fiebat ut iste Habitus Gratiae Sapientiae ejus qui revera non crescebat hominum tamen opinione cresceret Atque hoc sensu non incommode accipi possunt verba Bedae à Magistro citata quem sensum indicat etiam Damascenus l. 3. c. 22 c. sunt autem qui memoratum Evangelii locum malunt intelligere de Sapientia acquisita quam etiam secundum Habitum putant aetatis successu auctam in Christo Sed obstat huic intellectui quod adjungitur de Gratia Non enim credibile est Christum secundum aliquem Habitum acquisitum in Gratia profecisse qua Deo hominibus paulatim gratior evaderet Et sane rectius Scientiae quae rerum est humanarum quam Sapientiae quâ res divinae cognoscuntur Habitus aliquis acquisitus videretur in Christo agnoscendus quare retinenda est superior explicatio Thus far Estius To these I might adde Scotus l. 3. Sent. dist 14. q. 3. and all the rest of the Schoolmen that H. Cavellus has there quoted Durand lib. 3. Sent. d. 14. q. 3. ad 3. q. 4. ad 1. Aquinas 3. par q. 7. art 12. ad 3m. q. 12. art 2. in corp Cajetan and others in loc For the best Commentators in these places understand him as speaking of a real increase in the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace Ames in the place fore-quoted cites Bartholomeus Medina in tertiam partem Thom. q. 7. a. 12. q. 10. a. 2. to this purpose But O me probe lassum juvate Posteri It is time to cry out Claudite jam rivos pueri sat prata biberunt Virgil. If this be not enough to edifie our writer of Scholastical Practical Divinity it is not a Demonstration but a Miracle must do it But before I part with this Section I must advise him for the future to be more wary in his Challenges and to let the Schoolmen in Paul's Church yard and the Library at Oxford alone and rather to intreat the Doctor to alleadge the Testimonies only of such as are in the King of Spains Library of Saint Laurence or the Vatican at Rome where the Inquisition will be sure to keep the Doctor or his Hyperaspist from discovering his ignorance or folly And so farwell my bold Challenger till we meet in the next Section Only let me adde for a close that since I have shewed that you have few or none of the Schoolmen on your side which in your ecstatical passion and Galliardise you called all your own that now I expect with the Graecian Mad-man that in his pleasant dream called all the Ships in the haven his you will cry out as he did after his friends had cured him of his Frenzy and declaim against my cruel Courtesie with a pol me occidistis amici Horace Non sâ—rvastis And so we go on to the next Section SECTION 13. The Refuters Melancholy Phansie his acknowledging the Doctors Innocence The Doctor constantly speaks of the gradual difference in some Acts of Charity never of the Habit. The Refuters Consequence hereupon His Monstrous Syllogism examined The Acts of Christs Love were primariò per se and not only secundariò and per accidens capable of Degrees Demonstrated Actions and Passions intended and remitted only in regard of their Termes The Habits and Acts of Charity in Christ gradually only and not specifically different from those in all other men God by his extraordinary Power may create something greater and better then the habitual Grace of Christ Asserted by Aquinas Suarez and many other Schoolmen and the Refuter himself The Acts of the Habit of Grace in Christ de facto gradually different in themselves and from the Habit. The phrase The love of God variously taken in Scripture Proved In what sense the Doctor constantly takes it Demonstrated The greater good to be more intensely beloved There is an Order in the Acts and Degrees of Love Asserted by the Schooles Of the Order in the Love of Christ The Habit of Love to God and our Neighbours one and the same Quality Proved God and our Neighbours not to be loved with the same equality and degree of Affection Actus efficaces inefficaces what they are That they were in Christ Of the gradual difference between them Hence demonstratively proved that the first great Law of Charity Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart c. does not alwaies oblige us pro hic nunc to the highest degree and noblest Act of Divine Love Of the gradual difference between the free and necessary Acts of Christs Love Phrase Actual Love distinguished The Acts and operations of Grace in Christ were neither intensively nor extensively still commensurate with the Habit. Proved In what sense Aquinas 's Rule urged by the Refuter holds § 1. THe Refuter in a Melancholy Contemplation and Melancholy men are full of Phansie they can create Armies and Castles in the Clouds and Lions and Dragons in the Sielings of their Chambers and the very Curtains of their Beds was pleased to imagine that the Doctor was his Enemy and to raise Objections against his Doctrine a full year shall I say or rather twelve at least before his Mixture had been published to the world For the Passage in the Account against which his Vse of Confutation is addressed is but a recapitulation of what had been more largely delivered to that purpose in the Treatise of Will-worship And therefore the Doctor is willing to undeceive him in this misapprehension also Thus then he Doctor HAMMOND 29. SEcondly he will hear the Doctors Objection and consider of what weight it is Objection against what against the fulness of habitual Grace in Christ Sure never any was by me urged against it And he cannot now think there was The degrees of intenseness observable in the several Acts of Christs Love his praying more ardently at one time then another was all that I concluded from that Text Luc. 22. 24. and that is nothing to his habitual Love § 2. Indeed the Case is so plain in it self and the Doctor in this and the former Sections has so fully cleared his own Innocence that now even our Refuter himself professes his readiness to believe it though his Lucid intervals are very short For thus he bespeakes the Doctor in the very entrance of his Reply JEANES THat this Objection was not intended by you against the fulness of Christs habitual Grace upon your Protestation I readily believe but that by consequence it reacheth it I thus make good c. § 3. But why upon your Protestation why not rather upon your Proof and Reason For has not the Doctor all along demonstrated that his words could be meant of nothing else but the degrees of actual Love Nay is not this expressely and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 declared even in that very Passage you quarrel at Are not these the very words as you your self have cited them even in your Vse of
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
them but yet were accepted by God if they were heartily performed And Mr. Cawdrey acknowledges that the Jew under the Mosaical dispensation had not only libertatem specificationis a liberty to make choice of what he would offer but also libertatem exercitii a liberty to offer or not offer them when it was to use his own words left free in some cases for a man to offer or not to offer beyond what was positively required by the Law If thou wilt offer a free-will offering a Nidabah c. And herein only or chiefly stands the formality of a Free-will offering as contradistinguished to those offerings which were commanded by the Law c. Triplex Diatr p. 88 91. And secondly to David's Voluntary Resolution of building the Temple the same Mr. Cawdrey replyes that this was in the time of the Law or before Christ but the time of the Gospel gives no such allowance Free-will offerings were then allowed And for this answer he quotes Chamier tom 3. l 20. c. 5. § 25. p. 754. Chemnit in Exod. and saies moreover that Divines resolve there be now no free-will offerings under the Gospel though under the Law there were because the worship then is far different from the worship now Triplex Diatribe p. 95 96. How truly this is asserted it concernes not me at present to enquire and therefore I shall refer the Reader to the Doctors Account of this Triplex Diatribe c. 6. sect 1 2 c. Sufficient it is that both he and Chamier allow Free-will offerings and uncommanded Acts of Worship under the Law And therefore I infer that this Law of loving God with all the heart notwithstanding there are yet some Acts of Worship that were left to mans liberty to perform if he offered them he did well and it was accepted by God and if he did not he transgressed no particular command nay sinned not against that first great Law of Love For as plain it is that this Law was in force even under the Mosaical dispensation when yet as plain it is that the Free-will offerings were allowed What is written in the Law sayes our Saviour to the Lawyer how readest thou And he answering said Thou shalt love the Lord thy God c. And he said unto him thou hast answered right Luke 10. 26 27 28. And in another place he resolves that this is the first and great Commandement in the Law and that on this and the second like unto it hang all the Law and the Prophets Matth. 22. 38 39 40. § 69. And now whatsoever answer our Refuter shall be able to make to reconcile and solve this allowance with that Precept will also equally serve the Doctors interest and assertion it being plain that when this Law was in force there were uncommanded acts of Piety and Religion which no man sinned by omitting but were left free to the liberty and choice of him that should perform them § 70. Secondly I answer from the Doctor that these uncommanded degrees or acts of Devotion though they are not enjoyned or imposed upon any man by any particular Law and Precept sub periculo animae and in this respect are left to our freedom to do or not to do them yet they are within the compass of the general command of Love and in respect of that when a man has done all he can he can never be thought to have done enough though the particular Act or the degree of it be somewhat that he is not particularly obliged to Treat of Will-worship sect 17. § 71. Thirdly I answer from the Doctor that this is an affirmative Precept of which according to the Observation of the Schools the rule is true that obligant semper sed non ad semper they oblige us alwaies yet do not oblige us to be alwaies exercising some one act of the vertues so commanded and so though a man be alwaies bound to love God to the utmost height he can in regard of the habit yet there may be a liberty and freedom in the exercise not only to this or that particular Act but also to this or that degree not under any particular command and yet the general Law may at the same instant be fully satisfied § 72. Fourthly I answer that this * Matt. 22. 38. first and great Commandement and the second like unto it are †This is the first and great Commandement It was none of the ten Cōmandements in particular but containes all the Commandements of the first Table and therefore is counted the greatest Vers 39. Is like unto it Not equal to it duty to God is above duty to man but like it in greatness because it containeth all the duties of the second table as the other did of the first Vers 40. And the Prophets This is the contents and sum of them all Assembly Notes on Matt. 22. 38 39 40. General precepts on which hang all the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel duties too And therefore I cannot conceive that they should infer any other special obligation then what is commanded in the special laws into which they are particularly branched and spread Hence it is that our Saviour sayes to his Disciples * John 14. 15. if you love me keep my Commandements And the Apostle in another place Rom. 13. 8 9 10. He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law For this Thou shalt not commit Adultery thou shalt not Kill Thou shalt not steal Thou shalt not bear false witnesse Thou shalt not covet and if there be any other Commandement it is briefly comprehended in this saying namely Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self Love worketh none ill to his Neighbour therefore Love is the fulfilling of the Law For all the Law as the same Apostle Gal. 5. 14. is fulfilled in this one word even in this Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self These therefore being general Commandements must be supposed as all other generals are to be fully contained in the several Particulars that are comprehended under them And therefore if it appear that there be certain Acts or degrees of Piety that are not commanded by any particular Law suo periculo animae but are left free to our liberty to perform or not perform them they cannot be supposed to be commanded by the general so that the man should sin that does not perform them For that would infer a contradiction that they should be left at liberty and yet at the same time they should be commanded that it should be lawful for me to do or not to do them and yet at the same instant I should sin and so endanger my own soul if yet I did not perform them And if any man at any time should be obliged to perform them sub periculo animae by vertue of this general Law then all men at the same instant must be obliged under the same danger to do it because all men by vertue of this Law are bound to
usuall custome of bad debtors and stewards where they cannot satisfie their Creditors to rail at their demands and when their purses and bills are short to make payment and discount in bad language that so at least they may shame where they find they cannot satisfie and tire and weary where they cannot pay Indeed for an Adversary politickly to rail where he cannot conquer and confidently to undervalue the force of that reason which he is unable to resist or answer is a very easie way of consutation I confess but it is by libell not by book And such pitifull advocates that can onely calumniate and scold in behalf of a client without any solid plea make a bad cause far worse by such manner of defence Now as the Author does not envy this happiness of M. Cawdrey in his auditing of accounts so he is perswaded that if this reply to M. Jeanes could have been published as soon as it was designed for the Press he himself might also have received such an answer as the Doctor has done and been paid in the same coine and so at least had had a more speciall call then now he has to take notice of M. Cawdreys new manner of reckoning and stating of accounts But being not at all concerned in that Treatise he was very willing as yet not to take any notice of it And it was for these Reasons First because he saw that what he had already written against M. Cawd needed not any further confirmation there being nothing at all said in this new Rejoynder to impair any thing here delivered Secondly because if he should have said any thing more to this Reply of M. Cawdrey the work already grown too unweildy would have swelled to too large a bulk And thirdly because it could not well be done without making too large digressions from M. Jeanes to follow a new adversary which would have made the discourse too obscure and intricate by such unnecessary diversions And fourthly because the Author was willing to try how the Doctor and the world would like his present undertakings before he further intermedled with the Doctors business who as he is most immediately concerned so of all men he is fittest to undertake and best able to perform it Howsoever that our Author might not be wanting to the cause he had thus already undertaken though contrary to his first intention during the time that this was under the Press he cast an eye upon M. Cawdreys Audit and by way of Essay to satisfie the Reader of the strength of that discourse drew up an answer to one chapter that he conceived of most strength in the whole book and which had a great influence on all the rest But seeing that this work was big enough already and could not with convenience admit of this Appendix he thought fit to suppress it rather then at first be too troublesome to the Reader especially because he doubts not but that the Doctor himself if there shall be found cause will not be wanting to gratifie the Reader far better then himself could with this which he had already provided Howsoever if the Doctor shall think fit to decline this task and the world shall judge M. Cawdreys Audit to deserve a review this which he intended to have added here by way of appendix may in due time see light with some additions and strictures on the rest and M. Cawdrey may find a Person far inferiour to the Doctor that may call him to a new reckoning before he receives his quietus est or Acquittance The CONTENTS SECTION I. THe Refuters ominous changing the Doctors Title Page and the state of the Question His advantage by it over four sorts of Readers How easily the Doctor concluded against by it Love of God what it commonly signifies to English ears How difficult to defend the Doctor in that sense Not so in the Doctors wary state The Refuters Reply foreseen Answered The phrase The love of God variously taken in Scripture How understood by the Doctor In what sense Prayer an Act of holy Charity Page 1. SECT II. Doctor Hammonds renouncing the Errour charged upon him His civill address unjustly taxed by the Refuter The Defenders Resolution hereupon His reason for it Scurrility not maintained Seasonable Reproof lawfull The Defenders no regret to the Refuters person and Performances His undertakings against the Refuter This Course unpleasing to him But necessary The Doctor not guilty of high Complements and scoffs The Refuters Friends the onely Authors of them The Defenders hopes The Refuters promise The Defenders Engagement p. 7 SECT III. The Refuter acknowledges the Doctor to assert the fulness of Christs Habituall Grace His Use of Confutation and after undertakings groundless hereupon The terms of the Question much altered by the Refuter in his Rejoynder p. 15 SECT IV. The Refuters Argument no ground of the Use of Confutation unless he writes by inspiration He confounds the Immanent Acts of Love with the Action of Loving His Argument concerns not the Doctors Assertion The Acts of Divine Charity in Christ may gradually differ where the Habit is the same His frequent begging the Question and impertinence Scheibler vainly quoted What in that Author seemingly favourable to the Refuters pretences censured Immanent Acts truly Qualities Proved Not to be excluded out of the number of Entities Belong to the first species of Quality why Dispositions when imperfect things The Acts of divine Love in Christ supernaturall Not ordained to further Habits-Grace the sole effect of God Why these Acts called Dispositions The Doctor a Metaphysician The Refuters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His irrefragable Argument broken More ridiculous for the Refuters Confidence p. 19 SECT V. The Doctor innocent of the former Crimination The Refuters new Endictment proved vain by a clear instance His Argument a Parologism of four terms The Doctor affirms the direct contrary to the Refuters Charge Humane lapses doubtfull speeches Three rules of the Civill Law to interpret them All writings subject to obscurity How the Doctor to be understood in the passage arraigned He demonstrates by it the fulness of Christs Grace à posteriori The onely rationall way of proving it Christs Love more intense in his agony then in his suffering hunger Asserted by S. Paul Christs habituall grace alwayes perfect Alwayes Christ against the Sociniant Christs habitual grace not to be augmented Whence The Refuters boldness His adding the word before to the Doctors discourse and second misadventure in this kind His proof foreseen answered Difference in the actings of voluntary and naturall agents Acts of love in Christ howsoever heightned can never intend the habit Proved The Refuters major opposite to Scripture as well as the Doctor The habit of grace in Christ not determined to one uniform manner of acting Saints and Angels love God necessarily and freely So Christ as Comprehensor This not to the purpose The Refuters charitable additions The acts of holy charity of two sorts of which
