be an Active power without respect to the Act that terminates the Power * so impossible it is there should be any Action without some product to terminate the Action § 22. And thus I have neither slighted Scheibler nor his reasons but acknowledged that truth which that Author labours to prove by them § 23. But he saies he can yet press us with an Author far greater then Scheibler our great Master Aristotle of whom the Doctor makes somewhere in his writings honourable mention § 24. And do you think Sir the Doctor will cease to give him that venerable respect because you now seem to have borrowed from his writings an argument against him I dare assure you the Doctor is still the same civil man and being himself a Person of great learning and Parts he knows how to give that respect such a gallant man deserves And if you can make good that Aristotle speaks on your side against the Doctor I dare pass my word to bring you his publick Recantation § 25. But what saies our great Master * Arist lib. 10. Eth. cap. 3. He tells us roundly saies our Refuter that the operations of Vertues and even happiness it self are not Qualities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 26. The words indeed I acknowledge but I cannot understand them with our Refuters Comment § 27. The truth is one * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 10. Eth. c. 2. §. 1. Eudoxus as we find in the beginning of the second Chapter of that Book did maintain that Pleasure was the Last End and greatest Good And by the way give me leave to mind our Refuter of his great Master Aristotles †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist ibm §. eod observation concerning this Eudoxus He tells us that though the man's reasons were weak and no waies able to support his Opinion yet because he was looked on as a sober temperate man he gained credit and belief with many For so good and vertuous a man as he could not be deemed by them thus to teach for love of Pleasure but only because it was indeed the very truth And is not this the present Fortune of our Refuter does he not gain many Proselytes and Votaries to the Errors he has vented in this Treatise because he is looked on by some yong men not only as a man of parts and great Judgement but also as a leader and Captain in School-learning But Eudoxus though otherwise never so good was much mistaken in this Point and so is our Refuter though otherwise never so venerable and learned I doubt not but that already this has sufficiently appeared and I shall in the Process also further demonstrate it § 28. For to return to the text in Aristotle whereas Plato had undertook to refute the opinion of Eudoxus his great Scholar though he agreed with him in the Conclusion yet he could not approve of his Masters reasons as sufficient And the first of them gave occasion to this Text that our Refuter has urged It was this as I find it reduced to form by Aquinas (a) Tho. Aquim Comment in loc in his Commentary on the place Bonum videtur ad genus Qualitatis pertinere quaerenti enim quale est hoc respondemus quoniam bonum Delectatio autem non est qualitas Ergo non est bonum To shew the weakness of this Reason the Philosopher replies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It follows not as Plato thought though Pleasure be not ranked among the number of Qualities that therefore it is not good for even the Operations and Acts of Vertues and Felicity it self are not Qualities which no man yet can deny to be good § 29. And now to shew how little
the Actual of which you there spake not I am content for the present so to understand you Nor shall I labour by Consequences to rack your words to make them speak and confess that which you would not be thought to mean though this has been your own frequent Practise all along against the Doctor § 9. But then I must adde that Doctor Hammond who understood you in this Passage according to the Current of your Discourse did you therefore no wrong in omitting those words which in the sense he justly conceived he was bound to understand you did no more concern the present Debate then any part of your whole Book For it was a received and acknowledged truth on both sides that the Habit of Divine Grace was alwaies perfect and at the utmost height possible in Christ and therefore though the outward expressions were gradually different in themselves it must also mutually be granted that they must flow from a Love still equally intense in the Habit. But then this being nothing to the present controversie which only concerns the gradual difference of the Acts of Christ's Love it was no whit material whether he took it in or left it out and he might justly use his freedome without any mans offence But be your meaning what you please I shall easily grant you the liberty my good Sphinx Philosophicus to expound your own Oracles and Riddles And what then will be the issue § 10. Why then saies our Refuter and it is his second Charge The Doctor has said nothing to prove that these several expressions could not proceed from a Love equally intense Nay as he addes in the following Section he has not hitherto so much as attempted it unless vehement Asseverations be solid Arguments c. § 11. That I may give a cleer account to this Charge and bring the present debate to some issue it will be necessary to distinguish And couch the Answer I shall in these several Propositions § 12. First then I say That Expressions gradually different may flow and in Christ alwaies did from a Love equally intense as respecting the Habit. § 13. But then this is not the Question and makes nothing to the purpose unless our Refuter can prove That all the Acts of Christ's Love represented by those expressions were equally intense and full as the Habit from whence they proceeded It is true in this Reply he does vehemently and affectionately affirm it that I may retort his own language but pardon me he must if I entertain not his vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae And as he has no where in all this Pamphlet attempted the Proof of it unless begging the Question be argumentative so I know it is impossible for him to make it good and I have in due place demonstrated the contrary And therefore § 14. Secondly I say That nothing Naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that several outward expressions of Love in themselves gradually different may sometimes flow from several Acts of inward Love that are gradually the same § 15. For the outward expressions of Love being Imperate Acts of the Will and under it's command the Will is naturally free and still at Liberty unless it be by some superior cause ab intrinseco determined to one uniform expression to represent its own internal and Elicite Acts how and in what manner it pleaseth § 16. And now because this may be of some importance in this Controversie I shall to gratifie our Refuter endeavour to clear it by some apposite instances § 17. Suppose we then a Father with the same height of Actual love to affect his only Son for some space of time at least Suppose we the same Husbands or Friends to do the like in respect of the Wives of their bosomes and the inmates of Vid. Platonem in Convivio in Phaedro their Breasts We need not run to Plato's School for Examples the world does daily afford us such lovers as well as his Socrates And yet no man will say that these are alwaies bound or do or can express the same equal love after one and the same sort and with the same height and fulness For sometimes they have not the opportunity to do it and sometimes Prudence enjoines them to conceal it and sometimes there may be a necessity to express it beyond what they have or indeed can do at another time § 18. Further yet that I may clear it beyond exception we know that God loves his Chosen his Predestinate in Christ with the same equal Love not only because he loves them as in and for Christs sake but also because this inward Act of his Love is no other but himself And yet Gods outward Love and favour does not alwaies shine on them in it's Noon and Zenith sometimes it looks higher sometimes lower and though it knows no night no going down though the native light be still the same yet sometimes by the interposition of a dark opacous body the light as that of the Sun lies hidden from our sight in a sad Eclipse Sometimes the (a) Cant. 3. 1 2. Spouse in the Canticles was put to seek him whom her soul loved and though she sought him yet she found him not And therefore the Lord her Redeemer saies to her in (b) Esai 54. 8. Esay In little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee Nay it is also true of Christ (c) Matt. 3. 17. the Beloved in whom alone he was well pleased That though he were alwaies Christ alwaies God-man yet the * Leo it is that first said it and all Antiquity allow of it Non solvit unionem sed subtraxit visionem The union was not dissolved true but the Beams the Influence was restrained and for any comfort from thence his Soul was even as a scorched heath-ground without so much as any drop of dew of Divine comfort c. Bp. Andrews Serm. 2. Passion p. 356. Confer Leonem Serm. 16 17. de Passione Domini p. 53 54. humane Nature did not alwaies enjoy the comfortable influence of the Godhead And therefore we find him crying out upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me § 19. And as in respect of the same Person the light of Gods Countenance is not alwaies lift up to the same Degree of Altitude so it shines not equally on several Objects There are as well the sands and stones and desarts of Arabia as the Spices and though the whole Country enjoy the same common name and Climate yet all is not Felix but some part is Petraea and another Deserta Though those that live under the Aequator enjoy a constancy of Sun-shine and equality of Day yet those of Lapland Finland have little else but night and Frost for almost half the year together The case is very plain I believe no man will
the help of (a) Cum autem Actiones etiam Divinae duplicis sunt generis aâ—iae immanentes aliae transeuntes etiam facultates quae earum sunt principia duplicis sunt generis Aliae enim immanentium propria sunt principia aliae transeuntium Facultates quae per se immanentium consequenter transeuntium actionum sunt Principia duae in Deo sunt Intellectus Voluntas quae vitam ejus veluti determinant ac differentiarum instar ad eam restringunt Speciem quae est perfectissima Facultates similiter quae actionum transeuntium sunt principia duae sunt Potentiae quae in efficacia consistit ac viribus Potestas quae in Jure c. Crellius apud Volkel ibid. li. 1. ca. 19. pag. 131. Natural Faculties and Habits but his love is only one and the same infinite and substantial Act which is nothing but Himself And this is it that S. John means when he tells us 1 Joh. 4. 8. That God is Love infinite and essential Love For think (b) De hoc amore loquitur Johannes cum ait Deum Charitatem esse 1 Joh. 4. 8. quod quidem nihil aliud est quam Deum Charitate ut ita dicam plenissimum esse hunc in illo affectum veluti dominari luculentissimis ab eo effectis ac documentis demonstrari Metonymia enim est in qua attributum abstractum ut in Scholis vocant de suo subjecto emphaticè enunciatur vel quod eodem recidit abstractum Charitas pro Charitate plenus ponitur Crell ibid. c. 30. p. 301. Crellius what he will this is no Metonymical Praedication and he is not properly full of Love but Love it self such additional perfections as these are belong to finite Creatures only not to God to whom we can assign no Attribute that is not properly and infinitely himself Nor do I like (c) Hunc in illo affectum Dicitur Deus esse Charitas sive ut Crellius interpretatur plenus Charitatis non per modum affectus sed per modum virtutis perfectionis moralis ad quam nos pro modulo nostro tam saepe invitamur Maresii Hydra Socinianism expugnat Maresius's Animadversion on this place of Crellius much better unless it be very warily understood For as God cannot be said to be Love per modum affectus so neither can he properly be said to be Love or full of (d) Tertio intelligi potest ex dictis eas virtutes quae sunt in Deo propriè non esse cogitandas per modum habitus sicut in nobis sed solum per modum Actus ultimi nam Habitus est quid medium inter Potentiam Actum ubi ergo non est Potentia sed purus Actus non debet nec potest verè concipi virtus per modum Habitus sed tantum per modum puri Actus Loquor autem ex parte rei conceptae nam ex parte concipientis fieri potest ut hae virtutes concipiantur in Deo secundum aliquam rationem Actus primi ac si essent Habitus ad modum supra explicatum in scientia est enim eadem ratio c. Suarez Metaph. disp 30. sect 16. §. 68. Vid. amplius §. 69 70. confer cum §. 59 60. ib. Love * Dan. Heinsius Aristarch Sac. in Prolegom pa. 49. 8vo per modum virtutis perfectionis Moralis God is as well free from all Habits such Moral Perfections or any thing like them as from Passions and if we at any time conceive such things in God this arises only from the weakness of our apprehensions and Intellects there is no such thing in God and when these and the like are attributed to him the Praedication is not Formal but Identical and the Distinction between the Subject and Attribute is only Rational not Real And therefore I rather approve of that in * Heinsius his Prolegomena upon Nonnus Virtutem constat esse Habitum quem in Deo locum non habere inter Scholasticorum Scita est quemadmodum virtutes singulas quae ei tribuuntur eminenter esse in eo ut loquuntur ipsi Sed Ethicorum Primo negat magnus Doctor Deum proprie laudari posse Laudem enim proprie virtutis esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquit quia ut recte ibi interpretes idonei ab ea ad praeclaras actiones fiunt homines quod in Deo locum non habet Et in Magnis Moralibus ab eodem dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deo non convenire virtutem quia melior virtute est Deus neque ex virtute dici potest bonus Quare in Deo locum haec non habent Thus he § 24. I confess this is very hard if not impossible to be understood by us whose understandings are finite as well as our Natures And therefore the (a) Lombard l. 3. Sent. dist 32. B. infra citand Mr of the Sentences said well in this case that Gods Love as well as his Peace surpasseth all understanding because it is infinite as himself is And the Holy Ghost in Scripture does in these and the like expressions condescend to our weakness and in forms of speech borrowed from our selves does rather represent to us some external effects of God then any thing in him who because he is infinite can be only known and comprehended by himself (*) 1 Tim. 6. 16. who only as the Apostle speaks hath immortality dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto whom no man hath seen nor can see to whom be Honour and Power everlasting Amen And for his eternal Honour it is that he can be seen or known by nothing but himself § 25. Now as God's Love is still one and the same substantial Vide Suarez Metaph. disp 30. sect 16. §. 59. Act alwaies equal and uniform as I may so say in it self because alwaies infinite and commensurate with himself so this Love can have no other Object then what is proportionable to it self And therefore the Act being it self infinite the Object of this Act cannot possibly be lesse For between things Finite and Infinite there can be no proportion because the difference will alwaies be infinite between them When therefore God loves he can properly be said to love only himself The (a) Psal 16. 2. goodness of all the Creatures in the world no more then Davids extendeth to him For (b) Job 22. 2 3. Confer c. 35. 7. Psal 50. 9 c. Can a man be profitable to God as he that is wise may be profitable to himself Is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous or is it gain to him that thou makest thy waies perfect That goodness alone which is the greatest and no less then infinite which can be nothing else but God can possibly content or satisfie his Love For if God could properly be said to love any thing but himself he could not be infinitely Perfect in
two sorts of hypocritical and counterfeit Love Nota saies he duas dilectiones fictas simulatas Una est quae fit verbo quando aliquis amat quidem sed amor ejus non se extendit ad opera sed ad sola verba bona erga eum aut de eo quem amat Huic opponitur dilectio seu amor conjunctus operi quando qui amat verbo opere amorem internum ostendit erga amatum Joh. 14. 21. Qui habet mandata mea servat ea ille est qui me diligit et Jacob. 2. 15 16. Si frater aut soror nudi sint indigeant victu quotidiano dicat autem aliquis Ite in pace calefacimini saturamini non dederit autem ea quae necessaria sunt corpori quid proderit Haec igitur est dilectio ficta quamvis enim qui sic se habet interius aliquo modo amet tamen ad verba sola progreditur Altera est quae fit solâ linguâ quando homo non amat interius tamen exterius amare se dicit iste amat linguâ cui opponitur amor dilectio in veritate De illa dicitur Matt. 15. 8. Populus hic labiis me honorat cor autem longè est à me Joannes ergo verbo Opus linguae veritatem opponit quia ficta dilectio est quae sit verbo sine opere aut linguâ solâ Illa verò est perfecta sine simulatione quae fit opere veritate tam erga Deum quam erga proximum ad quam nunc Paulus exhortatur § 48. The Love then that is true and sincere and such as ought to be found among Christians is neither barren nor counterfeit hypocritical nor lame and is alwaies perfect as well in deed as in truth except where Christian Prudence does dictate a temporary concealment in some very few cases And therefore though he that pretends love where it is not is in that regard only an Hypocrite yet he also that pro tempore conceals it either in whole or in part puts on another shape and appears to be what he is not and in that sense does dissemble And if all men should do that which is lawful only for some time and in some cases and for good ends there could be no certainty and assurance of any man's Love or Friendship and the concealment of our Love generally would prove as dangerous as the personating of it § 49. Since then that Love and Charity where it is true and perfect cannot chuse but be operative and Sincerity requires that it appear no other then it is except only in some cases since also men apprehend where they conceive there is no deceipt that such as are the outward expressions such is also the inward Love and since there is no other way to distinguish the Hypocrite and pretender from the true Lover it necessarily follows that there is and ordinarily