is an order in the acts and degrees of love Asserted by the Schools Of the order in the love of Christ The habit of love to God and our neighbours one and the same quality proved God and our neighbours not to be loved with the same equality and degree of affection Actus efficaces inefficaces what they are That they were in Christ Of the gradual difference between them Hence demonstratively proved that the first great law of charity Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart c. does not alwayes oblige us pro hic nunc to the highest degree and noblest act of Divine love Of the gradual difference between the free and necessary acts of Christs love Phrase actuall love distinguished The acts and operations of grace in Christ were neither intensively nor extensively still commensurate with the habit Proved In what sense Aquinas's rule urged by the Refuter holds 205 SECT XIV The Doctors discourse here onely ad hominem The Refuters reply grants all that the Doctors argument aims at Where the degrees of any Quality particularly the love of Christ are for number multiplyed in the same subject there the quality particularly the love is more intense Proved This inferrs not Intension to be a meer coacervation of homogeneous degrees The Refuter reaches not the Doctors meaning The Doctor argues from the effect to the cause The reasonableness of the proof The onely way to conclude the servour of the inward devotion by the outward performance Length and continuance in prayer an argument of high zeal Suarez and Hurtado's discourse concerns not the Doctor The Refuters ignorance notwithstanding his confidence Quantitas virtutis molis No absurdity in the Doctors discourse if as the Refuter falsly charges him he had concluded a greater ardency in Christs devotion from the multiplying of the severall acts of prayer Continuance in prayer a demonstration of fervour Frequent repetitions of the same words in prayer an argument of an heightened fervour of Spirit 251 SECT XV. The pertinency of the Doctors Argument and impertinence of the Refuters charge The Doctors argument à posteriori from the necessary relation between the work and the reward Not understood by the Refuter The outward work more valuable in Gods sight for the inward fervour and devotion The Refuters petitio principii Works in a Physicall sense what and what in a Moral The Refuters discourse of the infinite value of Christs merit arising from the dignity of his person Nothing to the purpose The dignity of a morall action according to the physicall entity of the act or according to the dignity of the person performing it The actions of Christ in regard of his person infinite in value Not so in regard of their substantial moral goodness Proved and acknowledged by our Refuters own Suarez Consequently in this regard they might exceed one another in moral perfection The Doctors argument that it was so in Christ The appositeness of the proof The Scriptures say the same 265 SECT XVI The second part of the Refuters second answer The distinct confession of all the Doctor pretends to The English translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more earnestly justified The Refuter's nonsense What ardency in Christ it was that was heightned Luk 22. 43. Comprehensor Viator what In what state whether of Comprehensor or Viator Christ was in a capacity to pray as that signifies either petition deprecation or thanksgiving and this whether onely for others or also for himself Of prayer and the severall kinds Whether though Christ were in a capacity thus to pray yet being God that was able of himself to accomplish whatsoever he might desire as man it was expedient for him to do so and whether God had so determined What things Christ might and did pray for both for himself and others M. Hooker commended Whether Christ did in truth and reality or onely in shew pray for a removal of that cup which he came on purpose to drink Whether these prayers and desires were not repugnant to Gods decree and the end of his coming into the world and his own peremptory resolution to drink it How those desires for a removall of this Cup might be advanced notwithstanding his readiness and resolution to drink it How Christs ardency in prayer for a removal of this cup might be increased above what it either was or there was occasion for at other times Of the greatness of his agony and bloody sweat How his zeal in prayer at this time might be advanced without derogation from the fulness of his habitual grace the impeccability of his soul and the uninterrupted happiness of it and perfect love as he was Comprehensor Strictures on the former part of the Refuters second answer 276 SECT XVII The Refuters three arguments to prove the act of Christ's love alwayes equally intense impertinent to the present question His confident proposal of them to be examined as rigidly as the Doctor pleases and his vain ostentation in placing them in his Title-page censured The ambiguity of the phrase Christs love of God distinguished from Crellius Estius Aquinas and others In what sense still used by the Doctor 333 SECT XVIII The Refuters first argument contradicts his second and proves not his conclusion Reduced to form The Sequele denyed The reason His authorities concern not the question His citing Aquinas from Capreolus censured The conclusion to be proved Hurtado's and Aquinas first saying from Capreolus true with the reason of it from Suarez but not pertinent A view of the place in Aquinas He speaks of the habit c. not the act The different workings of necessary and voluntary causes The Refuters argument guilty of a double fallacy His next place of Aquinas from Capreolus impertinent His gross ignorance or prevaricating in his third place of Aquinas Scotus testimony impertinent Aquinas and Scotus maintain that proposition which he would confute in the Doctor by their testimonies 337 SECT XIX The Refuters second argument Christ on earth Comprehensor true but Viator also Proved from Scripture Aquinas Scotus in the places referred to by the Refuter From Suarez also None but the Socinians deny Christ to be thus Comprehensor His beatifick love as Comprehensor an uniform because necessary act Fruitless here to enquire wherein the essence of happiness consists according to the Thomists or Scotists It follows not because Christs love as Viator was more intense at one time in some acts then at another in other acts that therefore his happiness as Comprehensor was at that time diminished Proved The Doctor never denies the fulness of Christs happiness as Comprehensor The Refuters grave propositio malè sonans His argument a fallacy à dicto secundum quid Christs twofold state Though the infused habit of grace in him alwayes full yet not so the acts The reason M. Jeanes and others guilty of this propositio malè sonans as well as the Doctor The piouâ—â—y credible proposition of the Schoolmen
learning in this point of which he professes himself so totally ignorant I should think fit to referr him to Ruvio's Logica Mexicana as grave an Author as his Scheibler or the Author of the Collegium Complutense § 28. His words most pertinent to this purpose are these Cum omnis motus vel actio sit via in terminum per ipsum productum quaelibet harum actionum sc appetitus sensitivi proprium habet terminum quidem terminus transmutationis corporalis sensu percipitur Terminus vero actionis appetitus non percipitur sensu quemadmodum neque actio ipsa Iram enim nisi aliqua alteratione Corporis ostendatur vel certe verbis aut signis non agnoscimus sed cum sit Actio corporea absque dubio habet proprium terminum nomine ejusdem actionis significatum ut ostendunt Operationes Voluntatis similes Dum enim Voluntas rem aliquam Amore prosequitur Actio ipsa Amandi suum habet terminum in eadem voluntate productum nempe Amorem actualem quemadmodum actio Intellectus verbum mentale sed eodem nomine significamus Actionem Terminum nempe Amoris Actualis Ita ergo de Actibus appetitus intelligendum est Amorem sensitivum Irae Gaudii motus suos habere Terminos inneminatos quos iisdem nominibus ac actus ipsos nominamus nempe actualem Amorem actualem Iram Gaudium Et rursus quemadmodum Amor actualis per Actum Voluntatis productus Verbum mentale per Actum Intellectus sunt Qualitates cum tamen Dilectio Intellectio sunt Actiones pari ratione de Actibus Appetitus sentiendum est c. Ruv. Log. Mexicana lib. Praedicam c. 8. q. 4. in solut dubii 2. p. 1184 1185. § 29. But yet if this Author should seem too obscure and mean for a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinities perusal I shall refer him to that very Suarez whom he himself recommends to the Doctors inspection and yet not so much to his Authority as his Reason though yet oportet discentes credere among whom in this point he confesses himself to be His words are these * Vide Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. Prima erat instantia de Actibus immanentibus quam multi expediunt negantes illas esse Qualitates sed Actiones tantum quae inter Thomistas videtur esse valde recepta opinio ut infra videbimus tractando de Praedicamentis Actionis ut ibi ostendemus tamen negari non potest quin illa actio aliquem habeat terminum intrinsecum qui per eam fiat ut ibidem ostendemus ille autem terminus non potest esse nisi Qualitas ut facile patebit discurrendo per caetera Praedicamenta Item secundum hos Actus verè dicimur Quales nempe boni aut mali scientes Amantes irati c. Item hi actus sunt formae ultimo actuantes ac perficientes ipsas substantias quibus insunt ergo convenit illis communis ratio Qualitatis supra assignata Atque haec sententia est communis inter authores cam tenet D. Thomas opusc 48. Soncinas 5. Metaphys q. 36. Latius l. 9. q. 21. Ferrariensis 2. contra Gentes c. 82. 2. de Anima q. 12. Hervaeus quodlib 9. q. 8. Aegid tract de Mensur Angel q. 10. Et in eadem sententia est Scotus 1 Sent. d. 3. q. 6. § Hic sunt Quodlib 12. § Ad tertium Principale quem sequuntur Scotistae praesertim Antonius Andreas 9. Metaphys q. 4. idem sentiunt Durand Gabriel 1 Sent. d. 27. q. 2. Thus Suarez Metaphys disp 42. sect 5. § 13. § 30. Howsoever though he thinks fit to referr the Doctor because he is a Critick to learn some Metaphysicks from Scheibler yet I will be so civil to him because he is a Schoolman to referr him for his learning in this point to one of the subtlest of those Doctors And let Scotus be the man it is l. 1. Sent. d. 27. q. 3. § 19. ad tertium The place is short but full and not taken notice of by Suarez And the words are these Ad Tertium concedo quod Notitia est proles verè genita sed productio illa non est actualis intellectio quia ut dictum est supra actualis intellectio non est Actio de genere Actionis sed est Qualitas nata terminare talem actionem quae significatur per hoc quod est dicere vel in communi per hoc quod est elicere non igitur Verbum est aliquid productum actione quae est intellectio quia ipsa intellectio non est productiva alicujus sed ipsa est producta actione quae est de genere actionis sicut dictum est supra He here referrs to the place quoted by Suarez 1. Sent. d. 3. q. 6. p. 110. col 2. n. 31. ib. q. ult p. 130. ex edit Cavell where he has very solidly proved it § 31. And thus we have Reason and Authority sufficient to clear this point That Actual Love is a Quality flowing from the Habit of Divine Love that terminates the immanent Action of Loving which for want of sufficient words are both comprehended under the same common name of the Immanent Acts of Charity or Divine Love And therefore to come to his second Argument § 32. Though as he truly sayes Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate yet these Qualities that terminate immanent Acts and are produced by them particularly the Quality of Actual Love that proceeds from the energetical operation and working of the divine Grace of holy Charity of which the Scriptures and Fathers and all Divines are so full must not be excluded out of the number of Entities for this Refuters Grave saying till he can more solidly prove that all immanent Acts and particularly this of Divine Love are purely Actions not terminated in Qualities of the same name with the immanent Acts or Actions themselves And so I come to his first Argument the Forlorn hope of the Cause § 33. If they be Qualities they must most probably be ranked under the first of the four Species c. § 34. To this let the same Suarez to make it more authentick give answer Metaph. tom 2. dist 42. sect 5. § 15. Supposito ergo saies he quod hi Actus sint Qualitates videri potest alicui esse collocandas in tertiâ specie tum quia sunt termini suarum Actionum tum etiam quia Aristoteles Passiones Animae in illâ specie collocat ut Iram Gaudium c. quae tamen Actus immanentes sunt sed hae rationes non urgent jam enim diximus esse terminum Actionis non esse adaequatam vel essentialem rationem illius tertiae speciei Passiones autem animae per se ipsae ut sunt actus immanentes non pertinent ad tertiam speciem sed secundum id à quo accipiunt nomen Passionis nimirum ex alteratione
Argument a Paralogism of four terms The Doct. affirms the direct contrary to the Refuters Charge Humane lapses doubtful speeches Three rules of the Civil Law to interpret them All writings subject to obscurity How the Doctor to be understood in the passage arraigned He demonstrates by it the fulness of Christs habitual Grace à Posteriori The only rational way of proving it Christs Love more intense in his Agony than in his suffering Hunger Asserted by S. Paul Christs habitual Grace alwayes perfect Alwayes Christ against the Socinians Christ's habitual Grace not to be augmented whence The Refuters boldness His adding the word Before to the Doctors Discourse and second misadventure in this kind His proof foreseen answered Difference in the actings of Voluntary and Natural Agents Acts of Love in Christ howsoever heightned can never intend the Habit. Proved The Refuters Major opposite to Scripture as well as the Doctor The habit of Grace in Christ not determined to one uniform manner of Acting Saints and Angels love God necessarily and freely So Christ as Comprehensor This not to the purpose The Refuters charitable Additions The Acts of holy Charity of two sorts Of which the Doctor to be understood The Doctors censure of the Refuters Additions just Doctor HAMMOND § 6. FIrst I said it not in these words which he undertakes to refute These are pag. 258. of his Book thus set down by him This point may serve for confutation of a passage in Doctor H. against Mr. C. to wit That Christs love of God was capable of further Degrees 7. These words I never said nor indeed are they to be found in the Passage which he sets down from me and whereon he grounds them which he sayes is this D. H. p. 222. In the next place he passeth to the inforcement of my Argument from what we read concerning Christ himself that he was more intense in Prayer at one time than at another when yet the lower degree was sure no sin and prepares to answer it viz. That Christ was above the Law and did more than the Law required but men fall short by many degrees of what is required But sure this answer is nothing to the matter in hand for the evidencing of which that example was brought by me viz. That sincere Love is capable of Degrees This was first shewed in several men and in the same man at several times in the several ranks of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one act of Prayer than in another 8. Here the Reader finds not the words Christs Love of God is capable of further Degrees and when by deduction he endeavours to conclude them from these words his conclusion falls short in one word viz. further and 't is but this That the example of Christ will never prove Doctor Hammond his Conclusion unless it inferr that Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees 9. This is but a slight charge indeed yet may be worthy to be taken notice of in the entrance though the principal weight of my Answer be not laid on it and suggest this seasonable advertisement that he which undertakes to refute any saying of another must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable otherwise he may himself become the only Author of the Proposition which he refutes 10. The difference i◠no more than by the addition of the word further But that addition may possibly beget in the Readers understanding a very considerable difference 11. For this Proposition Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees is readily interpretable to this dangerous sense that Christs Love of God was not full but so far imperfect as to be capable of some further Degrees than yet it had And thus sure the Author I have now before me acknowledges to have understood the words and accordingly professeth to refute them from the consideration of the All-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ which he could not do unless he deemed them a prejudice to it 12. But these other words which though he finds not in my Papers he yet not illogically inferrs from them that Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees more intense at one time than at another are not so liable to be thus interpreted but only import that Christ's Love of God had in its latitude or amplitude several Degrees one differing from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in that All-full perfect Love of God which was alwayes in Christ so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further Degrees 13. The matter is clear The Degrees of which Christs Love of God is capable are by me thus exprest that his Love was more intense at one time than at another but still the higher of those Degrees of intenseness was as truly acknowledged to be in Christs Love at some time viz. in his Agony as the lower was at another and so all the Degrees which are supposed to be mentioned of his Love are also supposed and expresly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other whereas a supposed Capacity of further Degrees seems at least and so is resolved by that Author to infer that these Degrees were not in Christ the direct contradictory to the former Proposition so that they were wanting in him and the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured as prejudicial to Christs fulness Here then was one misadventure in his Proceeding § 1. TO this so clear vindication wherein the Doctor very evidently declares 1. That neither the Words this Author undertakes to refute are to be found in his Book nor the Sense he draws from them 2. His acknowledgement of the dangerous sense that Proposition which he causelesly charges on the Doctor is readily interpretable to and that he who best knew his own opinions of any man in the world was so far from any such meaning that he expresly declares that the but seeming asserting of that want in Christs habitual Grace is justly censured as prejudicial to his fulness our Refuter returns a very proud answer and nothing to the purpose thus JEANES 1. He that saith that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony than before affirmeth that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further Degrees than yet he had But you affirm the former and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter unto you The Premisses virtually contain the Conclusion and therefore he that holds the Premisses maintaineth the Conclusion I shall readily hearken to your seasonable advertisement that he that undertakes to refute any saying of another must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable but notwithstanding it I shall assume the liberty to charge you with the consequencies of your words and if I cannot make good my charge the shame will light on me 2. If there were any mistake in supplying
the word further it was a Mistake of Charity for I was so charitable as to think that you spake pertinently to the matter you had in hand I conceived that your scope in your Treatise of Will-worship was to prove that there be uncommanded Degrees of the Love of God that those large inclusive words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart withall thy soul c. do not command the highest and most intense degree of the Love of God so that a man may fulfill this command and yet there may be room or place for further and higher Degrees of the Love of God Now this Proposition Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees which you confess to be not illogically inferred from your Papers will never reach this point unless you understand the word further and therefore your censure of my supplying the word further as a misadventure in my proceedings is groundless § 2. You have said Sir And now to which of the former Paragraphs is this answer addressed Have you any where shewed the falshood or weakness of the Doctors vindication of that Passage in his Account from the charge laid in against it in your Vse of Confutation Has he not here clearly demonstrated his Innocence and that neither the Words nor the Sense imposed upon him are his Has he not manifested beyond exception that by your own addition of the word further not to be found in that Passage you have charged him with an Error that he is no wayes guilty of and as heartily abominates as you or any man can Review the Passage you taxed in your Vse of Confutation and compare it with the present Defence and if you can yet find it faulty let us know your reasons in short Do not set a new house on fire that you may run away in the Smoke for that will but aggravate your guilt Remember Sir your Promise and retract what is amiss Do not seek for new Calumnies till the former be made good Howsoever the world must needs see by this your (a) Qui non facit quod facere debet videtur facere adversus ea quia non facit Et qui facit quod facere non debet non videtur facere quod jussus est Digest de Reg. Jur. l. 50. tit 17. leg 121 Tergiversation and hunting after new Cavils to countenance old Aspersions that the Doctor is innocent and that a verse in Machiavels Proverbs which he borrowed from Tacitus Calumniare fortiter aliquid adhaerebit was your Text from whence you deduced your second Vse of Confutation § 3. The former Passage then being supposed innocent by our Refuters (b) Qui tacet non utique fatetur sed tamen verum est eum non negare Digest de reg Jur. leg 142. ibid. no reply to the Doctors vindication for all Courts of Judicature in the world absolve the person arraigned when the Accuser either cannot or will not make good his Crimination I shall now proceed to consider whether the Doctor ex post facto may be concluded guilty of the Vse of Confutation by this that our Refuter has anew brought in against him § 4. The Indictment now is The Doctor guilty not directly as before but only by consequence And thus the Accuser endeavours to make good his Charge § 5. He that saith that Christs Love of God was more intense in his Agony than before affirmeth by consequence you mean Sir that his Love of God before his Agony was capable of further degrees than yet it had But you affirm the former and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter unto you The Premisses virtually contain the Conclusion and therefore he that holds the Premisses maintaineth the Conclusion § 6. In good time Sir But then it must be where the Syllogism is (a) Leges communes sunt septem Prima In Syllogismo non debent esse plures termini nec pauciores tribus Haec lex praecipitur l. 1. prior c. 25. just and right and the (b) Secunda lex Non debet esse plus aut minus in Conclusione quam fuit in Praemissis Conclusion logically and artificially inferred from (c) Septima Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem quare cum propositio negans deterior sit affirmante particularis universali si altera Praemissarum negans aut particularis sit Conclusio quoque debet esse negans aut particularis true and unquestionable principles (d) Haec regula se extendit etiam ad conditiones materiae ita ut si altera Praemissarum sit necessaria altera contingens Conclusio debet esse contingens ut docetur l. 1. Prior. c. 24. Burgers dic Log. l. 2. c. 8. otherwise though the Premisses virtually contain the Conclusion yet the inference will be false Unless the matter as well as the form of the Syllogism be true the Conclusion though rightly inferred for all that will be an untruth (e) Cum Conclusio dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessario sequi ex praemissis non intelligitur necessitas ipsius conclusionis quae sequitur quae necessitas consequentis appellatur sed necessitas sequelae sive consequentiae Necessitas enim conclusionis consequentis in solâ demonstratione locum habet Necessitas consequentiae in omni Syllogismo bene formato haec enim necessitas est anima Syllogismi eâ enim sublatâ Syllogismus non erit Syllogismus sed Paralogismus Burgersdic Log. l. 2. c. 6. in Comment §. 3. Follow it may by a necessity of consequence but there will be no necessity in the consequent and the inference will be naught Though you are a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity yet I see I must be forced to read a Logick Lecture to you And therefore to make this evident by an undeniable instance and not to asperse but only to give our Refuter a Vse of Instruction He that saith that the Pope is the supreme Head of the Church affirmeth by consequence that he has also power over every particular Congregation But you Mr. Refuter affirm the former and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter to you The Premisses virtually contain the Conclusion and therefore he that holds the Premisses maintaineth the Conclusion I know Sir notwithstanding this Argument you will bid defiance to the Pope and every the least ragge of Antichrist and you will deny that you are any wayes concerned in the Conclusion because the Assumption is false I believe it Sir and accept of your answer and therefore acquit you from the danger of the Inference § 7. But then withall I must ask you in the Doctors behalf And what if there be no less then four terms in your Syllogism and there be more in the Conclusion then the Premisses naturally inferre and that the Assumption also is directly false If these be all true as I shall not fail to demonstrate must the Doctor lay his hand on his