must be a Proportion and Correspondence in respect of Intension Remission between the inward Acts of Love and the outward Expressions and as the one falls or rises so commonly do the other and the Love else would prove imperfect and fruitlesse or counterfeit and hypocritical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 50. And now though this be sufficient to demonstrate the truth of the Assertion and to give a full and satisfactory Answer to the utmost pretences of the Objection yet because I conceive that this is all that with any colour of Reason can be said against it and we are now to deal with a Schoolman and a souldier that is resolved to dispute every inch of ground with us I shall to give him a total Rout call in the Auxiliary forces of the School And indeed it will be necessary at least for the Doctors Vindication For whereas he had most truly asserted that such as the Expression was such was the Act of inward Love of which that was an Expression it being certain that each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions this our Refuter calls a proofeless Dictate a plain begging of the Question and a Fallacy and expresly saies that the Doctor must pardon him if he entertain not his vehement Asseverations as solid Proofs as if they were Propositiones per se notae And who that reads this and a great deal more such vaunting stuffe would not verily think that the Doctor was most grosly mistaken and had asserted that for a Truth which could not possibly be made good by any shadow of Reason or Countenance from Authority But this is not the first time that our great Writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity has betrayed his Ignorance in the Schoolmen And that I may make this appear as evident as the Doctors Assertion which he so highly decries I shall now come to them § 51. To begin then with Durand Quantum ad secundum sc An ordo iste Charitatis attendatur secundum solum Durand l. 3. Sent. dist 29. art 3. E. affectum an secundum effectum Dicendum est quod secundum utrumque Cujus ratio est Quia quando duo Actus sic se habent quod unus dependet ab alio praecise sicut posterius à priore secundum ordinem qui est in primo oportet ponere ordinem in secundo Sed affectus interior effectus exterior se habent sicuti prius posterius quia effectus est posterior affectu ab ipso dependet praecise quia ad completum affectum seu ad completum velle sequitur effectus seu operari respectu eorum quae sunt nobis possibilia Ergo secundum ordinem qui est in affectu est ordo in effectu Unde Gregor in Homil. Probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis Unde ei quem plus teneor diligere in affectu teneor ex debito charitatis plus impendere in effectu si aequaliter indiget ita quod si oportet alterum carere eligendum esse illum carere qui minus ex charitate diligendus est Est etiam advertendum quod cum dicitur quod effectus correspondet affectui intelligendum est de effectu qui non est ex alia causa debitus c. Thus Durand § 52. To the same purpose Aquinas upon the same Question Utrum ordo charitatis sit attendendus secundum affectum vel secundum effectum His words are Sed contra Gregor dicit quod Probatio dilectionis est exhibitio operis si ergo secundum effectum est ordo oportet quod etiam sit secundum affectum 2. Praeterea Bonum est Objectum Charitatis quantum ad affectum sed ordo Charitatis ut dictum est attenditur secundum diversitatem bonorum ergo Charitas habet ordinem non solum secundum effectum sed etiam secundum affectum 3. Praeterea sicut Charitas principaliter affectum ita Beneficentia respicit effectum si ergo ordo esset solum secundum
Doctors Conclusion will rationally and clearly follow though he never attempts to prove that which you so eagerly require and though indeed it is impossible for him to perform it in respect of every Act. And so much for your second Charge § 64. And now because you profess and it is your third Charge that the reason of the Doctors Consequence is to you invisible and that you shall never acknowledge his Inference legitimate untill you be driven thereunto by reducing his Enthymeme unto a Syllogisme I shall once for your better satisfaction perform it Thus then If ordinarily there is and must be a proportionable agreement in respect of Intension and Remission betwixt the inward Acts of Love and the outward Expressions then that Act of internal Love expressed by Christs Dying for us was superiour to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty c. But the Antecedent is true as we have shewed from Reason and Experience and the Authority of Gregory and the Schoolmen Therefore also is the Consequent § 65. And thus you see Sir that there was no Mystery but a plain and obvious Truth in the word proportionably Not as if the Doctor thereby had meant as you descant that these different expressions in regard of their Intension must be proportioned exactly unto their inward respective Acts of Love equal or parallell unto them but only thus That the greater or the less the outward Expressions are the greater or the less commonly are the inward Acts of Love For here I must mind you of a known Distinction There is an Equality of Proportion and an Equality of Quantity and it is made use of by Estius to Estius 3. Sent. d. 29. §. 5. p. 104. col 2. E this very purpose For whereas among other Passages this also had been urged out of Austin for an Equality of Love where the Expressions were different Quis est inquit qui non judicat personaliter qui diligit aequaliter Dilectio aequalis facit non acceptari personas Nam cum homines diverso modo pro suis gradibus honoramus tunc timendum est nè personas accipiamus Augustin tract 30. in Joan. To this Estius there answers Non aliam hîc requirit aequalitatem quam quae personarum acceptionem excludit Itaque aequalitatem intelligit Proportionis non Quantitatis So say I is the Doctor to be understood as speaking of an Equality of Proportion betwixt the outward Expression and the inward Act and not as you would have him to mean an Equality of Quantity Sufficient it is if as the inward Acts of Love increase or diminish the outward Expressions do so too though the increase and decrease in both be not parallel and exactly equal § 66. But in case that Distinction should be quarrelled at yet I hope this of your great Master Aristotle shall be allowed He tells us in his Ethicks of a twofold Proportion and it is approved of as most undoubted by all Mathematicians in the world for ought I ever could find to the contrary The one * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist li. 5. Ethic. ca. 3. §. 8. Vid. l. 5. Eth. c. 4. §. 1 2. Et l 2. c. 6. §. 2. Quod proportionem Arithmeticam observat eodem modo semper se habet ubique atque omnibus unum idemque est quod proportionem observat Geometricam hoc non ubique aut omnibus aut semper est idem sed pro rerum diversitate varium l. Crellii Eth. Aristotel par 2. c. 5. p. 42. Arithmetical Proportion is when divers numbers differ according to equal reason that is have equal differences Geometrical Proportion is when divers numbers differ according to like reason c. Wingate's Arithmetick Natural lib. 1. c. 9. §. 4. 17. he calls from them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the first the Proportion Arithmetical the increases are alwaies equal as in 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12. in the other the Geometrical they are like as 2. 4. 8. 16. 32. When therefore the Doctor saies that there is a proportionable difference between the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love and that as the one increases and decreases in respect of Intension and Remission so also do the other he is to be understood that the increase or decrease between them is not according to Arithmetical Proportion so as the Intension in the outward Act is still equal to the Intension of the inward but only according to Geometrical Proportion and that as the inward Act increases so in like manner also does the outward though the Intension be not equal and parallel in both § 67. And thus you see Sir though the Doctor added it ex abundanti more then your discourse required of him that even from hence from hence I say he did justly suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by Christ's Dying for us was superiour to those former Acts expressed in his Poverty c. And so the same Person that loved sincerely did also love and expresse that Love more intensely at one time then at another quod erat demonstrandum and was the very thing he had said in another Instance And so I proceed to the next Section SECTION 12. The Doctors proof of the vanity of the Refuters Vse of Confutation made good from the Refuters Mixture The Refuters Reply endeavour to make good his Charge by Consequences impertinent The Refuters momentous Objection strikes as well against himself and other his friends as the Doctor The weakness of it The intension of Christs actual Grace so proportioned to that of his habitual Grace as not to exceed it but not so still as to equal it Illustrated by a clear instance The Schoolmen no where say that the Intension of Christs actual Grace is exactly equal to that of his habitual Aquinas of the Refuters not the Doctors citation He speaks fully to the Doctors purpose What meant by works the effects of wisdom and Grace in Aquinas An intensive growth in the inward Acts of wisdom Grace argues not an intensive increase in the Habits Asserted also by the Refuter Cleared by a Distinction The Chedzoy Challenge The vanity of it Christ did gradually increase in the Acts of wisdom and Grace as he did in stature Proved from the Refuters Mixture from Ames Vorstius Grotius Hooker Field Suarez Estius Others both Fathers and Schoolmen and Reformed Divines The Defenders advise to the Refuter to be more wary in his challenges Doctor HAMMOND 24. IT now only remaines that I consider whether this Refuter have in the process of his Discourse added any thing wherein I may be any whit concerned 25. And 1. saith he the falshood of such an Assertion is evident from the point there handled and confirmed the absolute fulness of Christs Grace which by the general consent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was such as that it excluded all
Actum secundum ordinem supra dictum Durand ibid. art 2. ad 3m. It were vain to adde more to this purpose seeing that all for ought I find who write on the Sentences follow the Master l. 3. Sentent d. 29. and assert after him A. B. that 1. Datur ordo in charitate and that 2. Ordine dilectionis Deum omnibus aliis praeferendum esse quem tenemur diligere plus quam nos ipsos 3. quod quisque se magis quam proximum diligere debeat 4. quod propinqui prae aliis sint diligendi illi magis inter proximos qui secundum carnis originem sunt nobis propinquiores 5. quod iste ordo Charitatis seu differentia gradualis ex parte Actuum Charitatis cadat sub praecepto For this see Lombard l. 3. Sent. dist 29. per tot Aquinas 3. Sent. dist 29. a. 1 2 3 5 6 7. Scotus l. 3. d. 29. q unical Alexander Halensis Bonaventure Richardus Valentia Soto Petrus Navarrus Capreolus are also quoted by H. Cavellus as agreeing with his Master Scotus See also Durand l. 3. d. 29. q. 1 2 4. Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 29. § 1 2 3 4 5. Aquin. 2. 2. q. 26. art 1. ad 3m. q. 44. art 8. Cajetan and the rest of the Commentators on the place § 49. And thus having cleared the Major I come to the proof of the Minor § 50. And now if the infused Habit of Grace and holy Love in Christ were specifically the same with that of Angels and men of necessity also it must have the same Object and consequently also if there be a gradual difference in respect of the goodness of the Object there it must of necessity also be so in respect of the Objects of Christ's Love And for this the Scriptures are very evident For as they testifie that our Blessed Saviour loved Jo. 14. 31. and honoured Jo. 8. 49. and did the will of his Father so they as expresly declare that for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven and that he so loved â—s that he gave himself for us And though he took not on him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham yet he so loved those blessed Spirits as to become the head of all Principality and Power and to reconcile all things unto God whether they Ephes 1. 10 20. Colos 1. 20. Suarez in 3. p. Thom. q. 19. art 2. dist 42. sect 1. p. 570. col 1. E. p. 572. col 1. F. sect 2. p. 574. col 1. F. be things in earth or things in Heaven And therefore the Schooles determine 1. Christum Dominum meruisse Angelis gratiam gloriam quae illis data fuerit propter merita Christi 2. Christum Dominum meruisse Sanctis Angelis omnia dona gratiae quae nobis meruerit proportione servatâ exceptis iis quae ad remedium peccati pertinent electionem scil praedestinationem vocationem auxilia omnia excitantia adjuvantia sufficientia efficacia ac denique omne meritum augmentum gratiae gloriae And consequently he may be stiled the Sanctifier the Justifier and Glorifier of Angels though not properly their Redeemer And therefore it unavoidably followes that there must be a gradual difference in respect of the Acts of Christs Love respecting God the holy Angels and Men according to the gradual goodness to be found in the several Objects and according to that measure and standard that Gods Law required Quod erat demonstrandum § 51. It is true indeed the Schools do rationally resolve that there was not the same order in the Acts of Christs Charity or holy Love as there is in other men who rightly love according to the state and condition of this life Nam Christus secundum animam fuit ab initio perfectus comprehensor ideoque ille dilectionis ordo qui Beatis non qui Viatoribus competit ei tribuendus Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 32. §. 5. Confer Aquin. 2. 2. q. 26. art 13. in corp est Atqui in Beatis totus ordo dilectionis accipitur ex sola conjunctione ad Deum Quare talem distinctionis ordinem in Christo ab initio fuisse fatendum quo unumquemque hominem Angelum eo magis minúsve diligeret quo magis minúsve per justitiam Deo esset conjunctus § 52. There can be but two things possible as farre as I can foresee and if our Refuter can look further I hope he will let us know it returned in answer to this Discourse § 53. First that it is not one and the same Habit of Charity whereby we love God and our neighbours as our selves and therefore as the precepts are several so the Objects are diverse and the affections of the Soul that carry it on to the love of God and our neighbour are as different as the Objects themselves are And therefore though it be granted that the several Acts that flow from these severally distinct Habits do gradually differ in themselves in respect of intenseness according to the gradual distance of goodness in the Object yet it follows not that therefore the Acts of one and altogether the same Habit of Charity and holy Love do gradually differ also which was the thing to be proved § 54. Secondly though it were granted that the Habit of Charity and holy Love to God and our neighbours be one and the same Habit yet a gradual difference in the goodness of the Objects of this Love will not argue a gradual difference of intenseness in the inward Acts of this Love but only in the outward Acts and Expressions § 55. If our Refuter shall make use of the first Answer I must say to him that he has all the Schoolmen at least all those that I have seen for his enemies For they all unanimously resolve with the Master of the Sentences who herein follows Saint Austin that the Habit of 1. August lib. 8. de Trin. c. 8. â— Petro Lombard citat 2. Augustin lib. 1. de doctrina Christiana ca. 22. ibid. citat Pet. Lombard lib. 3. Sentent dist 27. C. divine Charity whereby we love God and our Neighbours for God's sake is one and the same Habit. Ex una eademque charitate Deum proximumque diligimus sed Deum propter Deum nos verò proximum propter Deum Vna est Charitas duo praecepta unus Spiritus duo mandata quia alia Charitas non diligit proximum nisi illa quae diligit Deum Quâ ergo charitate proximum diligimus saies Lombard eâdem Deum diligimus Sed quia aliud est Deus aliud proximus etsi unâ charitate diliguntur ideo forte duo praecepta dicuntur alterum majus alterum minus vel propter duos motus qui in mente geruntur dùm Deus diligitur proximus Movetur enim mens ad diligendum Deum movetur ad diligendum proximum multo magis erga Deum quam proximum
Jeanes and others guilty of this Propositio malè sonans as well as the Doctor The piouslycredible Proposition of the Schoolmen as the Refuter calls it much prejudices an assertion of his own in his Mixture but no whit the Doctor JEANES A Second argument is drawn from the perpetual and vn-interrupted happiness of Christ It is resolved both by Aquinas 3. q. 34. art 4. Scotus lib. 3. disp 18. and their followers that Christ in regard of his soul was even here in this life from the first moment of his conception all his life long unto his death perfectus Comprehensor and therefore he injoyed in his Soul all that was necessary unto heaven happiness And I find learned Protestants herein consenting with them Now 't is the unanimous opinion of the Schoolmen that a most intense actual Love of God an actual Love of God for Degrees as high as ardent as fervent as is according to God's ordinary Power possible unto the humane nature doth necessarily belong to the heaven-happiness of men The Scotists place the very formality of Happiness solely herein and Suarez with others think it essential unto happiness though he supposeth the essence of happiness not to consist wholy or chiefly in it And for the rest of the Thomists who hold that the essence of Happiness stands only in the Beatifical vision of God why even they make this actual most intense Love of God a natural and necessary consequent of the Beatifick vision § 1. To this I answer That it is most true as these Schoolmen determine that Christ by virtue of the hypostatical union was in the superiour part of his soul the mind Perfectus Comprehensor from the first Moment of his Conception and so he did love and enjoy God more perfectly then all the Saints and Angels did in heaven This was a necessary Consequent of the hypostatical union and the fulness of divine Grace Manifestum est saies Aquinas truly Quod Christus in primo instanti suae conceptionis accepit non solum tantam gratiam quantam Aquin. 