pingeret poppyzonta retinentem equum Canem ita Protogenes monstravit Fortuna Plin. Natur. hist lib. 35. ca. 10. mihi pag. 346. tom 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist lib. 6. Eth. ca. 4. §. 3. Painters rage casually directs his Pencill to draw the Dogges and Horses foame which all his skill and frequent attempts could not reach to The Perfection of the Act still argues the Perfection of the Habit and the intension here must be derived from the former But then though the Painter cannot limne beyond his skill nor the Lutenist play unless by chance yet I hope the Lutenist and Painter is not morally or naturally bound and necessitated alwaies to play and limne as well as they can § 12. To come closer I suppose Mr. Jeanes to be a good Preacher for I have seen a good Sermon of his in print concerning Abstinence from all appearance of evill and he would do well to think of his own Doctrine but yet I cannot think him bound either by Gods law or man 's to preach alwaies as well as he can Nor do I beleeve he makes his Sermons with the same care and pains and sets them off with the same Learning and Rhetorick when he preaches weekly to his Parish at Chedzoy as when he preaches before the Judges in the face of the Country And yet still the intension of the Act must proceed from the intension of the Habit. A man of lower parts and less learning and Judgement and Rhetorick then himself cannot speak or write so well as he himself can And yet he himself is not alwaies bound to exceed a meaner Scholars performances and many times Prudence Discretion will invite him to stoop and condescend to the weakness and Capacity of his Auditors § 13. For the * Dicendum est ergo quòd Habitus determinat Potentiam ad hoc ut ipsa Habitu perfecta sit proprium principium perfecti operis in quo sua consummatur perfectio Et quoniam Habitus est quo quis operatur cum vult non cum habet propterea est quo quis operatur infra ejus Potestatem quantum vult non quantum potest ut patet in Artificibus ideo non mireris si Actus Potentiae habituatae non sunt semper perfectiores Actibus Potentiae non habituatae Cajetan in 1. 2. q. 49. art 3. pag. 98. col 4. K. Habitus in tantum potest esse Principium Actus Liberi in quantum possumus eo uti cum volumus non ergo dat ipse Habitus libertatem sed potius ut ita dicam illam accipit à Potentia in qua residet quatenus Potentia est quae Habitu utitur ut in ejus facultate positum est illo uti vel non uti c. Vid. amp Suarez Metaph. disp 19. sect 5. n. 8. Dicimus Qualitatem ex se habere talem naturam intensibilem non ratione alterius quamvis quoad existentiam redigatur in actum magis vel minus perfectum ab agente inaequali vel in virtute vel in approximatione vel in voluntate si sit liberum Suarez Metaph. disp 46. sect ◠n. 3. vid. ibid. sect 3. n. 9. n. 15 16. sect 4. n. 14. p. 497. col 1. Suarez disp 19. sect 2. sect 4. n. 8. c. Voluntas ab objecto proposito non semper determinatur ad unum certa est recepta ab omnibus eà mque ex professo probat D. Thomas 1. 2. q. 10. art 2. Nam perinde est dicere Voluntatem non necessitari ab alio quod non determinari ad unum ab illo Sed est certum non necessitari ab omnibus objectis ergo nec determinari ad unum Igitur quoad Exercitium solum in Patria ab infinita bonitate Dei clarè visi determinatur ad unum juxta receptam doctrinam quoad Specificationem verò à Bono in communi aut aliis similibus objectis c. Suarez Metap disp 19. sect 6. n. 9. Vid. ibid. sect 5. n 7. Habits whereof we speak being seated in the Will do ordinarily partake of the nature of the Will wherein they are subjected and concurring still effectively with the Will to the production of the Act must still be free and voluntary causes to act not necessarily ad ultimum virium but how and when and in what manner and measure he that has the Habit shall think fit unless the Will be otherwise limited and determined For instance The blessed Saints and Angels in Patria love God ad ultimum virium necessarily and yet freely as freedome is improperly taken because such is the excellency of the Object God which now they know face to face being Comprehensores and in Patria as they speak in the Schooles that he cannot chuse but most necessarily and most ardently be loved But then this determination is wholy extrinsecal to a Habit ut sic and praecisely considered and only by accident in respect of the Knowledge and Perfection of the Object which cannot chuse but be alwaies most perfectly loved where it is so perfectly known § 14. And Thus to speak in your own Complement which you vouchsafe in the Close of this Section to spend upon the Doctor having shewed you the ground of your mistake that invited you unto your Vse of Confutation I might pass over not only the three other Sections but the rest of your whole Book which you your self I presume would have spared if you had been privy to that which I now acquaint you with But we must attend you in your motion SECT 10. The Refuters Saying is the only proof that Actual Love is in the Praedicament of Action The contrary proved by Suarez Smiglecius Scheibler In Actual love the Action and the Terminus of it considerable The Refuters Remarques in Scheibler impertinent His Oracles nothing to the purpose The Propositions to be proved Immanent Acts in what sense Qualities Scheibler not slighted Aristotle his Character of Eudoxus agreeable to the Refuter His words not home to the Refuters purpose proved from Reason and Suarez Habitual and Actual Love both Qualities and Species of the same Genus proved from sundry places in Suarez The Refuters further Impertinencies Immanent Acts of Love in what sense Dispositions in what not from Smiglecius Aquinas Acts of two sorts Doctor HAMMOND 22. THe word Love as I said is a Genus equally comprehending the two Species habitual and actual Love and equally applicable to either of the Species to the Acts as well as the Habit of Love And so when I say Love is capable of Degrees the meaning is clear The Generical word Love restrained to the latter Species i. e. considered in respect of the Acts of Love gradually differenced one from the other is in that respect capable of Degrees both inwardly and in outward expressions that Act of Love that poured out and exprest it self in the more Ardent prayer was a more intense Act of Love
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
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
when Mahomet who has commanded his followers to oppose and persecute his worshippers has yet in his very Alcoran declared him to be a most holy man and the next great Prophet sent from God and therefore condemnes his own followers that blaspheme him for us Christians that acknowledge him our Saviour either directly or indirectly to pull the glorious Crown of Righteousness from his head is most hideous and protentous blasphemy And therefore I shall as readily as cheerfully as our Refuter pronounce Anathema to all such Conclusions that cast the least Umbrage and suspition of guilt upon our ever blessed Saviour And so I undertake shall Doctor Hammond and I am bold to promise our Refuter his thanks and most grateful acknowledgement if at any time he shall reclaim him from any such dangerous though by himself undiscovered Inferences § 9. But then secondly I must adde that because Christ was absolutely impeccable and could not sin therefore of necessity the Inward Acts of his Love and holy Charity could not be of the same equal Intenseness but must differ in gradual Perfection according to the Order of Charity that Gods Law requires and the different Participation of the Divine goodness in the several Objects of this Love § 10. Thirdly I grant that the first and great Commandement enjoynes us the most intense Actual Love of God that is possible command us it does to love God tanto nixu conatu quanto fieri potest with our utmost force and endeavour and with as high a degree of Actual Love as is possible for us to reach unto § 11. But then fourthly I must deny that it will follow that even the Acts of this Love this high transcendent Love that is immediately fixed on God are all equally intense though the Ardor of them must be still as intense as we are able For since as St. Austin and Bernard Aquinas and Scotus say truly that this commandement in that sense cannot perfectly be fulfilled in this life but it shall be then only in Heaven when man shall be totally united and joyned to God by virtue of the beatifical vision when God shall be all in all since also it is evident that this first and great Commandement obliges us to love God only with all our strength and not with more then ever we had at first in Adam before his fall and since it is also evident that Adam in innocency had not the same Abilities to love God in Paradise as the soul of the same Adam and the Spirits of all just men now made perfect have in Heaven and since it is also as evident as I shall also by and by and beyond all exception further demonstrate that Christ as considered in the state of a Viator had not the same Abilities to know and love God as he had at the same time as considered in the state of a Comprehensor and fully possessed of heaven happinesse and the full sight and Vision and enjoyment and fruition of God it will undenyably follow that even in the Acts of this high transcendent Love of God there was and must be acknowledged a Gradual difference in respect of Ardor and Intensenesse according to the difference of his Abilities as considered in the state of a Viator and as considered in the state of a Comprehensor § 12. Fifthly I grant that Christ as Man had in his humane soul as considered in the state of a Comprehensor in the superiour part of it the Mind farr greater abilities for the Actual Love of God then Adam had in Paradise because from the first Moment of his Conception and Birth by virtue of the hypostatical Vnion he had greater Abilities for this Love then all the Saints and Angels in heaven And therefore I do also grant that the inward Acts of this his Love as Comprehensor were alwaies One without any Interruption or Gradual Variation these were alwaies at the height and the same equal intensenesse because they were alwaies in Termino and not free Acts of the Will but Necessary effects of the Beatifical Vision § 13. But then sixthly I must add what our Refuter ha's in his Mixture of Scholastical Divinity with Practical told us Jeanes mixture pag. 261. concerning our blessed Saviour as considered in the state of a Viator That it is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation there was some restraint of the influence of his happinesse or beatifical vision in the whole course of his humiliation and particularly in the time of his doleful passion But though truly as he addes immediately it seemes very improbable and no waies sortable unto the state of Christs blessednesse for his grace and holinesse the Image of God in him his love of God c. to wit in the habit as these Phrases signifie to be lyable to perpetual motion and augmentation yet because let me add his Abilities during this restraint of the Influence of his happinesse and as considered in the state of a Viator were not the same as now they are in the state of a Comprehensor the Intensenesse and Ardor in the Acts of his Love now must be higher then they were during that Restraint But much more must this be allowed that there was a Gradual difference in the Acts of his Love if as our Refuter in his Mixture undertakes to demonstrate that Jeanes his mixture p. 250 our Saviour did as truly increase in the inward Acts of Wisdom and Grace as he did in Stature § 14. But then seventhly let me add that if the Inward Acts of this Love of God were not alwaies equal but did Gradually differ because they did Gradually increase it will not therefore follow that our Saviour must be concluded guilty with all humble reverence be it spoken of the breach of the first and great Commandement For he that alwaies loves God with all his Soul and might and strength that loves him to the utmost of his ability that he ha's by Gods gift and not weakened by sin nor impaired by his own fault loves him pro praesenti statu as much as that Law does require and if as his Abilities do increase his Love does constantly still increase he still loves God according to that duty and measure which that Law does require though the Acts of this Love are now more intense than they were formerly And thus it was in Christ at least as compared in the state of a Viator with himself as considered in the state of a Comprehensor The Acts then of this his Love were alwaies holy and most conformable to Gods Law and still in suo genere perfect though they were not all equal in Gradual Intensenesse and all simply and absolutely perfect as now they are where he sits at the Right hand of God And therefore even in respect of these Acts it will not follow that though they were not alwaies equal in gradual perfection his Obedience to this Commandement was therefore imperfect
because he did alwaies love God ex toto posse suo with all his might and strength which strength did differ according to the variety of his several states and conditions as Viator and Comprehensor § 15. But then lastly let me add to prevent all mistakes that this is not by me applyed to any but onely our Saviour that was still holy harmlesse undefiled For God is not cannot be unjust if by virtue of this Law he should require us to love him according to the Abilities he gave us and we have wilfully lost and squandered away nor can we be said to love God with all our might and with all our strength though in this lapsed depraved condition we love him as well as we can with this body of sin we carry about us because it is by our own default that we can now love him no better and we our selves by our own sin and wilful default have disabled our selves that we cannot love him so well as we ought and as Gods Law requires and which we might have kept if Adam and we his off-spring had continued in our first innocency But then also let me add that we and Adam in innocency should not have loved God with that height and ardor as now the Spirits of just men made perfect do love him because Adam they knew should have known him only by Grace and Revelation but now they know him face to face and their love is inlarged by the greatnesse of their happinesse and the fulnesse of their glory § 16. I shall clear all this by the Testimonies of some Schoolmen of great note and worth in themselves and of great repute with our Refuter I begin with Suarez § 17. He in his first Tome on the third part of Aquinas Summes disputing of the Merit of Christ laies it down for a ground that Christ in the dayes of his flesh and in the state of a Viator was truly in statu merendi and that all the conditions requisite to make an Action meritorius and the Person that performes it to merit by it were to be found in him And if this be not granted he could not be the Meritorious cause of our Justification Ex his ergo omnibus sufficienter concluditur omnes conditiones ad perfectum meritum requisitâ— in Christo Domino inventas esse atque adeo potuisse mereri ac denique de facto meruisse Quae assertio de fide certa est quam ex Scripturis melius infra demonstrabimus c. Ratione etiam patet ex dictis quia omnis Viator gratus Deo illi obediens studiosè operans propter ipsum ex gratia ejus meretur coram ipso haec est una ex magnis perfectionibus viatoris sed Christus assumpsit statum Viatoris erat gratissimus Deo optime operabatur c. ergo meruit coram Deo sine causa enim assumpsisset statum Viatoris hâc perfectione seipsum privasset Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disp 39. sect 1. p. 539. col 2. C. D. § 18. And now having proved that Christ as Viator was in statu merendi he proceeds in the next section to determine by what Acts Christ merited and this he layes down distinctly in four conclusions I shall give them here ordine retrogrado beginning with the last first Dico quarto meruisse Christum per omnes actus liberos suae voluntatis etiam si illi fuerint ordinis naturalis ut sunt amor naturalis Dei actus aliarum virtutum mortalium acquisitarum Probatur quia omnes illi actus erant honesti à Christo refebantur in spiritualem finem quam vis non referrentur sola dignitas suppositi deificantis illos satis esset ut haberent omnem proportionem valorem ad meritum c. Dico tertio meruisse Christum per actus omnes virtutum infusarum quos liberè exercuit Est certissima sic enim meruit per actum obedientiae ut testatur Paulus per actum religionis ut orationis c. Et ad eundem modum meruit per Passionem suam c. Dico secundo meruisse Christum per actum Charitatis proximorum Est communis Theologorum certa quia in illo actu concurrunt omnia necessaria ad meritum solum est notandum hunc amorem proximi non solum potuisse esse meritorium ut consesequentem scientiam infusam quod indubitatum est sed etiam ut consequentem scientiam beatam ut Alexander Alensis Scotus supra docuerunt And then for the clearing the latter part of this Conclusion he adds two things that will give light to our present Controversie Voluntas Christi non majorem necessitatem habuit perseverandi semper in illâ actuali dilectione proximi quam habendi illam in primo instanti quia neque ab Objecto neque a Deo ipso necessitatem patiebatur Referre autem hanc necessitatem in solam naturam illius actus est gratis dictum est quaedam petitio Principii nam cum ille actus sit quid creatum ex hâc parte non est immutabilis in quo differt multum ab actu increato voluntatis cum alias sit actus potentiae liberae versetur circa objectum quod non infert potentiae necessitatem neque etiam ex sua specifica ratione immutabilis est non est ergo naturâ suâ immutabilis Deinde quia si Christus in primo instanti liberè dilexerit proximos illo actu ergo potuit non diligere demus ergo sustinuisse pro aliquo tempore illum actum seu extensionem ejus nonne peterat postea in ipâ—re diligere proximos illo actu certe non videtur id probabiliter posse negari quia si in principio id potuit cur non postea cum ille actus capax sit illius augmenti ipsa potentia semper retineat vim libertatem ad efficiendum illum Quod si potuit Christus pâ—st aliquod tempus incipere proximos diligere per illum actum ergo ille actus de se mutabilis est secundum illud augmentum ergo pari ratione mutari posset per cessationem ab actuali proximorum dilectione Denique ille actus prout terminatur ad proximos non pertinet ad essentialem beatitudinem neque habet necessariam connexionem cum actuali amore Dei potest n. perfecte amari Déus quamvis proximus non semper actu ametur sed interdum tantum in habitu non est ergo inconveniens admittere hujusmodi mutationem possibilem in illo actu And when it had been objected quod iste actus non sit meritorius quia non est actus Viatoris ut Viator est cum fundetur in scientia beata He answers Dico igitur ut actus sit meritorius satis esse ut sit bonus liber in persona grata in via existente unde supposito eandem personam simul
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