3. p. q. 34. art 4. in Corp. Comprehensores habent sed etiam omnibus comprehensoribus majorem Et quia gratia illa non suit sine actu consequens est quod actu fuerit Comprehensor videndo Deum per essentiam clarius caeteris creaturis § 2. But then it is as true that Christ at the same first Moment wherein he was Comprehensor in respect of his Soul was also in respect of the inferiour Faculties of that and the frail mortal passible condition of his Flesh a Viator too And this the same Aquinas has as expresly determined in the same 3 part of his Summes q. 15. art 10. And this is a most clear Scripture-truth in it self For ought not Christ to suffer saies he Luke 24. 26. himself and then to enter into his glory And therefore for the joy that was set before him saies the Apostle to the Hebrews he endured the Cross and despised the shame and is now set down on the Heb. 12. 2. Philip. 2. 6 7 8 9. right hand of God For though he were in the form of God and thought it no robbery to be equal with God yet he made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant and humbled himself to death even the death of the cross wherefore God also hath highly exalted him In this state though he were a son yet learned he obedience by the things that he suffered In this state Heb. 5. 8. he prayed for his own after-exaltation as well as ours saying Father the hour is come glorifie thy Son that thy Son may also John 17. 1. glorifie thee In this state he merited as Suarez and some other of the Schoolmen determine his own exaltation in the flesh how truly or in what sense I now determine not but most certain it is and no man but the Socinian denies it that he merited ours And this is so clear a truth that I think not any of the Schoolmen that write upon the third of the Sentences or the third part of the Summes but acknowledge it And our Refuter himself if he had but consulted the places in Thomas and Scotus that here he referrs to might have found it For Aquinas in the very next words in his answer to the first objection saies Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est q. 19. art 3. Christus non meruit gloriam animae secundum quam dicitur Comprehensor sed gloriam corporis ad quam per suam passionem pervenit The answer in the Body of that article tert part q. 19. art 3. is long the summ is this Dicendum est quod Christus gloriam corporis ea quae pertinent ad exteriorem ejus excellentiam sicut est Ascensio Veneratio alia hujusmodi habuit per meritum And then immediately in his answer ad primum he saies Dicendum quod fruitio quae est actus Charitatis pertinet ad gloriam animae quam Christus non meruit ideo si per Charitatem aliquid meruit non sequitur quod idem sit meritum praemium Nec tamen per Charitatem meruit in quantum erat Charitas Comprehensoris sed in quantum erat Viatoris Nam ipse fuit simul Viator Comprehensor ut supra habitum est q. 15. art 10. Et ideo quia nunc non est Viator non est in statu merendi And then as for Scotus who in the 18th distinction most admirably disputes this question Vtrum Christus meruerit in primo instanti suae conceptionis he founds his whole discourse upon it § 3. This subtile School-man having first proposed divers arguments against the possibility of Christ's Merit which are all founded upon the fulnesse of Christ's happinesse as Comprehensor and to the very same purpose with this of our Refuter in the next place he proceeds to determine the question And having acknowledged the difficulty of it he goes on to define what Merit is and having Difficile videtur salvare quod meruerit Christus cum fuit beatus perfecte conjunctus fini secundum voluntatem in primo instanti Scotus l. 3. Sent. dist 18. q. unica § 4. p. 131. cleared that he proceeds to resolve that though the Saints and Angels in Heaven because they are Comprehensores were incapable of Merit yet Christ in the dayes of his flesh being not only Comprehensor but Viator too in this respect he was capable of meriting at Gods hands by Particular Covenant and Contract and that he did indirectly at least de facto merit his own exaltation in the flesh I shall for the Reader 's satisfaction transcribe one short passage and refer him to the Author for the rest Alii beati à Christo quia secundum totam voluntatem conjuncti sunt ultimo fini sc Deo affectione justitiae perfectissimae etiam habent summum commodum conjunctum
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
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
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
Bp. Andrewes Pattern of Catechist Doctrine at large Introduct c. 17. p. 71. Davenant de Justit Habit. Actual c. 44. p. 504. c. 44. p. 484. Arg. 5. p. 490. c. 51. p. 556 557 558. others do say with Chamier first that God by this Law requires that we love him according to those abilities that integrity and uprightness which he gave to Adam in innocence and that 2ly all the degrees of love that are attainable either in this life or in the next or to speak in †Jeanes answer to the Ectenest p. 31. our Refuters words a love of God with as high a Degree as is possible to the humane nature is required by this Law and whatsoever is short of this height is to be accounted sinful or faulty yet as true it is that other Protestants as Pious as Learned and as truly opposite to the Errors of Popery as any of the forenamed are of another Judgement and the Doctor is of their number And yet indeed the opposition here is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in word and shew and not in truth For these speak in order to the Covenant of Grace but those are to be understood as speaking of this obligation according to the strictness and Tenor of the first Covenant in which sense they alwaies dispute against the Popish Doctrine of Merit and Justification by works and fulfilling the Law and Perfection and Counsels and works of Supererogation as is plain from †Bishop Davenant in that excellent Vide Davenant de Justit Actual habit iis ipsis in locis proxime citat alibi passim Treatise of his de Justitia habit actual and consequently oppose not the Doctor in these Controversies depending between him and Mr. Cawdrey and our Refuter * The Doctors Judgement in the case is very plain § 42. For whereas Mr. Cawdrey in his Triplex Diatribe had said that every man is bound to be prudent to that degree of Prudence which Adam lost by sin the Doctor makes answer That if by sin he means not actual but original sin and so thinks that every man is bound to be prudent to that degree of Prudence that Adam lâ—st by his fall this sure will be found a mistake For this loss of Adam's was a punishment of Adam's sin and when it is inflicted by God on his posterity must be looked on as a punishment and he that is punished cannot be obliged not to be punished No man is now obliged to be as prudent as Adam was in his integrity any more then to be as healthy in effect to be immortal Nay supposing Adam to have sinned and so to have transgressed the Law in that it cannot be imagined that it is over and above that a new or further Act of sin in him to be less knowing prudent or healthy then he was all these without any new act of his will nay contrary thereto falling upon him by God's Decree or punitive Justice And if it were not sin in Adam himself then sure it cannot be such in his Posterity and so a man now of his posterity cannot be bound to that degree of Prudence which Adam once had any more then to be born in the state of Innocence and Perfection when yet he is necessarily supposed to be born after the image of the lapsed imperfect Adam which he Hamm. Account of Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diat c. 6 sect 8. § 44 Vide Bishop Davenant de Justit habit actual c. 30. p. 395 396. could not be if he were born in this Perfection § 43. And then secondly whereas Mr. Cawdrey in the same place added that every man is bound to be pious in the highest degree because the law requires Perfection of holiness and in another place because the Law requires perfect Obedience of Christians as the Rule of eternal righteousness to this the Doctor makes answer thus The Law indeed sometimes signifies the Covenant of exact unsinning Obedience And of that Law or that Covenant it is most true that it required perfect as that signifies unsinning Obedience But then first This was the first Covenant and is not now in force with faithful penitent Christians who are not under this Law but under Grace i. e. under a 2d Covenant which requires not Innocence but Repentance sincere but not perfect Obedience And therefore 2ly It cannot truly be said that this Law requires this Perfect Obedience of Christians nor consequently that it is the rule of Evangelical righteousness i. e. of that righteousness by which believers are now said to be justifyed for that as he had more fully explained in the Practical Catechism is Pract. Catechis l. 1. sect 1. p. 9. edit Lond. 5. positively the new Creature or renewed sincere honest faithful obedience to the whole Gospel giving up the whole heart to Christ the performing of that which God enables us to perform and bewailing our infirmities and frailties and sins both of the past and present life and beseeching Gods pardon in Christ for all such and sincerely labouring to mortifie every sin and perform uniform obedience to God from every fall rising again by repentance and reformation In a word the condition required of us is a Constellation or conjuncture of all those Gospel Graces Faith Hope Charity Self-denyal Repentance and the rest every one of them truly and sincerely rooted in the Christian heart though mixed with much weakness and imperfection and perhaps with many sins so they be not wilfully and impenitently lived and dyed in for in that case nothing but perdition is to be expected § 44. And as this is the Doctors opinion of the Condition of the second Covenant and the Sincerity of Holiness required by it so he maintains and has fully made it good that neither the Legal nor Evangelical Purity not that Perfection of holiness which consisted in unsinning obedience nor that which required sincere and upright conformity to Gods lawes did include the highest degree of Piety which is possible but had a latitude and consisted of Degrees both states being states of proficiency and growth and conteining in their compass and extent several * Vide Davenant de Justit Habit. Act. cap 39. p. 461 462. cap. 42. p. 491 492. Where he asserts the very same Acts and Degrees of uncommanded devotion so that a man may do that voluntarily and spontaneously out of Love to God which God requires not in any particular Command sub periculo animae but in them has left us to our Liberty to make use of those advantages which he in his Wisdom chose to afford us that there might be somewhat for us freely to exercise his graces upon and for him as freely to reward us And now that there might be no mistake of his meaning and no advantage given to quarrel by the Ambiguity of the word Perfection he sayes that that word is capable of two Notions for either it may signifie the Perfect
endeavours which supposes the Fall and Mans frail sinfull weak condition § 22. Now of keeping of the Law according to exact unsinning obedience a loving God to this perfect height a loving him according to the Abilities God gave and Adam forfeited and here irrecoverably lost it is that our Divines Bishop White against Fisher Ames against Bellarmine Bishop Davenant de Justitiâ Habituali Actuali Bishop Morton de merito Bishop Andrews in his Sermon of Justification Chamier against Bellarmine Hooker against Travers and Generally the Protestants in their discourses of Justification by works and Merit ex condigno supererogation and Fullfilling of the law and the states of Perfection speak when they say God must be thus Loved And the Romish doctrines in many Branches enforce it Of this it is Saint Paul speaks in his Epistles to the Romanes and Galathians when he disputes with the Jew that expected Justification without Faith Justification by their own works according to the tenor of that Part of Moses Law that exemplified the Condition of the first Covenant and affixed the Curse to every one that continued not in every thing that was written in the book of the law to do them And according to this Tenor this Condition of the law the Apostle demonstratively proves against the Jew from the law that no flesh living can be justified because that law expresly testifies that all men have sinned and fell short of the glory of God According to this Condition expressed in Moses law the Jew must acknowledge that if he expects to be Justified his righteousness must be so exact that he must not transgress in any least branch of any the least commandment If he does as his own Conscience and the law tels him plainly that he does he must of necessity acknowledge that by this law nor he nor any man else can be Justified much less supererogate and do more then that law requires And therefore of necessity he must acknowledge himself in a damnable state if he will stand to be Justified by that law and his own righteousness No hope there can be for him unless he look for another righteousness another Covenant a Righteousness without him and a Covenant of Faith This is it that the Apostle so demonstratively proves against the Jew and clearly evidences that as no man can be Justified by that first Covenant so Abraham the Father of the Faithfull and all that ever were Justified were Justified by faith in the Righteousness of the Messiah and the second Covenant made and confirmed in his blood § 23. And this is the Righteousness we preach the righteousness Rom. 10. 6 7 8. of Faith in Christs blood the Condition of which righteousness or Justification and acquitting us at Gods bar is Repentance from dead works and Faith in our Saviours blood the Mediator of the new Covenant and a sincere endeavour to keep all the Commandments of God that Christ has imposed upon us And this the Apostle also as demonstratively proves in his Epistles to the Romans Galathians and Hebrews to have been also contained in Moses law the Ceremoniall part whereof was but the type and shadow of Gospel-Promises and Blessings and Purity and holiness § 24. But then not this but the former Legall Perfection of Charity is the Love that Chamier speaks of in his dispute with Bellarmine when he sayes we must love God according to the Tenor and Prescript of this Law totis viribus Naturae non totis viribus corruptionis And of such a sinless Perfection of love it is also that Master Cawdrey speaks and Doctor Hammond denyes to be obligatory to the Christians Justification that is not cannot be Justified by the works of the law but is therefore by Gods Mercy and Christs Merit and Purchase under the Covenant of Grace And of a love according to this sinless height it is that our Refuter speaks and would make good against the Doctor But bate him his Argument called Petitio Principii and he has not proved it Nay I tell him and shall by and by make it good that it is impossible for him to prove it by any other demonstration then what the Philosopher in his Elench's calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 25. For it is one thing to say that the Law or Covenant of works that required unsinning obedience as the condition of Justification and righteousness by that Law requires us to love God to that height and another thing to say that the Christian is obliged so to love God to Justification For that infers that believers are yet under the law when they are not but under grace which is contrary to the Tenor of the Gospel and yet for all that it may be true as the Apostle demonstrates that the Covenant of works the Law as he calls it did require such obedience and therefore no man can be Justified by that covenant or Law but by such obedience and such a height of Love § 26. If then secondly Man be confidered in regard of those Abilities he has now in the Present state of Grace and under the Gospell dispensation I say that Man according to the Gospell obligation of this Law and the Tenor of the new covenant is bound to love God to the utmost of those Abilities of Grace and the assistance of Gods spirit that God gives and shall bestow upon him bound he is so to love God that he may go on more and more to love him so to make use of the present Talent of Grace that God according to his promise in the Gospell may give more Grace and more Abilities to love him For as the Gospell commands us to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and 2 Pet. 3. 18. 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7. that giving all diligence we should adde to our faith virtue and to virtue knowledge and to knowledge temperance and to temperance patience and to patience godliness and to godliness brotherly kindness and to brotherly kindness charity for if these things be in us and abound they make us that we shall neither be barren nor unfruitfull in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ So God has promised in the Gospell Mat. 13. 11. and 25. 29 Luk. 8. 18. and 19. 26. that whosoever hath and makes use and improves it that hath it not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in possession but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the use and exercise to him shall be given and he shall have more abundance And our Saviour expresly tells us Joh. 10. 10. that he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly And thus man by the Law as understood and expounded according to the tenor and gratious moderation of the Gospel covenant is bound to love God with all the strength he either has or shall have and thus as S. Bernard excellently modus amandi Deum est amare sine modo We can never love enough because our love alwayes