and Scotus and other of the old School-men say is required by this Law And is not this denyed by Bellarmine and is it not therefore justly charged upon him by Protestants And yet does not the Doctors exposition in this comply with Bellarmine § 30. To this I answer by degrees First that true it is that the learned Chamier does thus conclude against Bellarmine But then plain it is that these are none of that Veterum Sententia quam nos tenemus but only Inferences and Deductions from it And if our Refuter will allow me what he cannot reasonably deny that the Doctors exposition is exactly conformable to this of the Ancients which Chamier acknowledges that the Protestants maintain I shall not envy him those advantages he can make by these Corollaries § 31. Secondly though it were †Vide Davenant de Justit habit actual c. 46. p. 529 550 in sol ad 2. granted that these Inferences were good and forceable against Bellarmine that maintaines a man may not only keep the Law to that height that he may merit at Gods hands but also supererogate and be more holy and righteous then the Law does require yet they no waies concern the Doctor that speaks not of a sinlesse perfection but of the sincerity of this or that vertue in this or that Performance which though it exclude not all mixture of sin in the suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that Act. The truth of which assertion as it is acknowledged by Chamier in the Case of David and Josiah so is it so farre different from Bellarmine's assertion against which these Corollaries of Chamier were directed that it is even opposite and contrary to it § 32. Thirdly I acknowledge that Bellarmine grants that Saint Austin and Bernard and Aquinas and other of the old Schoolmen do speak of such a Perfection required by this Law that advances our Love to that height that we must do nothing else but think of God nothing else but love him and this not only in the Habit but in the Act. This Love he acknowledges does so wholly possess the soul that no idle vitious Thought can obtrude or press in upon it nothing either contrary or besides this holy love can have any the least admission into the heart but that of necessity God is and must be all in all But then he addes that this Love is proper only to the Saints in Bliss and that we whilst we are in the flesh as we are not capable of it so it is not it cannot be enjoyned us but it is only proposed that we may know what we are to aim at and hope for and desire in heaven and that this is the meaning of Saint Austin Bernard and Aquinas and the Schoolmen when they say this Perfection is not attainable in this life But of this more in due place and let Bellarmin stand and fall to his own Master § 33. But then Fourthly be it granted that those Corollaries of Chamier are rightly inferred against Bellarmine's doctrine of the several states of Perfection and works of supererogation and the possibility of fulfilling the Law yet neither of them will any whit advantage our Refuter in the present controversie depending between him and the Doctor For though God should require of us by that Law that we love him totis viribus naturae non tantum totis viribus corruptionis yet the †Vide Doctor Hammonds Account of Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe c. 6. sect 8. §. 6 7. p. 204. Doctor has most irrefragably demonstrated against Mr. Cawdrey that even the sinless Perfection of Adam in Innocence was a state of Proficiency and that he and all his posterity had even in that first Integrity and Holiness wherein they were first created been in statu merendi till the time of their translation and consequently had been obliged as well as we are now to grow at least in Actual Grace and the knowledge and the Love of God § 34. And Mr. Cawdrey in effect grants it For Christ being Heb 7. 26. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatrib p. 116. holy harmless undefiled and still perfectly continuing in that first innocent estate wherein Adam was created he saies did more then the Law required and did supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and so in the degree of affection in Prayer if not in the Prayer it self § 35. It is true that for a Salve he saies that Christ was above the Law § 36. But then this is nothing to the purpose For though 1 Tim. 6. 16. as he was God the King of Kings and Lord of Lords he were the supreme Lawgiver and the absolute Soveraign and so in this Philip. 2 7. Gal. 4. 4. sense was not under but above the Law yet as he took upon him the form of a servant as he was made of a woman so the Apostle expresly saies he was made under the Law and as he was born Gal. 3. 16. Gen. 17. 9 10 11 12 13 14. Gal. 5. 2. the Son and Seed of Abraham so bound he was to be circumcised the eighth day and being thus circumcised the Apostle plainly testifies that as every man that is circumcised so he was a debter to do the whole Law and consequently in this sense he was not above it And therefore nothing hinders but that Adam if he had persevered in his first Innocence might notwithstanding the Obligation of that first great Law of Love to which Christ also was subject as Man supererogate also in some such like Actions and Passions so in the degree of Affection suppose in Prayer if not in the Prayer it self § 37. If here it be replyed that as Christ according to his Divine Nature was above the Law so by virtue of the Hypostatical Vnion as Man he had the fulness of Grace which Adam had not whereby he was enabled to such supererogating Performances § 38. For answer indeed I grant that he had the very †John 1. 16. c. 3. 34. Coloss 1. 19. Fulnesse of Grace But then this solves not the Doubt For the Question is not now concerning the Measure of Grace but the Extents and Obligation of the Law and whether that admits of any vertuous o◠holy or pious performances above what Man is in particular obliged to by it And in this respect the first and second Adam are equall because both as Men were equally made under the Law But then Adam though he were created in a mutable Condition as Christ was not though he had not a fulnesse of Grace as Christ had yet if he had not fallen from his first innocence he had such a Measure of Grace and Original Righteousnesse bestowed upon him that would not only have preserved him in his integrity but also enabled him to do whatsoever the Law required and whatsoever other vertuous holy pious performances could by Man
love God alike because with all their heart and mind and strength and their neighbours as themselves and then the Law which is the rule of Righteousness would be a rule and a cause of transgression and I must of necessity sin whatsoever I did Adde to this that if any special obligation not contained in any particular law were over and above contained in these two generals then something that is not in the Law and the Prophets and Evangelical precepts must be contained in it and then the Generals would be larger then all the Particulars collectively taken and then our Saviour had not given us a sufficient Account of the latitude and extent of these precepts when he said they were the great commandements on which hang all the Law and the Prophets § 73. And therefore though it may be granted that if there are uncommanded Acts and Degrees of devotion as it is plain there were under the Law by the Free-will offerings and the Doctor has abundantly proved it that there are so also under the Gospel they all come under the general command for allowance and approbation as proceeding out of a pious affection of Love and gratitude to God in which regard it is impossible to go beyond the latitude of the Command yet I cannot see how they can so come within the compass of this general Law that they should induce a particular obligation and make the man guilty of transgression that does not perform what he is not in particular commanded § 74. Though then when they are done they may be acceptable to God because when they are freely performed they are fruits and arguments of our Love that is enjoyned by that Commandement yet for all that the Omission of them cannot make us guilty of our breach of a precept or neglect of a duty since whatsoever is of this nature is contained in some particular law that particularly enjoynes it And therefore § 75. Fifthly I distinguish of the love of God It is often taken as we have formerly demonstrated from the Scriptures in general for the affection of Piety or Charity and often more strictly and properly for that high that transcendent affection that is immediately fixed on God himself The Acts of this are elicite Acts and properly and formally Acts of Love the other are imperate Acts and effectively and demonstratively Vide Crellii Ethic. Christia l. 3. c. 4. p. 259 260. Love because they are the fruits and effects and signes and demonstrations of our love of God For he that truly loves God cannot chuse but desire and endeavour to do that which is pleasing and acceptable to God and that which he commands such as are the Acts of Piety and Charity which himself has prescribed and enjoyned in his Law and the more intense and ardent our love is the more we shall labour and endeavour what we can to please him and do that which is agreable to his will Now then though in respect of the formal and elicite Acts of Love there can be no Act nor degree that is left to our Liberty and choyce but all things are here in the utmost height commanded that we can possible perform and this by virtue of Vide Augustin Enchirid. ad Laurent c. 21. per tot p. 85. edit Paris this first great fundamental Law as also by the obligation of gratitude and congruence to use our Refuters words he being infinitely good in himself and we also owing to him omne quod sumus omne quod possumus whatsoever we are and whatsoever we can do yet in respect of the imperate Acts of Love that are the fruits and signes of the former there may be uncommanded Acts and Degrees which though they are approved when performed because they are conformable to this first great Law and are the issues and demonstrations of that Love there injoyned yet are they not commanded by this or any other particular law sub periculo animae but are left by God to our liberty and choice for Free-will offerings of our Love that there might be somewhat over and above his particular commands for us freely to exercise his grace upon and so for him as freely to reward us But then whatsoever God enjoyneth us to be done sub periculo animae and as absolutely necessary to expresse and testifie our Love to him he has shut up under particular Precepts and Injunctions and if we love him we must keep his Commandements and there is a necessity and an obligation lies upon us which we must not neglect or violate upon the perill of our Souls § 76. And therefore though every man be bound to love God as much as he is able and to expresse his love in that obedience and manner that he has prescribed in his particular laws to that purpose yet this nothing hinders but that he may labour to expresse that Love in some Acts and some Degrees that God has not particularly enjoyned so long as they be within the compass of his general approbation and promise of acceptance And therefore though it be lawfull for every man to expresse his love as much as he can though it be in Acts of Piety and Charity or degrees of them not particularly commanded yet it will not therefore follow that because I am bound to love God as much as I can by this Law therefore I am bound to expresse this my Love in this or that particular degree or Act of Piety and Charity not particularly commanded And therefore notwithstanding this Law of loving God with all the heart there may in regard of these expressions be room for a Nidabah a free-will offering and Performance and though we cannot in this life attain to a sinless perfection yet out of a love to God we may in some Acts of Piety or Mercy and the like imperate Acts of divine Love perform more then any Law in particular requires of us and consequently this sincere Love in these particular Acts may be capable of Degrees and so either the same man may love more intensely at one time then another or two men at the same time and yet both obey the precept as has already been frequently demonstrated but more signally and ex professo Sect. 13. § 69 70 71 72 73 74. § 78. For a close of this Section and for a full acquitting of the Doctor from any the least suspicion of Popish complyance in this Doctrine as the Refuter very intemperately laies to his charge I shall here annex the concurrent Opinion and Judgement of our excellently-learned and every-way-accomplished and Orthodox Bishop Davenant as he himself has delivered it in that very Judicious work of his that was purposely addressed against Bellarmine and the Errors of the Church of Rome in these very points Sub hisce nominibus operum Supererogationis quae ex consiliorum observatione oriuntur monstra alunt quamplurima Divinae legis contemptum Pharisaicam perfectae justitiae praesumptionem novi
Doctors opinion in this poynt as well from Novelty and Singularity as from any Popish Complyance And so much for his third and fourth Charges SECT 25. 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 § 1. WE come now to examine his fifth charge But before I consider that it will be expedient to give the Reader an account of the heads of those cogent reasons which necessitated the Doctor to make use of that interpretation which our Refuter so quarrells at though not to any complyance with Papists as he falsly suggests § 2. And the First is Because an absolute sinless perfection is the Condition of the first Covenant which is not now obligatory to Believers as the Condition of their Salvation because they are not under the Law but under Grace and consequently this Law now onely requires of Believers that we love him in sincerity and with our utmost endeavour above all things c. The Second If Love were not capable of degrees but consisted in one indivisible point of perfection to which all by this Law must arrive sub periculo animae then there could be no growth in grace and whatsoever Act of Love or Piety or Charity came short of this degree were a sin which is directly contrary to so many Gospel Precepts and the Parable of the Talents and the manner of Gods proceedings at the day of Judgement when he shall reward every man according to his works The Third Because it is contrary to the whole Gospel frame Ephes 4. 12 13 14 15 16. 1 Pet. 2. 2. 2 Pet. 3. 18. 2 Cor. 8. 6. and temper which is a state of constant proficiency and growth and therefore Believers at their first admission and incorporation into Christ are said to be begotten to a lively Hope to be and truth he loathes this double mindedness it is as offensive as lukewarm water is to the stomack that causes loathing and vomiting and therefore God threatens to spue such an one out of his mouth But then the young Infant Christian the newly Revel 3. 16. regenerate is as much owned by God for a child as he that is grown up There be Babes in Grace as well as perfect men in Jesus Christ nay and Embrio's too yet in the womb of the Church For S. Paul sayes of his Galathians that he travailed again in birth with them till Christ were formed in them God Galat. 4. 19. in the meanest Infant and first new-born Christian beholds all the shape and Pourtraicture and all the lineaments of his son Christ is perfectly formed in them and therefore God owns them for his children though they be not yet grown up They have a perfection of parts and increasing and growing on they are to a perfection of degrees they have a perfection of shape though yet they have not a perfection of stature and they are now in their growth to the measure of the Stature Ephes 4. 12 13 14 15. of the fullness of Christ Even the very seeds and first degrees of Grace and holy love are the fruits of the Spirit and our Regeneration and Newbirth and inchoate Sanctification are the works and effects of that blessed Spirit and we are not able so much as to think a good thought but by his blessed 2 Cor. 3. 5. assistance And therefore the very lowest degree of Grace the least spark of holy love cannot possibly be a sin and therefore in this sense must be a perfect fullfilling of this Law though it be not a fullfilling it in the utmost height and perfection of love For though M. Cawdrey sayes Perfection admits of no degrees or growth but rather degrees and growth in grace which are oft commanded argue there is no perfection in this life yet because he acknowledges that the Scriptures command degrees and growth in grace and consequently in the highest royall soveraign grace of holy Love and Charity a lower degree of Love then the highest must be acknowledged to be no sin because commanded by God Nay even the state of sin-less perfection which was the utmost that the Law or first Covenant required though it be not now attainable in this life consisted not in one indivisible point but had been a state of proficiency and growth to us if Adam and we had persevered in that first integrity wherein he was created For this state was a state of Merit and Probation not of Trust and Reward And then not onely Phylosophy tells us that the middle point wherein virtue does consist admits of a latitude and degrees but Grammar also teaches us to compare perfectus perfectior perfectissimus because Reason it self is able to discover that there is nothing absolutely simply perfect but God whose Perfection is alone incapable of growth and addition and degrees because he is simply one and absolutely infinite § 10. To the next Inference If you say one of the middle degrees betwix the lowest and the highest it concerneth you to determine and specifie what degree this is below which all degrees of Love are sinfull and beyond which all degrees are voluntary oblations and uncommanded worship Here again I deny the Sequele For if the Doctor should assert that neither the lowest degree of love were a fullfilling of the law nor the highest degree enjoyned what necessity lies upon him therefore to fix upon a precise middle degree commanded below which all were a sin and above which all were a freewill offering For may he not say that any one or two or more or all the intermediate degrees may be allowed as a fullfilling of the Law and yet there may be room for a Nidabah a freewill offering for all that It may be the sixth or the seventh at least it may be the eighth that may be left for a free will offering and what then will become of your conclusion § 11. And therefore to your third Inference And therefore if you cannot do this as I know you cannot I shall conclude that the highest degree is commanded in our love of God I must tell you that here I deny the Sequele also § 12. And now to demonstrate the vanity and weakness of this kinde of Argumentation and to shew that it will conclude a falshood as well as a truth I shall make it appear by one instance It is a known truth that though non datur Temperamentum ad pondus yet datur ad Justitiam and our health does consist in a just mixture of our naturall heat and moysture which as it is not simply the same in all men so it is not still the same in the very same man at all times Against this known truth I would thus argue and prove the contrary as strongly as our Refuter does Thus. Either the lowest degree of heat or some middle degree or the