quam respectu propriae beatitudinis it was an Act simply necessary flowing from the beatificall vision which Christ in the superiour faculty of his soul the mind alwayes enjoyed and which de congruo flows from the hypostaticall union This Ibid. disp 37. sect 4 p. 518. Col. 1. D. E. they call amor beatificus animae Christi simpliciter necessarius 4. It is supposed by Suarez and others that besides this beatifick Love there was also in Christs soul an infused habit of Love whereby he also loved God in the dayes of his flesh as well as he knew him by a twofold supernaturall knowledge the beatifick and infused as he declares and proves at large ibid. disp 39. Sect. 7. p. 540. 5. Hence it is that the same Suarez sayes Tertio suppono Ibid. disp sect 5. p. 518. Col. 1. E. F. Col. 2. A. B. Christum fuisse simul Comprehensorem viatorem ex quâ mirabili conjunctione consequenter effectum est miraculosè ut proprii actus beatifici ita continerentur in supremâ parte animae ut non redundarent in inferiorem neque perfectionem suam cum illâ communicarent Ad hunc ergo modum intelligi potest ita animam illam amâsse Deum necessario ut amor ille sisteret in solâ formali conjunctione unione ad Deum suo modo ad formalem beatitudinem pertinente non se extenderet nec communicaret ut ita dicam aliis operibus actibus qui in Christum ut viatorem conveniebant Cum enim haec extensio vel Communicatio fit per modum cujusdam efficientiae poterat facilè impediri sicut fruitio beata impedita est ne omnem tristitiam expelleret nec inferiori portioni communicaret Hoc ergo supposito facile intelligitur illum Dei amorem quem anima Christi habuit veluti consequentem scientiam infusam non beatam fuisse liberum c. ex quo ulterius facile intelligatur ab illo amore libero liberè etiam processisse actus obedientiae charitatis proximi aliarum virtutum quos Christus Dominus ut viator exercuit tum quid ille amor est sufficiens principium causa illorum tum etiam quia amor beatificus ut dictum est veluti continebatur ne influeret in hujusmodi actus sed relinqueret voluntatem operari modo accommodato viatori Thus he Adde to this what the same Suarez has demonstrated ibid. disp 39. Sect. 2. we have already quoted the place at large and shall therefore refer the Reader to it 6. I shall crave leave of the Readers patience to acquaint him what the same authour has further observed to our purpose in his Commentary on the 15. Question of the third part of Aquinas art 6. utrum in Christo fuerit tristitia Quanquam ex divinâ contemplatione quae erat in animâ Christi redundare posset haec delectatio in appetitum sensitivum divinâ tamen virtute impedita est ne dolorem vel tristitiam sensibilem impediret quam doctrinam docuerat D. Thomas art praecedenti ad tertium solvens difficultatem quomodo anima Christi beata fuerit capax doloris tristitiae Circa quam doctrinam supererat difficultas quia ex illà videtur sequi in voluntate Christi nullam fuisse tristitiam quia in illâ fuit summum gaudium ex divina contemplatione visione manans Sequela patet quia si appetitus sensitivus privatus est delectatione quae in ipsum derivari posset in fruitione beata ne fieret incapax tristitiae ergo voluntas in qua per se primò fuit gaudium illud beatificum per illud effecta est omnino incapax tristitiae Respondeo D. Thomam hoc loco ea tantum docuisse quae ad praesentem difficultatem solvendam sufficiebant assignasse modum quo evidentius constare poterat appetitum sensitivum Christi fuisse capacem tristitiae an vero alio modo potuerit voluntas esse capax tristitiae simul cum gaudio D. Thomas hoc loco neque negavit neque asseruit quoniam ad rem not spectabat Adde praeterea D. Thomam non tantum voluisse ostendere appetitum sensitivum Christi fuisse capacem tristitiae secundum quid seu secundum aliquam rationem sed absolute simpliciter ita potuisse tristitiam pati ut omnis delectationis voluptatis expers aliquando fuerit Quod in voluntate locum habere non potuit quia licet secundum aliquam rationem potuerit tristari tamen quia secundum potiorem superiorem rationem semper fuit beata non potuit omni gaudio privari appetitus autem sensitivus fuit in statu possibili caruit statu beatifico ideo fuit capax talis tristitiae quae omnem voluptatem excluderet Caetera quae ad hanc difficultatem pertinent tractabimus infra q. 18. Suarez ibid. pag. 460. 461. § 9. From all which well considered if already we have not given a full and satisfactory answer to all the pretences of this discourse of our Refuter it will evidently appear that though Christ as Comprehensor in the superiour Part of his soul had alwayes a clear intuitive knowledge of the divine Essence and a naturall and necessary love of God thus clearly known which was alwayes at the utmost height still one and the same uninterrupted Act because simply necessary yet this beatifick knowledge and Love of God was so miraculously ordered that it hindred not nor any wayes altered the Acts and operations of the inferiour faculties of his soul nor changed the mannner of working of those his infused graces whether of knowledge or love of God or his neighbours or the exercise of any other virtues and graces necessary for him in the state of a viator To all which as in that state he had a true and proper freedome so he did truly merit by the free ezercise of them And as the happiness he enjoyed in this superiour faculty of his soul as Comprehensor did not hinder but that at the time of his Passion his soul in the inferiour parts was sorrowfull unto death and had no comfort from those supernaturall joyes in the superiour which now by speciall providence and dispensation were suspended so this naturall and necessary fulness of his beafitick Love nothing hindered but that there might be a graduall difference in the Acts and exercise of his infused love of God or at least in the Acts of love towards us his neighbours and the Acts of other virtues and graces All which Acts of Piety and devotion and zeal to God and love to his neighbours and obedience to Gods commands in the exercise of all other virtues and graces his will did freely perform in that way that was proper and most agreeable to the state of a viator And consequently since every man in the exercise of these virtues and graces is bound to exercise them quoad debitas circumstantias and since we have clearly shewed
already that the same ardour and fervency is not required in every Act it evidently follows that notwithstanding this superlative height and fervour in this his Actuall Love as Comprehensor yet in respect of the other Acts of Love and holy Charity and Piety and Obedience and virtue which he exercised freely as viator there might be a graduall difference of fervour and intensness according as the present exigence required And therefore if it appear as it has already that Christ in his bloody Agony had now greater occasion for the heightning of his Fervour in Prayer then formerly it also as cleerly follows that not onely de facto he did pray more earnestly then at other times but it was his duty to do so And here for avoiding of Cavells I must mind our Refuter of Calvins observation formerly noted that a time of affliction is a season for more then ordinary servency in Prayer and that God then calls for it and Christ has instructed us in this lesson by his own Practise and example § 10. And therefore be it now granted to our Refuter that Christ during his abode upon earth and the dayes of his flesh enjoyed the beatificall vision and by reason of that clear intuitive knowledge loved God to the utmost height possible yet what will he thence conclude will it follow does he think that therefore in every respect and as viator also he so loved him Or at least that he loved us his neighbours so too and that as necessary he did exercise all the other Acts of virtues and Graces and Piety and Charity and Obedience If so I must ask him how then could Christ ever be in statu merendi and even whilest he was viator be the meritorious cause and Authour of salvation to all them that obey him § 11. I must therefore mind him that this his long Argument is no other then the old fallacy and Sophism à Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Thus Because Christ as Comprehensor loved God alwayes at one utmost height therefore as viator in every Act of divine Love and Piety and zeal and devotion and love to us his neighbours and in every Act of virtue and Grace he did so too which how absurd and false it is will appear at first sight I doubt not even to our Refuter himself And therefore I deny the sequele of his discourse For though the Antecedent be true that Christ as Comprehensor so loved yet the Consequence is false and fallacious that therefore as viator he did so too And therefore the Doctors Position of the Contrary to the Consequent must needs be true That the Acts of Christs Love or holy Charity exercised by him as viator might be gradually different in fervour notwithstanding our Refuters Antecedent be granted which is all the medium he here brings to confute the Doctors assertion And now let me ask our Refuter suppose I should say If the Aethiop have white teeth therefore the Aethiop is white would he not say it was a ridiculous Sophisme à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter I suppose he would thus answer and he would answer truly And yet such is his Argumentation here against the Doctor and therefore so must be answered § 12. But this is not all the misadventure of our Refuters discourse In this 1. He betrayes very much ignorance and want of knowledge of those Logicall termes of Art which he uses and 2. His own discourse contradicts its self and 3. He speaks most apparent tautologies all unpardonable faults in one that professes himself to write in a scholasticall way § 13. For first he very inartificially confounds these terms Occasion grounds and Motives and Causes For thus he sayes What you mean by these Occasions of heightning Christs Love of God that you intimate I shall not undertake to guesse but this I am sure of that at all other times he had sufficient Causes Grounds and Motives to induce him to love God with as heightned degrees of Actuall Love as the humane nature could reach unto he enjoyed the beatificall vision c. § 14. For the beatificall vision was a necessary Cause of this most heightned Actuall Love and such an Object as God is thus known challengeth as himself speaks such a measure of Actuall Love as that it leaveth no place for a further degree And he adds The Thomists generally maintain that this most intense love of God is a Naturall and Necessary sequele of the beatificall vision Necessary quoad exercitium as well as quoad specificationem actus And it seems he is of their opinion For from hence he argues Now that which works Naturally and Necessarily works as vehemently and forceably as it can § 15. But then Grounds and Motives to induce one to Love are not Necessary causes of Love They are onely suasoria moral perswasions and rationall inducements to perswade a man that has a proper freedome and liberty of indifferency and indetermination of the will which yet expresly in this discourse the Refuter denyes of Christ either to the Acts or degrees of divine Love of which he speaks either to forsake that which he already embraces or to follow that which now he neglects or else to heighten and quicken him either in his flight or embrace of any object he declines or persues § 16. And then as for the term Occasion that is nothing else but an Opportunity and advantage of time and place that has some kind of virtue to excite the Agent to work at this instant when now all impediments seem to be taken off This is no other then a kind of Causa sine quâ non an accidentall thing that not alwayes happens and because it stayes not for post est occasio calva and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore it stirrs up the Agent more powerfully to work at this instant then otherwise it would But then this and the former are onely Causae minus principales And such a Cause Fr. Burgensdic Institut Log l. 1. c. 17. Theor 21. in Commentar sect 1. Ibid. Theor. 24. in Commentar sect 1. as this as a good Author will tell him non tam efficit quam subservit principali causae ad effectum producendum They are both of them Causae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and inchoantes and are thus defined by the same acute Logician Occasio est temporis locique commoditas ad agendum quod velis quae ipsae vim aliquam movendi habet ad agendum quatenus agendi impedimenta tollit Author dicitur hoc loco qui causam principalem propositis rationibus ad agendum hortatur aut ab agendo dehortatur vocatur etiam causa moralis And consequently according to this Author Grounds and Motives sunt rationes seu argumenta quibus propositis Author causam principalem ad agendum hortatur seu moraliter excitat aut ab agendo dehortatur § 16. And therefore though Christ as Comprehensor had
it self out more profusely even in Outward Expressions then at a calmer season I shall not doubt to conclude that his Inward Devotion was also then more enlarged I never read of any but the Hypocrite and Crocodile that have Tears at command and can assume a sad countenance and at pleasure disfigure their faces and counterfeit a passion True zeal and devotion knowes no other expressions then what are Naturall and Genuine Gods Spirit gives no Rules no Examples for the heightening of our Outward Devotion onely nor to make a Trade of lifting up the eye and smiting the breast and making the Tears full and raising of our Cryes and Noise They were the Pharisees onely that did teach and practise such Arts and I read of miscreant Jews that were professed Praeficae and hired mourners at funeralls We need no Tutors nor Instructors to teach us to express the true passions of the heart They whether we will or no uncommanded unthought of rise and fall as the soul it self is affected Nature teaches us this lesson and it is the first that we practise The Child the more it longs after the Mother or the Nurse the more it cryes and sheds tears and the further they go from it the louder still it calls and the more earnest more violent are the Shrikes and lamentations If a man be fallen into a Pit or have lost his way among the Woods the deeper he finds the Pit and the more remote from any Village or company that he conceives himself to be the louder he calls and the more multiplies his cryes It is just so with a truly sanctified soul The more eager and violent is her Love of God the more earnestly it longs and Psal 51. 1 and 12. yearns after him and the comforts of his presence and when God withdraws himself from it the further that he seems to remove the deeper still is the sigh the more humble the Prostration the more dejected the countenance and the more earnest are the Cryes and more plentifull the Tears and the more ardent still the Prayers Our earnest Longings and * Psal 42. per tot pantings after God and the Joy of his countenance without any other Monitor and Instructor can advance and heighten our devotions Indeed nothing but Love and more then ordinary Affection can quicken and raise them as nothing but Moses Rod could make the Waters flow and gush forth from the Rock in the Wilderness Love is often compared to Fire As then the Fire must raise the Spirits in the Alembick before any water can distill and drop and as the more Spirits are raised by it the more Water issues forth so the Flames of holy Love must first raise the spirit of zeal and devotion in us before it will dissolve into Tears and breathe out in Sighs and as that spirit of zeal and true devotion does increase the deeper will be the Groan the more vehement will be our Prayers And therefore S. †Mat. 27. 46. Mar. 15. 34. Matthew tells us that our Saviour when * Subtraxit visionem non dissolvit unionem Leo. now the comfortable Influence of the Deity was suspended he cryed with a loud voyce My God my God why hast thou forsaken me And of this devotion this Ardency it is the Doctor speaks and of this onely he understands S. Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed the more carnestly § 8. And therefore you to no purpose add when the case already is so plain JEANES Secondly In this your reply unto me you expresly averr that the inward Acts of Christs Love of God were more intense at one time then at another Sect. 21. and I hope you have more Philosophy then to confound the inward Acts and the outward expressions of Love That which herein hath occasioned your mistake c. § 9. What the Doctor so expresly averrs in his 21. Section has already been cleared and sufficiently demonstrated And though you beguile your self and others with the ambiguity of this Term the Love of God yet the Doctors meaning is so plain that it is impossible for any man to be deceived in it that resolves not to be willingly mistaken § 10. But you are not deluded in your hopes The Doctor has more Philosophy then to confound the Inward and Outward Acts and Expressions of Love though you betray so little Ethicks to divide and sever them For though the Metaphysician and Naturalist may precisely and abstractly consider them yet the Divine and Moralist know that as the Soul Vid. Durand l. 2. sent dist 42. q 1. A. B. C q. 2. ib. Aquin 1. 2. q. 11 art 4. q. 18. art 6. in Corp. q. 20. art 3. in corp Suarez infra citat and Body make a man so the Inward and the Outward Act concurr to make up one compleat Moral Action Without this the Outward Expressions are but empty Paint and Varnish and all that they can do is but to dress and tire an Hypocrite to make him truely more ugly because it onely makes him more handsome to the eye and appear otherwise then he is § 11. And now our Refuter as if he were some Licentiate in Physick having cast the Doctors Water and as he conceives discovered his distemper he proceeds to acquaint him with the Procatartick cause of his Malady JEANES That which hath herein occasioned your mistake is I believe a supposal that the inward acts of love and the outward expressions thereof are if they be sincere alwayes exactly proportioned in point of degree but this proposition hath no truth in it as you will easily find if you attempt the proof of it who almost but may easily c. § 12. That the Inward Acts of Love and the Outward expressions thereof if they be sincere are alwayes exactly that is Arithmetically proportioned in point of degree so as they be equall and parallel in graduall intension * Jeanes Answer to the Ectenest p. 16. as you formerly express your self is an imaginary phantà sm and Creature of your own brain and no supposall of the Doctors But that the Ardency of the Inward Acts does ordinarily rise and fall according to Geometricall proportion as the Outward Expressions gradually do though the increase and decrease is not Arithmetically parallel in both is a most commonly received Truth in the practise and opinion of all sorts of people in the world for ought I find to the contrary and has been already demonstrated and therefore needs not further Proof § 13. What follows is a very clear mistake and belongs not to the matter you would prove by it When therefore you ask the question and say JEANES p. 38. Who almost but may easily conceive how 't is very ordinary for the outward expressions of Love to be gradually beneath the inward Acts thereof He is no hypocrite in expressing his Love that loveth inwardly more then he expresseth outwardly the inward Acts of Love may not onely equall