highest degree is required to this Crasis and temperature of health If the lowest degree then the Naturall heat and Temperature of men must be the same with Plantanimals or vegetables nay with stones and mineralls and the dead and the living would be of the same naturall heat and temper If you say some one of the middle degrees betwixt the lowest and the highest it concerneth you to determine and specifie what degree this is below which all degrees of heat bring a Gangrene a deadness and mortification of the Parts and beyond which all degrees of heat are a Feaver and if you cannot do this as I know you cannot I shall conclude that the highest degree of heat is naturally required to a healthy constitution and then the Madman was in the right that in a fit of his phrenzy cryed out that he was perfect fire and the burning Causus will not be our tormenting killing Disease but our Nature and we may not onely live with the Salamander in the fire but by this argumentation we shall be Metamorphosed into it § 13. And therefore notwithstanding our Refuters rare Argument there may be a graduall difference of intensness and Perfection in the Acts of that Love that is required by this Law as well as in the habit which the Schools do determine may be increased in infinitum and has no precise term to bound it beyond which it cannot go It is not with Grace as it is with Nature Though Naturall Forms and Qualities that are capable of graduall intension have set terms beyond which they cannot go and below the first degree they are nothing and at the highest degree they are something else as Heat in the eighth degree becomes Fire yet God may increase his Graces in us how and in what manner he pleases Though Christ the sun of righteousness still moved in his Ecliptick of Perfection yet all the other Planets that receive their light from him move in a Zodiack and under a line of Righteousness that consists of a breadth and latitude of degrees and sometimes they in their Excentricity move without it as David in the case of Vriah and Bathsheba but then by the power of Gods Grace they return into their Compass § 14. But then I shall make no scruple to grant our Refuters Conclusion though his Premises infer it not if he will admit me to distinguish and declare in what sense I take it For still to speak in generall ambiguous undistinguished terms as he does is to confound and not instruct not to state controversies but involve them not to clear truth but to cloud and mask it § 15. Love then whether in the Habit or the Act may be the highest either absolutely or comparatively or to make use of Aquinas his distinction for the greater authority it may be said to be the highest in a threefold consideration 1. Either ex parte diligibilis so that the Love shall be commensurate and equall to the Object a love as high and perfect as that is lovely and amiable Now this love of God that is as high as his own goodness is absolutely and simply the highest because it is infinite as God is a Love Proper and Peculiar unto God himself that is infinite and essentiall love one entire Act Loving and beloved whose love must still be equall to himself because it is no other but himself The Creature cannot possibly be obliged thus to love God because being naturally finite in its being and all its operations it is absolutely impossible to be attained to because between that which is naturally necessarily finite and that which is infinite there can be no proportion and there can be but one infinite because but one God And therefore here the Digest de Regul Juris leg 185. Rule of the Law is undoubted and nemo tenetur ad impossibilia and God might aswell oblige us to be omnipotent to raise the dead and make an other world in short be God as thus to love him § 16. Secondly Either Ex parte diligentis so that the Love be commensurate to the power of the Lover and he cannot transcend it and this is comparatively the highest And thus I grant that the Law obliges us to love God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all our soul our mind our heart our strength every faculty both of soul and body must be wholly and to the utmost of our strength still imployed in this love And if our Refuter mean no other but this by his ex toto posse suo he shall not find an Adversary of me or the Doctor in this § 17. But then because this is yet too generall and our Refuter I perceive has other thoughts and means another thing by these terms then the Doctor does and because latet dolus in generalibus I shall to come out of these mists and clouds of discourse yet be more Particular For the Abilities of man being diverse in sundry respects it will be necessary clearly to expresse of what Abilities we speak when we say man is obliged to Love God to the utmost of his Power § 18. I say then further That mans Abilities may be considered according to his threefold state Past Present and Future § 19. If we consider Man according to those Abilities he had in his first estate in Paradise we shall find that as he came innocent and spotless from the hands of so pure and undefiled an Artificer so God bestowed upon him the Habit of Originall Justice and righteousness whereby he was enabled to serve God and love him to the height of sinless perfection But then as we have already observed even this very state of sinless Perfection was a state of growth and Proficiency because it was a state of Merit And Adam was left in a capacity to improve his Talents of grace and to grow in Love as well as we are now Now the Law and Naturall gratitude obliging man to love God withall his strength must of necessity also oblige him to a sin-less perfection of love and service to God in all the Commandments And this was the Condition of the First Covenant Fac hoc vives Do this and thou shalt live whereby man was to have been Justified § 20. But though God made man upright yet he found out many Inventions he fell and forfeited those Abilities God Eccses 7. 10. gave him not onely for himself but for all his Posterity The Attainder did extend to the Race for the grand Treason of the Father and impossible it is that by the works of the Law flesh and blood can be Justified § 21. But then this sinlesse perfection and height of Love as it is impossible now to be attained so it is not obligatory to the Justification of believers that are not under the Law but under Grace The Condition of the second Covenant whereby we must all be justified is Faith and Repentance and sincere holy
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
3. dist 27. dico igitur quod illud praeceptum Deut. 6. non potest impleri in viâ quantum ad omnes conditiones quae exponuntur per illas additiones ex toto Corde ex totâ animâ c. quia non potest esse in viâ istâ tanta recollectio virium ut amotis impedimentis possit voluntas tanto conatu ferri quanto possit si vices essent unitae non impeditae quod ad talem intensionem actûs expulsis impedimen t is recollectis viribus debet intelligi dictum Aug. Magistri quod praeceptum illud non impletur in viâ nam pronitas virium inferiorum pro statu isto impedit superiores ab actibus perfectis The first that Bellarmine hath to evade these Testimonies c. § 10. Well Sir because there can be no good Musick in unison's I cannot commend your skill very much you are still striking on one string Forsooth the writers of Controversies betwixt us and the Papists But though you are very uncharitable to the Doctor in thus aspersing his fame yet you are very mercifull to your Reader in not clogging his Patience by transcribing those quotations so every where to be had Howsoever I must tell you that you had yet been more mercifull if you had spared those that you have transcribed because indeed they are so little to the purpose And if these wherewith you say you trouble the Reader are the most remarkable that you conceive are to be found in Aquinas and Scotus concerning this matter you must give me leave to tell you that your Reading in those Authors is not very great although you are a School man nor your Remarques and Récherches very deep very pertinent and Judicious I doubt not but that I in my slender observation and small reading in those Authours shall observe the quite contrary to what you labour to perswade your Reader § 11. For your first quotation of Aquinas secundâ secundae q. 44. art 6. I must say that if you had rendred it entire and faithfully as it lyes in Aquinas it would have been answered before it had been objected I represent it then at large It is in Corp. thus Dicendum quod praeceptum aliquod dupliciter potest impleri uno modo Perfectè alio modo imperfectè Perfectè quidem impletur praeceptum quando pervenitur ad finem quem intendit Praecipiens Impletur sed imperfectè quando et si non pertingat ad finem Praecipientis non tamen receditur ab ordine ad finem sicut si dux exercitus praecipiat militibus ut pugnent ille perfectè implet praeceptum qui pugnando hostem vincit quod dux intendit Ille autem implet sed imperfectè cujus pugna ad victoriam non pertingit non tamen contra disciplinam militarem agit Intendit autem Deus per hoc praeceptum and this this is the Passage our Refuter insists on ut homo sibi totaliter uniatur quod fiet in Patrià quando Deus erit omnia in omnibus Et ideo plenè perfectè in Patriâ implebitur hoc praeceptum in viâ autem impletur sed imperfectè Et tamen in via tanto unus alio perfectius implet quanto magis accedit per quandam similitudinem ad Patriae perfectionem The meaning of Aquinas is this In every Precept or command we are to consider the end of the Legislator and the end of the Law This is the performance of the duty enjoyned which the Legislator commands as a means for the attainment of that end which he himself did intend and aime at when he published the Law For instance A Generall intends and designs the taking this city or that Fortresse and therefore he rallies up his Forces and commands them to storm it They do so and if they gain the City by assault the Commander has his end which he first intended when he gave the word of command and the soldier has done his duty which was the end of the Precept but if they storm it and are repulsed though the Generall has missed his Aime yet the Soldier has not broken the Precept and did as much as the Commandment though not as much as the Commander intended It is just so in the present case according to Aquinas's doctrine God when he first made man intended to make him eternally happy by a full enjoyment and sight and perfect love of himself But because he made him upright and of a nature as well capable of serving as of enjoying his maker he prescribed him a Law as a Means for the attainment of this happiness The Law was Thou shalt Love the Lord with all thy heart or as much as thou art able and according to that strength and that grace I bestow upon thee For God dwelling in inaccessible light cannot be known and loved by us any other way then as God enables us to know and to love him and then he promised to admit man to a clear sight and full fruition and perfect love of himself This was Gods end when he first made the Law and our duty and the end of the command it self was that we should love him to the utmost of that power and strength which he should give us to love him If therefore we consider the Perfection of that Love and that happiness which God intended we should arrive at by the enjoyment of himself in heaven this is mans duty to aime at because it is his last end and the perfection God intended to bring him to at first when he made him But then because it is incompatible with our present state and Condition as we are in the body God made it not the end of the Precept though it was that which he intended we should arrive at though it were our last end and his design when at first he created us For otherwise he had prescribed us an impossible duty that we should be happy in possession and yet in the way to it that we should be present with him and see him face to face and yet be absent from him which implyes a contradiction And therefore he requires of us as our duty a lower kind of love a love suitable to our present state that we should love him as much as we can and as much as he has enabled us to love him This is the end of the commandment and the other Gods end that enjoyned the commandment That is our duty and this our crown and reward This God commands us to aime at to labour for and endeavour after as much as we can whilst we are in this life and the way and means to it is the Performance of this command in the loving him here according to our utmost abilities and endeavours And this is not an impossible duty but an easie yoke a yoke yet burdensome enough in regard of it self but made facile and easie by the assistance of Grace And he that thus loves God with
all his heart though he love him not so perfectly as the Saints do in heaven yet in the Judgement and according to the Resolution of Aquinas he loves him with that height and perfection of love that the Law does require and look for the end whereof is onely that we love God as much as we are able in order to our last end and happiness and that we may gain that crown which God principally intended when he first did create us and imposed the command upon us He then that loves God as much as he can and according to the utmost of those abilities God gives him in this his passage to heaven fulfills this commandment though he loves him not so much as another does to whom God has afforded more Grace and more strength and more abilities to love him And he that now loves him with all his heart to day and so obeys the Command may by the addition of more Grace be enabled and so obliged to love God more to morrow because the Commandment still in force indefinitely commands that we love God with all our strength whatsoever it is And thus he can never know by this Law an end of his labour and an end of his love till he shall come to heaven where he shall love God as Perfectly as God at first intended when he shall arrive at the end that God aimed at in the enacting of the Law and prescribing that inferiour growing still increasing Love as a duty and means and way for the attainment of the other § 12. And now that this was the meaning of Aquinas is very plain from this very resolution For he expresly here declares that the Love in this height of Perfection is not compatible with our present state but is the perfection of the Saints in Patriâ who love not God by way of duty and choice and obedience but by necessity of their glorified nature and the beatificall vision § 13. This will further appear from his answers to the three Arguments in this very Article and Question For thus he Ad primum ergò dicendum quod ratio illa probat quod aliquo modo potest impleri in hac vitâ licet non perfectè Ad secundum dicendum quod miles qui legitimè pugnat licet non vincat non inculpatur nec poenam meretur ita etiam qui in viâ hoc praeceptum non implet nihil contra divinam dilectionem agens non peccat mortaliter Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut dicit Augustinus in lib. de perfectione Justitiae Cur non praeciperetur homini ista perfectio quamvis eam in hac vitâ nemo habeat Non enim rectè curritur si quo currendum est nesciatur Quomodo autem sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur So again in the same Question Art 4. in respons ad Secundum dicendum quod dupliciter contingit ex toto corde Deum diligere uno modo in actu id est ut totum cor hominis semper actualiter in Deum feratur ista est Perfectio Patriae Alio modo ut habitualiter totum cor hominis in Deum feratur ita scil quod nihil contra Dei dilectionem cor hominis recipiat haec est perfectio viae cui non contrariatur veniale peccatum quia non tollit habitum charitatis cum non tendat in oppositum objectum sed solum impedit charitatis usum So again ibid. Ad tertium dicendum quod Perfectio charitatis ad quam ordinantur consilia est media inter duas Perfectiones praedictas ut sc homo quantum possibile est se abstrahat à rebus temporalibus etiam licitis quae occupando animum impediunt actualem motum cordis in Deum So again 2. 2. q. 24. art 8. Vtrum Charitas in hac vitâ possit esse perfecta And he determines it in the affirmative from the Authority of Saint Austin The answer to it in Corpore is this †To this very purpose see also 2 2. q. 184. art 2. in Corp. Cajetan in loc Dicendum quod Perfectio charitatis potest intelligi dupliciter uno modo ex parte diligibilis alio modo ex parte diligentis Ex parte quidem diligibilis perfecta est charitas ut diligatur aliquid quantum diligibile est Deus autem tantum diligibilis est quantum bonus est Bonitas autem ejus est infinita unde per hunc modum nullius creaturae charitas potest esse perfecta sed solum charitas Dei quâ seipsum diligit Ex parte vero diligentis tunc est charitas perfecta quando diligit tantum quantum potest Quod quidem contingit tripliciter uno modo sic quod totum cor hominis actualiter semper feratur in Deum haec est perfectio charitatis Patriae quae non est possibilis in hac vitâ in quâ impossibile est propter humanae vitae infirmitatem semper actu cogitare de Deo moveri dilectione ad ipsum Alio modo ut homo studium suum deputet ad vacandum Deo rebus divinis praetermissis aliis nisi quantum necessitas praesentis vitae requirit Et ista est Perfectio charitatis quae est possibilis in viâ non tamen est communis omnibus habentibus charitatem Tertio modo ita quod habitualiter aliquis totum cor suum ponat in Deo ita scil quod nihil cogitet vel velit quod divinae dilectioni sit contrarium Et haec perfectio est communis omnibus habentibus charitatem So again in the following Article 9. Vtrum convenienter distinguantur tres gradus charitatis Incipiens Proficiens Perfectà he resolves it in the affirmative from the authority of Saint Austin The Answer in Corp. is this Dicendum quod spirituale augmentum charitatis considerari potest quantum ad aliquid simile corporali hominis augmento Quod quidem quamvis in plurimas partes distingui possit habet tamen aliquas determinatas distinctiones secundum determinatas actiones vel studia ad quae homo perducitur per augmentum sicut infantilis at as dicitur antequam habeat usum rationis postea autem distinguitur alius status hominis quando jam incipit loqui ratione uti iterum tertius status ejus est pubertas cum jam incipit posse generare sic deinde quousque perveniatur ad perfectum ita etiam diversi gradus charitatis distinguuntur secundum diversa studia ad quae homo perducitur per charitatis augmentum Nam primo quidem incumbit homini studium principale ad recedendum à peccato resistendum concupiscentiis ejus quae in contrarium charitatis movent Et hoc pertinet ad incipientes in quibus charitas est nutrienda vel fovenda ne corrumpatur Secundum autem studium succedit ut homo principaliter intendat ad hoc quod in bono proficiat Et hoc studium pertinet ad proficientes
Aquinas and Scotus that are urged by our Refuter Sir Bellarmine found this distinction made to his hands by Aquinas himself and applyed it is by Aquinas in the very same manner as Bellarmine uses it to declare what he thought was the meaning of Saint Austin in those places as will be plain to any man that shall peruse the places formerly quoted from Aquinas And if those be not clear enough I shall desire him to consult the same Aquinas secunda secundae q. 27. art 6. in Corpore a place too large to be transcribed to so little purpose where this is ex professo handled If then Bellarmine in answer to those two quotations of Aquinas and Scotus sayes they are to be understood of the command quatenus indicat finem non quatenus praecipit medium be the answer to Saint Austin what it will or the distinction true or false he sayes true in this that Aquinas so is to be understood if Aquinas knew his own meaning that sayes expresly that he meant so And whether Aquinas truely said that this was the meaning of S. †Horum testimoniorum aliqua currentes exhortamur ut perfectè currant aliqua ipsum finem commemorant quo currendo pertendant Ingredi autem sine maculâ non absurdè etiam ille dicitur non qui jam perfectus est sed qui ad ipsam Persectionem irreprehensibiliter currit carens criminibus damnabilibus atque ipsa peccata venialia non negligen◠mundare eleemosynis Ingressum quippe hoc est iter nostrum quo tendimus in perfectionem munda mundat oratio Munda est autem oratio ubi veraciter dicitur Dimitte nobis sicut dimittimus ut dum non reprehenditur quod non imputatur sine reprehensione hoc est sine maculâ noster ad persectionem cursus habeatur in quâ perfectione cum ad eam pervenerimus jam non sit omnino quod ignoscendo mundetur August de perfect Justit c. 9. vid. etiam c. 10. Austin and Bernard in those places though it concerns not the Doctor to determine who is not engaged in that controversie at all yet I shall leave it to the Readers Judgement whether Aquinas sayes truly and shall rest in expectation till our Refuter shall tell us what are the most materiall exceptions in Chamier and Ames against it that he insists on For if this be his way of arguing there will be no end of controversies and when we have obeyed him in his desires he will yet be at liberty to say that he meant not these already considered but some others § 58. Howsoever I shall not envy our Refuter any advantage he can make by these Replies If he thinks fit to make use of them I am willing to be so courteous as not to forestall his market And he has reason to thank me that I have afforded him some materialls to furnish his next answer Yet I cannot but observe that he is willing to teach young learners to construe Latine amiss and he would very fain perswade the world that Bellarminus Enervatus signifies in English Doctor Hammond Confuted § 59. If our Refuter shall yet say That if it be granted that the Law requires that we love God with all our strength and as much as we can then consequently there will be no room for uncommanded degrees of love To this I answer him That if what we have already said concerning this objection do not satisfie I shall desire him because he is a Schoolman to look for an answer in Cajetan 2. 2. q. 184. art 3. the Article from whence his second quotation from Aquinas is taken where in his Commentary he has both proposed and answered this Argument § 60. And thus at last to mine and I doubt not to the Readers great contentment we are got out of a tedious digression that concerns not at all the Treatise of will-worship much less the Ectenesteron SECT 30. The Refuters return His Proof impertinent weakens a known Truth Christs Agony a fit season for heightning Ardency in Prayer As Comprehensor he enjoyed an Intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence Hence a Love necessary Love as viator Beatifick Love hindred not the Free Exercise of this Love and Graces nor his Happiness his Grief in the sensitive Appetite Suarez Hence a graduall difference in the Acts of Love as Viator Particularly in Prayer Fallacy à dicto secundum quid His Confounding of Terms Grounds Motives Occasion What. Christ as Comprehensor still had Cause to Love God but no Grounds Motives nor Occasions As viator he had Refuters Contradictions Tautologies Love of Desire Complacency distinguished not divided One oft begins the other Bishop Andrews Naturall Love of Desire in Christ. What Hope in Christ. Love of Concupiscence though first in Men yet otherwise in Christ. Threefold Love of Complacency in Christ Experimentall Love of Desire and Complacence in him capable of Increase Both heightned at his Passion Ardency of these and of Prayer different Of which the Doctor Vanity of the Refuters Title page § 1. ANd now with our Refuters good leave we are come to our first argument The Ardency of Christs Prayer To this at his return he sayes JEANES Thirdly you seem in the latter end of Section the 39. to intimate that in the time of Christs Agony there was more occasion for the heightning of his Love of God then there was at other times What you mean by these occasions of heightning Christs Love of God that you intimate I will not undertake to guess 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 a clear evident and intuitive knowledge of the divine essence that had in it all the fullness of goodness and so was an object infinitely lovely and amiable Now such an object thus known thus seen challengeth such a measure of actuall Love as that it leaveth no place for a further and higher degree 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 now that which works naturally and necessarily works as vehemently and forcibly as it can omne agens de necessitate necessario agit usque ad ultimum potentiae suae therefore the inward Acts of Christs Love of God were alwayes as ardent and fervent as he could perform them and therefore some were not more intense then others for if we speak of a liberty of indifferency and indetermination he had no more liberty towards the intension of the inward Acts of his Love then he had towards the Acts themselves § 2. You have said Sir but I must tell you that though this argument is wire-drawn to the utmost length yet there is nothing proved all this while
because the will cannot possibly be enforced it is improperly called necessity and though in respect of the outward danger impending the will moves against its own genuine inclination yet in the act and exercise it voluntarily chuses that which if the force were not impending it would not have embraced And therefore the great Philosopher in his Moralls Arist Ethic. l. 3. c. 1. S. 3. does truly call such actions as these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they are made up and compounded of violence and choice To this they oppose that kind of freedome which they call signally spontaneity that arises from the inward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impetus and inclination of the agent without any outward force and compulsion to rouze and quicken it and is common at least in some proportion and inferiour degree to Beasts as well as Men. § 64. When therefore our Refuter sayes that the inward acts of Christs love of God were all equally intense because they were the naturall and necessary consequents of the beatificall vision clear it is that he takes the word necessary for that which is naturally such and so by consequence he destroyes the merit of our Saviours death and Passion which was the first stone of offence and rock of stumbling to that Arch-heretick Socinus For plain it is that the Saints in Heaven and Comprehensores in Patriâ among which number Christ on earth must be reckoned in regard of the Beatificall vision love not God by way of duty and election and choyce but by a necessity of their glorified natures and they cannot chuse but do it and consequently as themselves are now extra statum merendi so these acts of their love are no more rewardable and meritorious then the naturall motion of heavie bodies downward or light bodies upward For as Lawes are prescribed to free agents onely and rewards and punishments are onely proposed to those that are lords of their own actions and are left at their own liberty and election and choice so one of the conditions necessary to make an act or acts * Meritorium opus dicunt Scholastici quod potius dicendum remunerabile apud Deum Forbesii Iren l. 1. c. 3. S. 2. pag. 77. Secunda conditio in opere meritorio necessaria estut sit liberum quoniam per ea quae naturalia sunt quorum Domini non sumus nec meremur nec demeremur Quam conditionem locum etiam habuisse in actibus voluntatis Christi satis fusè in praecedenti q. 18. which is the very disputation our Refuter here referrs to disputatum est c. Quinta conditio ex parte etiam personae merentis est ut sit viator quam necessariam esse saltem ex lege Dei ordinariâ quicquid fit de absolutâ potentiâ omnes Theologi docent ut latius videbimus statim sect 3. ubi simul oftendemus conditionem hanc etiam in Christo Domino fuisse necessariam Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 39. sect 1. p. 536. col 2. E. p. 537. col 2. F. meritorious or remunerable is that it be free and not naturall and necessary and performed by a person that is in viâ because such persons onely and such actions are remunerable by God And consequently our Refuter that makes all the inward acts of Christs love to be the naturall and necessary consequents of the Beatificall vision destroyes the merit of his whole life and death and sufferings and eo ipso denyes him to be the meritorious cause of our justification § 65. But then secondly whereas he sayes that Christ had a proper freedome taking this word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward expressions of these acts though he had not such freedome to the inward acts themselves and therefore these might be more intense at one time then another though the inward acts might not Plain it is that here he confounds the naturall liberty and freedome of the will of Christ with the moral liberty and freedom of the actions themselves For that freedom which is taken for an active indifferency in sensu diviso and is here by our Refuter opposed to those naturall and necessary acts which were the consequents of the Beatifick vision is no other but that naturall liberty and freedom of the will essentially determined either in respect of contrariety or contradiction And so the Vid. Suarez in tertiam part Thom. tom 1. disp 37. sect 2. p. 512. col 1. E. F. sect 3. p. 513. col 1. C. c. p. 516. col 1. B. C. words in Suarez are to be understood who frequently makes use of this expression whence our Refuter borrowed it though plain it is he mistakes it But then the freedom that he speaks of in the conclusion is a moral freedom and indifferency of the action For thus his Argument must stand Christ in respect of the intention and fervour of the outward expressions was under no obligation nor necessity and duty and therefore they might be more intense at one time then another § 66. But then this is not all the misadventure of his discourse in the next place he splits himself upon the rock of downright falshood and contradiction to Scripture § 67. For whereas he sayes Christ had a proper freedom or active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward expressions though he had none to the inward Acts of them plain it is that his words must be understood either of the naturall liberty of the will of our blessed Saviour the active indifferency and indetermination of that to the outward expressions or else of their morall liberty and indifference in respect of any Law or divine precept determining these outward acts and expressions If he understand his assertion in the first sense plain it is that Christs will was thus equally free to all the inward acts of divine love and piety and religion and other virtues and graces as to the outward expressions of them and no more liberty he could have to the one then he had to the other For since * Suppono ex 1. 2. q 20. 21. proprium et formale meriâ—um esse in actu elicito à voluntate actus vero externos per se non addere meritum actui voluntatis neque esse formaliter intrinsece meritorios sed solum per extrinsecam denominationem ab actu meritorio voluntatis à quo imperantur extrinsecè seu moraliter informantur ficut etiam ab illo denominantur liberi studiosi Suarez in 3. Part. Thom. tom 1. disp 39. Sect. 2. pag. 540. col 1. C. freedome of the will and liberty of election and choice are essentiall to merit and since all the morall goodness and virtue and honesty and rewardableness in the work arises onely from the inward act which is the form and gives being to the whole it evidently follows that Christs will must be as free and actively
the Doctor to be understood The Doctors censure of the Refuters additions just 42 SECT VI. The Refuter acknowledges his own ignorance of a generally received opinion Love a genus to the habit and the act Proved for the Refuters instruction His charging his ignorance on Aristotle Aristotle his Master why vainly quoted He speaks not to the present controversie The assumption onely denyed 72 SECT VII The Refuters reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of love into the habit and the act found in the tract of Will-worship and the answer to M. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions referr first and immediately to the inward acts of love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doctor never asserts that love was univocally predicated of the habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a clear truth His third most false In univocal productions the cause and effect still comprehended under the same genus sometimes also in equivocall His assumption of his first reason infirm His second and fourth reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally predicated of the habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor 78 SECT VIII The Refuters tongue-combat He a man of business The pertinency of the Doctors first papers to explain the meaning of the latter Unjustly censured for speaking cautelously The Refuters understanding the Doctor for a critick and a dunce Erasmus's sate the same with the Doctors Critick an honourable title The best Scholars criticks and who The true critick an universall Scholar Sextus Empericus and Crates character of a critick Quintilianus character of the true Grammarian Aristotle the first author of criticisme and grammar Necessary to compleat the Divine The best way to advance learning to unite criticisme and school-learning Pity the Refuter had not been a critick His mistake of the word Salvo what it signifies The method of the Schools in polemicall discourses observed by the Doctor The Refuter saying and unsaying 91 SECT IX The Refuters impertinent referring to former performances His vain pretences of proof The Refuters reasonings with himself inconsequent proved The intention of the act proportioned to the intension of the habit so as not to exceed it unless by accident but not alwayes to equall it Proved by instance of the Lutenist and Painter and Preacher Habits not necessary but voluntary causes unless ab extrinseco determined 104 SECT X. The Refuters saying is the onely proof that actuall love is in the predicament of action The contrary proved by Suarez Smiglecius Scheibler In actuall love the action and the terminus of it considerable The Refuters remarques in Scheibler impertinent His oracles nothing to the purpose The propositions to be proved Immanent acts in what sense qualities Scheibler not slighted Aristotle his character of Eudoxus agreeable to the Refuter His words not home to the Refuters purpose proved from reason and Suarez Habitual and actuall love both qualities and species of the same genus proved from sundry places in Suarez The Refuters further impertinencies Immanent acts of love in what sense dispositions in what not from Smiglecius Aquinas Acts of two sorts 112 SECT XI The Doctors explication from the Refuters concessions The Refuters reply and valiant resolution His first charge answered His second charge answered in three distinct propositions 1. Expressions gradually different may and in Christ alwayes did flow from a love equally intense in the habit This not the question 2. Nothing naturally hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from acts of love gradually the same Proved Gods outward favours and expressions different The inward act of his love still one and invariable Proved against the Socinian Gods love one infinite and substantiall act against Crellius In what sense God in Scripture said to love some more some less The doctrine of the Schools safer then that of the Socinian God by one immutable act dispenses all the variety of his favours Illustrated The variety in Gods outward favours whence it arises Confirmed from Lombard Aquinas Scotus Applyed to the Refuter 3. In men the outward expressions ordinarily vary according to the graduall difference in the inward acts of love Proved by reason and the authority of Gregory Durand Aquinas Estius The Doctors assertion hence proved as fully as the thing requires The Doctor not ingaged to prove that expressions gradually different could not proceed from a love equally intense The third charge answered No mystery in the word proportionably The correspondence between the inward acts of love and the outward expressions to be understood not according to Arithmetical but Geometrical proportion 131 SECT XII The Doctors proof of the vanity of the Refuters use of confutation made good from the Refuters mixture The Refuters reply and endeavour to make good his charge by consequences impertinent The Refuters momentous objection strikes as well against himself and other his friends as the Doctor The weakness of it The intention of Christs actual grace so proportioned to that of his habituall grace as not to exceed it but not so still as to equall it Illustrated by a clear instance The Schoolmen no where say that the Intension of Christs actuall grace is exactly equal to that of his habituall Aquinas of the Refuters not the Doctors ciration He speaks fully to the Doctors purpose What meant by works and the effects of wisdome and grace in Aquinas An intensive growth in the inward acts of wisdome and grace argues not an intensive increase in the habits Asserted also by the Refuter Cleared by a distinction The Chedzoy challenge The vanity of it Christ did gradually increase in the acts of wisdome and grace as he did in stature Proved from the Refuters mixture from Ames Vorstius Grotius Hooker Field Suarez Estius others both Fathers and Schoolmen and reformed Divines The Defenders advice to the Refuter to be more wary in his challenges 171 SECT XIII The Refuters melancholy phansie his acknowledging the Doctors innocence The Doctor constantly speaks of the gradual difference in some acts of charity never of the habit The Refuters consequence hereupon His monstrous Syllogism examined The acts of Christs love were primariò perse and not onely secundariò and per accidens capable of degrees demonstrated Actions and passions intended and remitted onely in regard of their termes The habits and acts of charity in Christ gradually onely and not specifically different from those in all other men God in his extraordinary power may create something greater and better then the habituall grace of Christ Asserted by Aquinas Suarez and many other Schoolmen and the Refuter himself The acts of the habit of grace in Christ de facto gradually diflerent in themselves and from the habit The phrase The love of God variously taken in Scripture proved In what sense the Doctor constantly takes it Demonstrated The greater good to be more intensely beloved There
as the Refuter calls it much prejudices an assertion of his own in his mixture but no whit the Doctor 345 SECT XX. The Refuters third argument reduced to form The major denyed His sophistical homonymy discovered His confounding the different acts of Christs love as Viator and Comprehensor The true assertions in his discourse severed from the false inferences Christ impeccable Thence iâ— follows not that the acts of his love are all equall but the contrary The great commandment of love enjoyns the most ardent love that we are able to reach to Thence it follows not that the acts of this love ought alwayes to be equal Christ as Comprehensor had on earth greater abilities to love God then Adam in paradise or the Saints and Angels in heaven Thence it follows not that the acts of his love as Viator were to be equall or if they increased successively that he sinned This discourse cleared and confirmed from Suarez The severall acts of charity by which Christ merited Hence the inequality of intension in these acts demonstrated Further proved from the Refuters mixture The Viator differs in abilities from the Comprehensor Proved from Scripture and reason Cajetan Scotus The Refuters following digression impertinent his design in it to amuse the Reader and to bring the Doctor into an unjust suspicion 365 SECT XXI As the Doctor needs not so is it not his custome to make use of former expositions This practise in the Refuter censured This digression not an answer to the Ectenesteron but a fling at the treatise of Will-worship His brief transcribing the Doctors exposition and large examining of it censured M. Cawdrey grants all in controversie between the Doctor and Refuter but contradicts himself The Refuters prevaricating and false suggestions to his Reader His first reason for this suggestion reduced to form Destructive to all religion Biddle Hobbes Leviathan Whatsoever answer he shal make for himself against a Socinian Anabaptist Quaker c. will secure the Doctor His five very false and proofless criminatious in his next reason mustered up His hasty oversight in citing Chamier 374 SECT XXII The occasion of the Doctors exposition of the first great commandment of love The reasons of his fundamental position in short If any one of them demonstrative as M. Cawdrey grants one is then all not bound to it to every act acceptable to God nor to perform it to a degree even then when they are obliged ad speciem This the utmost the Doctor undertook either against M. Cawdrey or the Refuter Reasonable the Refuter should answer these before he suggested to the Reader a need of further proof 383 SECT XXIII The Refuters two first charges Bellarmines explication at large The Doctors The defenders challenge hereupon The difference between Bellarmine and the Doctor examined What good in Bellarmine approved by the Doctor What erroneous not found in the Doctor or else declared against Bellarmine and the Doctor speak not of the same thing Chamier assents to the Doctors position The sixth Corollary of Bellarmine if found in the Doctor yet otherwise understood not censured by Chamier Ames Vorstius Two men may love God with all their hearts and yet one love him more then the other The Doctors exposition not borrowed from Bellarmine nor yet popishly affected 386 SECT XXIV The Refuters third and fourth charges The Doctors exposition parallel to that of Bishop Andrewss Davenant Downham White Hocker Field Grotius Ainsworth praised Assembly Annotations Vrsin Calvin Victor Antiochenus Imperfect work on Matthew Theophylact Theodoret Zacharias Austin Chamier The objections from Calvin Vrsin answered Chamiers conclusion against Bellarmine examined concerns not the Doctor advantages not the Refuter State of innocency a state of proficiency Proved from M. Cawdrey Saints and Angels love not God all to the same indivisible height Saints differ in glory The Doctor of the first and second covenant Perfection Legall Evangelicall Learned Protestants agree with him against Chamier The falshood of Chamier's inference as understood by the Refuter and M. Cawdrey demonstrated How to be understood Heresie of the Perfectists How not favoured by Chamier Thus more agreeable to himself Recapitulated in five positions Chamier and the Doctor agreed The Doctor justified from M. Cawdrey's concessions M. Cawdrey's contradictions in the point of perfection In what sense free will-offerings and uncommanded degrees and acts of piety and charity The question stated Davenant Montague White Hooker and generally the Fathers and divers Protestants agreeing with the Doctor in this point of perfection and counsel and doing more then is commanded This proves not the Popish doctrine of Supererogation 440 SECT XXV Heads of the reasons for the Doctors exposition and assertion of degrees in love and freewill offerings Refuters fifth charge examined Falshood of it Challenged to make reparations Calumny of Popishly affected how easily and unhappily retorted 433 SECT XXVI Artifice in refuting the Doctor in Ames words answering by halves Doctor asserts not lukewarmness How differs from sincerity What. Christianity a state of proficiency Growing grace true acceptable How differs from lukewarmness Bellarmine and Ames dispute concerns not the Doctor Artifice in citing Bishop White Doctor asserts sincerity as opposed to partiall divided love What. Bishop Whites words not to the purpose Love of God above all things objective appretiative intensive what Doctor maintains all Most intense love required yet not so much as is possible to the humane nature Perfection of charity how required of Christians how not 438 SECT XXVII His first reason proves not Intension and degrees of what love fall not under the commandment Modus of a virtuous act how under precept Aquinas how to be understood Opposes not the Doctor No one precise degree of love commanded First inference denyed Lukewarmness and first degree of love differ Second and third inferences denyed Vanity of his argument demonstrated Naturall spirituall qualities how differ His conclusion granted Love the highest 1 in respect of the thing beloved 2 The person loving according to mans threefold state In innocence obliged to sinless perfection Condition of the first covenant How urged by Protestants and S. Paul Condition of the second covenant How the Doctor denies legall perfection obligatory to Christians How bound to love God now Their love still growing Acknowledged by M. Cawdrey Opposed to lukewarmness Our loves future how the highest how not Degrees of this love proportioned to degrees of glory This the Saints crown not race 3 Love the highest in regard of the form No one precise degree highest in love as in naturall qualities May be increased in infinitum How a set number of degrees in love His argument retorted Doctors assertion proved by it Gods righteousness infinite immutable Inchoate sanctification a fruit of the Spirit Whole recapitulated No prejudice to the Doctor if all granted 450 SECT XXVIII His second reason proves not yet granted God by more obligations then he expresses to be loved Acknowledged by the
Doctor This love infinite Not positively Categorematicè but negatively and Syncategorematicè acknowledged by Bellarmine and others Hinders not freewill-offerings of love These asserted by Bishop White Doctor not confuted though Bellarmine may Bellarmine and Ames at no great odds here Concerns not the Doctor Refuters artifice censured Doctors comfort and precedent in this persecution of the tongue 473 SECT XXIX His authorities oppose not the Doctor why urged by Protestants Bellarmine acknowledges the places and inference But such love simply impossible even in Paradise How Austin Bernard hold it obligatory how not Bellarmine the Refuters adversary His authorities from Aquinas Scotus his charity to his Reader First from Aquinas answered His meaning Bellarmine and he agreed Doctor and all Protestants will subscribe to this of Aquinas His second from Aquinas answered Perfection of life state according to Aquinas not pertinent Aquinas opinion summed up Scotus his manner of writing How God may be loved above all things according to Scotus Henriquez opposed by him Love melting strong This genuine that a passion sensitive Scotus love of God above all things intensivè extensivè agreeable to Chamier He rejects the reason grounded on Austin Bernard His authority pruned At large Contrary to the Refuters inference from him His sense cleared from D' Ordellis Cavellus The sense of the old Schoolmen from Durand Austin and Bernard's opinion the same with Durands and the Doctors proved How urged by Chamier These Fathers opinion summed up What perfection required of Christians according to them What proposed Refuters discourse impertinent Distinction Quatenus indicat finem non quatenus praecipit medium not invented by Bellarmine Taken from Aquinas By whom used to expound S. Austin Agreeable to Austin Cajetan for freewill offerings 480 SECT XXX The Refuters return His proof impertinent weakens a known truth Christs agony a fit season for heightning ardency in prayer As Comprehensor he enjoyed an intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence Hence a love necessary Love as Viator Beatifick love hindred not the free exercise of this love and graces nor his happiness his grief in the sensitive appetite Suarez Hence a gradual difference in the acts of love as Viator Particularly in prayer Fallacy à dicto secundum quid His confounding of terms Grounds Motives Occasion What. Christ as Comprehensor still had cause to love God but no grounds motives nor occasions As Viator he had Refuters contradictions Tautologies Love of desire complacency distinguished not divided One oft begins the other Bishop Andrews Natural love of desire in Christ What hope in Christ Love of concupiscence though first in men yet otherwise in Christ Threefold love of complacency in Christ Experimental love of desire and complacence in him capable of increase Both heightned at his passion Ardency of these and of prayer different Of which the Doctor Vanity of the Refuters Title-page 520 SECT XXXI Poor Refutor Doctor digresses not Affliction a fit season to heighten devotion Christs ardency our instruction The Doctor heightning Christs actual love derogates not from his habitualfulness Charitas quamdiu augeri potest c. variously cited The Doctors mistake The words not Jeromes but Austins This lapse how possible Venial Occasion of Austins writing to Jerome His severall proposals of solving the doubt His own upon the distinction of righteousness Legal Evangelical Place in Austin at large How applyed against Papists How not M. Baxters censure of our differences in point of justification Place impertinent to the Refuters conclusion Ex vitio est how here understood against M. Cawdrey and the Refuter and the Doctor Denotes originall corruption This how called by Austin Signally vitium in opposition to a saying of Pelagius Parallel places for this meaning Pelagius objection Answered Austin and the Doctor accord but not the Refuter Doctors exposition of Austin Corrected Dilemma's Confidence springs from ignorance Chedzoy-confidence Learned Protestants and Papists and himself assert what he sayes all else deny but the Doctor A new Jury of them against him for the Doctor Erasinus Cajetan Tolet. Outward works of wisdome and grace in Tolet what Estius Jansenius L. Brugensis Beza Piscator Deodate Assembly notes Cameron Raynolds How Christ grew in actual grace the habitual still invariable Illustrated by two instances Erasmus and Doctor Eckhard assert Christs growth in habitual perfection This charged on Luther Calvin c. by Bellarmine with probability on Calvin How they acquitted Refuters conclusion complyes with the sowrest of Jesuites Maldonates censure of the Lutherans and Calvinists Answered Stapletons like censure Answered They and Bellarmine if they speak consequently must mean the same with us Whole recapitulated Refuters unhappiness Doctors safety 540 SECT XXXII Zeal and loud noise different M. Cawdrey grants all in controversie Heightning outward expressions à posteriori conclude the increase of the inward acts Outward and inward acts both compleat the moral action How proportioned Difference of Christs obligation to purity and ours All born in sin First covenant how in force how not Cannot oblige to sinless Perfection Man reprieved from the final execution of its curse by Christ Objections Answered New covenant how aggravates damnation What required by it Law holy How a rule The subject matter as well of the second as the first covenant Difference of obligation to its purity under the first and second covenant Law abrogated not as a rule but as a covenant Second covenant allows growth toward perfection which the first did not What the Doctor speaks of Refuters first reason Terms of the first part of his assumption distinguished Applyed Second part of his assumption Answered Aquinas serves not the Refuters interest Exteriour acts of charity here signifie not outward sensible expressions but morall duties Proved from Aquinas Cajetan Suarez His second reason His ignorance and confusion in it Necessity Liberty of three kinds What. He denies Christ to be the meritorious cause of our salvation He confounds Christs naturall liberty of will with the moral liberty of the action Contradicts Scripture Christ how no more free to the outward expression then the inward act How indifferent actions determined Christ how free to the use of outward expressions how not Proof from Suarez examined Grossely understood What Suarez intends Defenders advise to the Refuter 595 SECT the Last The close Refuters deliberate answer abortive His civility His appeal to the Readers judgement His stiling himself the Doctors Refuter His challenge of the Doctor to a rejoynder Clearness in dispute approved by the Defender Why the Refuter plainly dealt with The Libeller his own executioner Defenders proposal and promise The Refuter may take his leave for the present and if he please rest for ever Refuters strange complement at parting Why the Defender as the Refuter subscribes not his name but keeps unknown 638 Names of AUTHORS Cited Examined and Illustrated in this TREATISE A Aelianus Aelius Lampridius Ainsworth Alphonsus à Castro Ambrosius Amesius Andrews B. Aquinas Argentinus
highly rational in it self that I wonder what Temptation could fall upon our Refuter that calls himself a Schoolman a Divine and a Minister of Gods word that he should undertake in any shape or dress whatsoever to oppose it § 13. I shall not labour to infuse Jealousies and umbrages into the Reader against this Refuters discourse but shall leave his Judgement free and entire to the Merit of the Cause depending between us I shall only assure him that I conceived it necessary to premise this that hath been spoken to dispossess him of that prejudice which this Refuters changing of the terms of the Question might unobservedly have impressed upon him And so I pass to the business of the Discourse SECT 2 Doctor Hammonds renouncing the Error charged upon him His civill address unjustly taxed by the Refuter The Defenders Resolution hereupon His reason for it Scurrility not maintained Seasonable Reproof lawful The Defenders no regret to the Refuters person and Performances His undertakings against the Refuter This Course unpleasing to him But necessary The Doctor not guilty of high Complements and scoffes The Refuters Friends the only Authors of them The Defenders hopes The Refuters promise The Defenders Engagement Doctor HAMMOND § 1. I Was very willing to hearken to the seasonable advise of many and wholly to withdraw my self à foro contentioso to some more pleasing and profitable imployment but discerning it to be the desire of the Author of the Book intituled A Mixture of Scholastical Practical Divinity that I should reply to his examination of one passage of mine against Mr. Cawdrey I shall make no scruple immediately to obey him not only because it may be done in very few words but especially because the Doctrine which he affixeth to me seems and not without some reason to be contrary to the truth of Scripture which I am to look on with all reverent submission and acquiesce in with captivation of understanding and so not assert any thing from mine own conceptions which is but seemingly contrary to it § 2. The Proposition which he affixes to me is this That Christs Love of God was capable of further degrees and that he refutes as a thing contrary to that point a truth of Scripture which he had in hand viz. The dwelling of all fulness of habitual Grace in Christ 3. By this I suppose I may conclude his meaning to be that I have affirmed Christs 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 denyal of all fulness of that habitual Grace already in him 4. And truly had I thus exprest my self or let fall any words which might have been thus interpreted I acknowledge I had been very injurious not only to the verity of God but also to mine own conceptions and even to the cause which I had in hand which had not been supported but betrayed by any such apprehensions of the imperfection of Christs habitual Grace 5. This I could easily shew and withall how cautiously and expresly it was forestalled by me But to the matter in hand it is sufficient that I profess I never thought it but deemed it a contrariety to express words of Scripture in any man who shall think it and in short that I never gave occasion to any man to believe it my opinion having never said it in those words which he sets up to refute in me never in any other that may be reasonably interpretable to this sense Thus the Doctor § 1. TO this so ingenuous and civil address and clear acknowledgement of the danger of that Error which the Author of the Mixture undertook to refute though causelesly in Doctor Hammond this Refuter in very much anger replies and with pride and scorn sufficient to oppose a thousand Hereticks And though this renouncing and detestation of the Error undeservedly and through an over-hasty mistake and too prejudicate a zeal laid to the Doctors charge had been sufficient to any Son of Peace on whom the Spirit of Peace did truly rest to have made an end of this unnecessary contention between the Professors of the same Faith yet this Mr. Henry Jeanes of Chedzoy will not rest contented with it Because he hath once unhappily accused the Doctor of an Error which he is no way guilty of which he never gave occasion to any man to believe his opinion having never said it in those words which he sets up to refute in him and never in any other that may reasonably be interpreted to that dangerous sense he will still perversly continue to affix it on him § 2. And this is all the thanks that the Doctor hath gained by this his fair condescension and labouring to undeceive this mistaken Author and those that possibly might be deceived by him His recompence is only the disturbing of his peace the blasting of his name and a provocation to a very impertinent and unnecessary debate in any times but now highly dishonourable to the Glory of God and the Protestant Religion which is so every where assaulted both by enemies from without and unruly Professors and Pretenders to it within § 3. And though as the case now stands with our sad and very much afflicted Mother the Church this contention might have been pardonable if it had been carryed with that innocence and candor as becomes Professors of Gospel-Truths though differing in Judgement in some petite and inconsiderable debates yet to the great contentment of the Jesuite abroad and the Quaker and Anabaptist at home it is managed with such vehemence and scorn and Passion as if the whole Honour and safety of Christian Religion did depend upon it § 4. And now though his Opinion and Judgement is Orthodox and altogether the same with that which the Author of the Mixture of Scholastical Divinity with practical undertook to maintain yet his innocent language shall be arraigned of Ironies and scorn and hypocritical high complements and his Tongue and Pen shall be concluded guilty where his Heart and Tenents cannot For thus he bespeaks the Doctor JEANES Whereas you term your Complyance with my desires that you should Reply unto me Obedience I look upon it as a very high Cōplement for what am I that my desires should have with you the Authority of a Command and shall not be so uncharitable as to think it a Scoff though some of my friends have represented it to me under that notion But suppose it were meant in way of derision yet this shall abate nothing of my gratitude for your Reply which is a favour and honour of which I willingly confess my self to be unworthy § 5. In good time Sr. And therefore since you are a Person of so tender sense and apprehension that even Balsams and Perfumes offend you I am now resolved to change the Method and take another course in this Rejoynder than the Doctor hath done Nor shall I be
testimony I can give you of my thankfulness is to assure you that if in the Exceptions which you shall condescend to return to this Paper you can prove that I have done you any Injury you shall find me very ready to make you satisfaction But if on the contrary you shall fail in such proof I hope you will be so much a friend to the Truth as to retract your mistake § 18. Say and hold Sir in the first and then never doubt the latter Remember the wholesome advice of Saint James * Jam. 5. 12. And let your yea be yea (a) Quod verbo promittitis id facto implete sive id in agendo sive in non agendo consistat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promissum significat promissi implementum ut videre est 2 Cor. 1. 18 19 21. Est igitur hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut insimili dicto Judaeorum Justi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Non est Non. Illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est promittentis ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graecis H. Grot. in Loc. Be not only a Minister of Gods word but a Christian and make good your promise And if I do not demonstrate that you have every where done very much wrong to the Truth and great Injury to the Doctor its defendor I my self shall more readily make you satisfaction than you can desire it and shall publickly retract whatsoever is here written And the Doctor I doubt not will be more a friend to the Truth than his own reputation And as I believe he is a great admirer of the Wit and Parts and Learning and Piety of S. Austin so I question not but he will be ready to shew that he no where more applauds him and thinks him fitter to be followed than in his Retractations And now we are fallen upon the Business and matter of the Controversie SECT 3. The Refuter acknowledges the Doctor to assert the fulness of Christs Habitual Grace His Vse of Confutation and after undertakings groundless hereupon The terms of the Question much altered by the Refuter in his Rejoynder This Refuter goes on and sayes JEANES You acknowledge that to affirm that Christs Habitual Love of God was capable of further degrees is a Contrariety to express words of Scripture Now the Proposition which you thus disclaim is the natural and unavoydable sequele of that you in this your Reply § 21. confess to be your Opinion to wit That the inward acts of Christ's Love were more intense at one time than another and this I will make good by an Argument which I shall submit unto your severest examination § 1. BUt Sir by the favour of this your irrefragable Argument which you think will endure the Hammer and the Touch the Fire and the Water of Separation It is confessed then on all hands and so by you acknowledged that the Doctor plainly asserts That to affirm That Christ's Habitual Love of God was capable of further Degrees is a contrariety to express words of Scripture What then I pray Sir is become of your Vse of Confutation in your Mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity Why then as conquered Ensigns must Doctor Hammond's innocent name serve to adorn the Index and several Pages of your Book Will you by Hallifax-Law first execute and then proceed to Judgement and enquiry To what purpose else do you labour to conclude him guilty of that Error which here he publickly disclaims and proves could not possibly be his Opinion in that place you laboured in your Vse of Confutation to oppose by a Passage drawn from his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 21. that was written long time after that your Vse of Confutation was Penned and Published to the world § 2. When at * Secondly this Point of the dwelling of all fulness of Habitual Grace in Christ may serve for confutation of a Passage in the Learned Doctor Hammond against Mr. Cawdrey to wit that Christs Love of God was capable of further degrees That I do not fasten this Tenet wrongfully upon him will appear unto any rational man by his own words which I will therefore transcribe Doctor Hammond p. 222. In the next place c. Jeanes Mixture of Scholastical Divinity with Pract. p. 258. first in your Mixture of Scholastical Divinity with Practical you publickly did attacque the Doctor you did confidently ground your Charge upon a Passage taken from his Account of Mr. Cawdreys Triplex Diatribe There you undertook to make it appear to any rational man from his own words taken from that Treatise that you did not fasten this Tenet of the denyal of all fulness of Habitual Grace in Christ wrongfully upon him There there you expresly say you will therefore transcribe his words from that very Treatise And have you not quoted the very Page and taken the Passage thence at large against which your Vse of Confutation purposely was addressed and all to shew the Doctors guilt and your own fair innocence § 3. And is now that Task declined since the Doctors Publick Vindication of his injured Fame Is now that Passage upon which your Use of Confutation was so expresly grounded proved to be so clearly innocent and so palpably misunderstood that now of necessity you must have recourse to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was signally addressed against your Vse of Confutation to prove the Justice of it and that ex consequenti only by consequence and not directly § 4. I appeal Sir to your self whether this be not an Injury to the Doctors innocent Name and writings to charge them with dangerous Errors which you cannot prove and which you do acknowledge that the Doctor does as publickly renounce as you your self If the Passage upon which at first you built your charge be guilty to what purpose is this Tergiversation why do you not prosecute and make it good why must his one and twentieth Paragraph in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be now arraigned to prove him by deductions and by sequeles guilty If the Passage quoted by you from the Account be innocent I hope you cannot so soon forget your promise and we shall find you ready Sir to make the Doctor satisfaction and let those words at least you have so solemnly accused be acquitted by you § 5. Howsoever Sir if you should not be so honest as to make good your publick Promise so ingenuous as to retract a causeless injury done to an innocent learned highly-deserving Person as indeed I look for little from you yet I must desire the Reader to take notice that the Terms of the Question are much altered now in this Rejoynder from what they were at first At first this Refuter charged the Doctor with a direct and flat denyal of the All-fulness of Habitual Grace in Christ and for proof of this his Accusation he quoted a Passage taken from the two hundredth twenty second
mouth and say you do him no wrong because you now assume the liberty to charge him with consequencies he professedly disclaimes and deduce them from words he never said in the sense you impose upon him It was wittily said by the Poet Quem recitas meus est ô Fidentine libellus Martial Sed malè dum recitas incipit esse tuus You may do well to take notice of it and adjoyn it to the Doctors seasonable Advertisement For he which undertakes to refute any saying of anothers must oblige himself not only as the Doctor saies to an equal recitall of it to a word and syllable but also let me adde to the true and clear meaning of those words and syllables recited § 8. And now though this in the general be sufficient yet I shall return a more particular answer to this irrefragable Demonstration For so sure the Refuter accounts it or else he would never have professed in the Close that if he could not make good his Charge the shame should light upon him § 9. First then I say that whatsoever opinion this Refuter has of the force and strength of it yet it is no other then an empty Paralogism the Picture and Shadow of an Argument like the Colours in the Rainbow that are not what they appear and though the Inference is very gravely brought in with an Ergo to usher it yet it is in no mode and figure and concludes nothing against the Doctor because it consists of four terms * Saepe contingit ut in Syllogismo quatuor termini sint cum tres tantum esse videantur idque fit tribus potissimum de causis primo quia vox aliqua aut oratio in Syllogismo ambigua est ut in hoc Syllogismo Quod caret principio fine aeternum est Mundus caret principio fine Ergo Mundus est aeternus Hic sunt quatuor termini quia principium finis in Majore de duratione intelliguntur in Minore de magnitudine c. Burgersdic Institut l. 2. c. 8. Theor. 7. §. 2. For though it seem to consist only of three and the Subject of the Major is word for word the Praedicate of the Minor yet for all that by reason of the ambiguity of the Term the Love of God there are truly four though three only in shew For by the Term Christs Love of God c. in the Proposition the Refuter must mean the habitual Love of God otherwise the whole Proposition will be false and therefore so as the Doctor observes he declares himself to mean in his Vse of Confutation but then by the same Term Christs Love of God c. in the Assumption the Doctor means only Christs actual Love of God and so he every where declares himself If now our Refuter to shift his neck from this yoke shall reply that he also means the same in the Major as the Doctor does in the Minor I shall then allow his Syllogism indeed but then I must tell him that both the Major and Minor are most notoriously false § 10. To begin with the Assumption where the strength of the Inference seems most to be lodged I deny it Sir I deny it For where I pray does the Doctor affirm this Is it in these words § 11. where he saies expresly That this proposition Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees is readily interpretable to this dangerous sense I pray mark it that Christs Love of God was not full but so far imperfect as to be capable of some further Degrees then yet it had Or is it in those other § 12. That Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees more intense at one time then at another that is Christs Love of God had in its latitude or amplitude several Degrees one differing from another secundum magis minus all of them comprehended in that all-full perfect Love of God I pray mark it which was alwayes in Christ so full and so perfect good Sir I pray mark as not to want so not to be capable of further Degrees If in these two Assertions the direct contrary to what you conclude from the Doctors words be laid down as his proper meaning what a strange unhappy man is this Doctor in his expression that yet was once thought so eminent for his Language and Rhetorick as to be chosen in publique Convocation for the Vniversity Orator to deliver his meaning in such words that speak contrary to his thoughts Well I shall never hope that Words can clearly express the Notions of the Mind when I see such Inferences drawn from them that directly cross the Thoughts they were designed to represent § 11. But perhaps he will collect it from the following words in the next Paragraph § 13. The Degrees of which Christs Love of God is capable are by me thus expressed That his Love was more intense at one time then at another but still the higher of these Degrees of intenseness was as truly acknowledged to be in Christs Love at some time viz. in his Agony as the lower was at another and so all the Degrees which are supposed to be mentioned of his Love are also supposed and expresly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other whereas a supposed capacity of farther Degrees seems at least is so resolved by that Author to infer that these Degrees were not in Christ the direct contradictory to the former Proposition and so that they were wanting in him and the but-seeming asserting of that want is justly censured as prejudicial to that fulness § 12. What say you Sir Are these the words from whence you collect your Inference But ne saevi magne Sacerdos Viâ—gâ—â— Good Sir have Patience For suppose the worst suppose that the Doctor had hastily let fall from his pen some obscure expression that might be racked and tormented by some Tyrant Adversary to make it speak otherwise then he meant all the Triumph and Acquest would be only this That the Doctor was somewhat unhappy in an expression and spake otherwise then he did intend * Errare possum haereticus esse nolo August A Lapse this that may speak him Man and frail but not haeretical and dangerous A Lapse that the best and wisest men are subject to A Lapse to be pittied and excused but not upbraided For Sir I pray deal faithfully Would you be contented to be handled thus your self And are all your own expressions so clear and happy that they cannot be warped to another sense then you intended If so then remember that very wholesome good advise and (a) Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you even so do ye to them for this is the Law and the Prophets Matt. 7. 12. quod tibi fieri non vis alteri ne feceris The (b) Ael Lamprid Emperor Alex. Severus no good friend to Christians so much admired the Equity and Justice of that saying of our
acknowledged it is by the Doctor in this very Paragraph from whence the Refuter draws his Charge that he acknowledges the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured as prejudicial to Christs fulness that I cannot but wonder at the strange boldness of the man that though he saies he would assume that liberty yet for all that he durst lay that to the Doctors charge which he had so clearly so expresly so frequently disclaimed But my wonder must cease when I consider that from a Country-Lecturer he is arrived to be a writer of Scholastical and practical Divinity since he has attained to the Philosophers stone in Theologie and as himself in effect tells us in this Pamphlet he has all the Schoolemen at his fingers end nay just as many no more nor no less then are in Paul's Church-yard the Library at Oxford he may now conclude quidlibet ex quolibet and by his Almighty tincture make an Ingot of a Brass Andiron § 32. And therefore Sir I must again renew my request and desire you in good earnest to tell us where the Doctor does say that Christ's Love of God was more intense in his Agony then before I would you had as carefully observed as you profess you shall readily hearken to the Doctors seasonable Advertisement that he which undertakes to refute any saying of anothers must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable I have carefully read over the whole Section and do not find the very word before in it And yet let me tell you Sir that this word before is the only serviceable word that in probability might seem to infer that Conclusion which you lay to the Doctors charge For he that saies that Christs Love was more intense in his Agony then before does seem to imply that his Love did receive addition and growth in his Agony But this the Doctor saies not nay he frequently and clearly even in this Section disclaimes it This is only your addition and a second misadventure in your proceedings You had formerly added the word further to the Doctors expression and now you will again assume the liberty to adde another word before to it that must conclude the Doctor to mean and speak what he never thought or intended Sir you are a bold man indeed But this is only to cudgel a Jack-of-Lent of your own making And if you make a quarrel and destroy the shadow of the Lion which your self have cast how can you chuse Sir but deserve the Laurel and be cried up for a Conqueror § 33. But perhaps now he is called upon for it so earnestly he will prove his Assumption also by Consequence for he is an excellent Sequele-man thus Whosoever asserts that Christs Love of God was more intense at one time then another viz. in his Agony more intense then in his suffering hunger for us does by consequence assert that Christ's Love of God was more intense in his Agony then it was before But the Doctor asserts the Antecedent Ergo. § 34. Hold you there Sir your Major I deny and there is no connexion and consequence at all in it For though he that saies Christ's Love was more intense in his Agony then it was at another time in another Act suppose of suffering hunger for us acknowledges a gradual difference in respect of the intension of these two several Acts yet he does not acknowledge a gradual heightning or encrease of any one of them For it is not with the intension of these Acts and Qualities that are the issues of the Will as it is with those that are the fruits and effects of Natural Agents The Will here being a free and voluntary Agent may and does (a) Voluntas nostra subitò prorumpere potest in ferventem intensum actum amoris c. Suarez tom 2 Metaph. disp 46. sect 3. §. 15. Si agens sit liberum potest pro sua libertate applicare vim suam ad magis vel minus agendum Suarez ibid. sect 4. §. 14. act how and when it pleases It may instantly produce the most fervent as well as it does a less intense Act or it may heighten the gradual Perfection of the Act by degrees and successively But then (b) Vid. Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 46. sect 3. Natural Agents by reason of the distance of the Agent from the Passum or the resistance of some contrary Quality to be expelled or the weakness of their own virtue must of necessity intend the Quality successively and the higher degree cannot be produced before the lower have been first attained And therefore though one of these Acts in comparison of another is more intense yet neither of them is therefore said to be formally heightned and intended because being the free issues of the Will they might be produced severally in the same indivisible degree of height wherein they after continued and consequently here is no asserting that Christs Love in his Agony was more intended as that signifies a gradual heightning of the same numerical form or Quality then it was before Adde to this that he who saies that Christs Love was more intense in his Agony then in his suffering hunger for us does not by Consequence assert that his Love was now more intense then it was before but only compare two Acts together and notwithstanding this comparison he may yet further assert that Christs Love of God was more intense before his Agony then in it though in his Agony it was more intense then in his suffering hunger for us to wit in that Act of his Love which was immediately terminated in God himself and in which Act of Divine Love all the rest were radicated and planted And indeed of necessity it must be so supposed For though he loved us men and for our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate and made Man and lived and dyed for us yet every step and degree of this Love every one single Act wholly issued from this high transcendent Act of Divine Love the most superlative of all and still he loved us for Gods sake (a) Heb 10. 5 6 7 12. Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure Then said I Loe I come in the volume of the Book it is written of me to do thy will O God By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all And therefore he saies to his Disciples that were troubled when he foretold of his death Joh. 14. 31. But that the world may know that I love the Father as the Father gave me commandement even so I do Though then his Love of God in his Agony and Death was the highest Act of Charity to us men yet this as all the rest was rooted in that higher Act of Love to
of holy Charity or the Love of God are of two sorts 1. Those that are immediately terminated on God the only good 2. those that are immediately terminated on us men for Gods sake in whose Love as the Prime Act they are all radicated and founded The one the Schooles call Charitas ut finis the other they call Charitas propter finem § 44. Now though there be a gradual difference in the tendency of these Acts to the Object of Love yet because the divine goodness though unequally communicated is one and the same and the formal Object of both (a) Licet charitas sit una virtus habet tamen duos Actus quorum unus ordinatur ad alium sicut ad finem Aquin 2. 2. q. 44. ad 1. In Dilectione proximi includitur Dilectio Dei sicut finis in eo quod est ad finem è converso ibid. ad 4m. Cum Habitus dicitur specificari per Actus id intelligendum est cum proportione Triplex enim modus Habitûs ex dictis colligi potest c. Alius est qui in esse est etiam simplex qualitas virtualiter autem seu in agendo est multiplex quia est potens ad plures Actus ita inter se connexos ut in ordine ad idem ac indivisibile objectum formale necessariam connexionem inter se habeant in aliquo primario Actu quodammodo radicantur ideo talis Habitus dici potest specificari ab illo primario actu in quo alii radicantur ut habitus verbi gratia Charitatis Amoris Dei. Suarez Met. tom 2. disp 44. sect 11. §. 70. Habitus Voluntatis tendunt ad prosequendum aliquod bonum omnis autem prosecutio boni est ex aliquo motivo seu ex aliqua ratione bonitatis quae Voluntatem attrahit Hoc ergo motivum seu ratio tendendi est absque dubio quae dat Actui specificationem quia semper id quod est formale est quod dat speciem Contingit unam eandem rationem tendendi non aequè applicari diversis materiis ideo non eodem modo attingi per Actus ut est v. g. Bonitas Divina quatenus est in Deo reddit illum amabilem quatenus per quendam respectum applicatur proximo ut illum etiam amabilem reddat Nam licet illa Bonitas in se una sit non tamen illis rebus aequè convenit ideo modus tendendi in illam non est idem Tunc vero licet inter eos actus sit aliqua diversitas est tamen quaedam necessaria connexio Quia Actus qui versantur circa Objectum intrinsecè per se habens rationem illam est radix aliorum virtute continens illos ut Amor Dei amorem Proximi c. Suarez ibid. §. 30 31. it is generally resolved that the Habit whence they issue is but one simple Quality and the Acts that flow from it are called by the same name the Love of God or holy Charity § 45. Though then the Acts of Christ's Love as immediately terminated on God were alwaies at the height and one equall perfection as was never yet questioned or denyed by the Doctor yet this nothing hinders but that the other Acts of this Love of which alone the Doctor speaks regarding us for Gods sake might consist in a latitude and gradually differ from one another and fall short of the fervour of those Acts that immediately respected God as has already in some part appeared and shall further in due place be evidenced § 46. And therefore this Proposition Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees which the Doctor in the sense already given of the phrase the Love of God confesses to be not illogically inferred from his Paper will sufficiently reach the point he had in hand without your understanding the word farther For though one Act of Divine Love may in comparison of another be more intense yet nothing hinders but both may equally flow I say aequè though not aequaliter from one and the same all-full habit of Charity that is free as the Will is and indetermined in its Acts and Operations § 47. And therefore all the world will acknowledge Sir the Doctors censure of your adding not supplying the word farther as a misadventure in your proceeding to be just and not groundless § 48. And now Sir because I find you a man of such unprosperous undertakings let me advise you for the future that if you shall assume the liberty to charge the Doctor with Consequences as you boldly profess you shall that you do it purely from his own words without any additions or alterations of your own framing For otherwise you your self as the Doctor tells you will be the only author of the Proposition you undertake to refute And since by such unhappy Arts you will never be able to make good your Charge the shame will not only light as you acknowledge but also fix and dwell upon you where I leave it for the present and hasten to the next Section SECTION 6. The Refuter acknowledges his own ignorance of a generally received Opinion Love a Genus to the Habit and the Act. Proved for the Refuters instruction His charging his Ignorance on Aristotle Aristotle his Master why vainly quoted He speaks not to the present Controversie The Assumption only denied § 1. THough we have already shaken the very foundations of our Refuters Discourse yet the Doctor tells us Doctor HAMMOND 14. BUt this is but the Proemial part of my Reply there is a more Material part of it still behind which may yet seem necessary to be added viz. to mind him of what he well knows the distinction between Habits and Acts of Vertues or Graces and that Love as the Genus doth equally comprehend both these Species and that his Discourse of All-fulness belonging to the Habitual Grace of Christ I speak distinctly of another matter viz. of the Degrees of that Grace discernible in the several Acts of it § 2. To this our Refuter replies with a very unfavoury and immodest acknowledgement of his own Ignorance which he charges upon Aristotle as if he had been the sole Author of it JEANES THe distinction between the Habits and Acts of Vertues or Graces I very well know but that Love as a Genus doth equally comprehend the Habit and Act of Love is a thing which I confess that I am yet to learn and if it be a matter of Ignorance in me you must blame my Master Aristotle for he hath misguided me herein He tells me lib. 1. top c. 15. n. 11. that if a word be praedicated of things put in several praedicaments that then it is homonymous in regard of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now the Habit of Love is in the Praedicament of Quality the Act of Love in the Praedicament of Action and hereupon I cannot but conclude that the Praedication of Love concerning the Habit and
great a Master Go on and prosper in your study of him so long till you rightly understand him and know how better to apply his Maximes to your advantage then you have done in the present Controversie § 9. For what I pray Sir saies Aristotle to misguide you in the case Is this it you mean in the place quoted from his Topicks 1. Top. c. 15. n. 11 Is it this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas alas Sir why should you conjure up Aristotles Ghost to speak an Oracle and Truth that never was yet questioned You might have saved the Printer the labour of troubling his Greek Characters Smiths Elements of Logick had been sufficient to prove that which every Fresh-man in Logick knows to be an undoubted Axiome But you were willing to let us know you had Aristotles Organon in your study and that you could quote him in Greek § 10. But good Sir I pray tell me how could your great Master Aristotle misguide you in the point depending betwixt you and the Doctor Was it ever denied by your Adversary that Entia primo diversa cannot be put in the same Praedicament or has he any where asserted that a word is not ambiguous that is attributed to things that are put in divers Praedicaments To this only speaks Aristotle But by the way give me leave to tell you that either the Printer or your Amanuensis were mistaken in this Quotation For it is not to be found in the 15th but in the 13th Chapter at least in my Edition wherein there are but fourteen Chapters in that Book Howsoever the words I acknowledge and pass by the Lapse as veniall and if you can now prove that Love which the Doctor makes the Genus of the Habit the Act is a transcendental thing and found in several Praedicaments like the Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he in that place instances in I shall then acknowledge the force of this Quotation from Aristotle but till you can make this appear and make good your Assumption I cannot take it for an Oracle that the Habit and the Act of Love are Entia primo diversa things put in several Praedicaments because that you have asserted it You may spare your pains Sir in proving Axiomes and your Major should have been granted you for asking without Aristotles authority Till the Minor which is only the matter in debate betwixt you and the Doctor be made good and you can prove that Actual Love is not a Quality but a simple Praedicamental Action I must say that since Conclusio sequitur partem debiliorem you have concluded nothing against the Doctor And so I take my leave of this Section with a Nego Minorem SECT 7. The Refuters Reply impertinent The Doctors distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act found in the Tract of Will-worship and the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey Outward sensible expressions refer first and immediatly to the inward Acts of Love The Refuters digression to a matter never doubted The Doct. never asserts that Love was univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions The Refuters four Reasons against no body His unhappiness in proving a Clear Truth His third most false In univocal productions the Cause and Effect still comprehended under the same Genus sometimes also in aequivocal His Assumption of his First Reason infirm His second and fourth Reasons coincident Raynaudus seasonable assistance The Refuter misunderstands him Love not univocally praedicated of the Habit and outward sensible expressions proved not concerns the Doctor § 1. THe Doctor now having cleared the Ambiguity of the Phrase that gave the Captious advantage to the Vse of Confutation and shewed that he spake of another matter then the Author of the Mixture did comes now to shew that this was no new-coined distinction on purpose invented to decline the force of that Vse Doctor HAMMOND 15. THis Distinction I thought legible enough before both in the Tract of Will-worship and in the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey 16. In the former the Refuter confesseth to find it reciting these words of mine It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another Where the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love § 2. To this our Refuter makes a very large reply but nothing to the purpose thus JEANES THe distinction which you thought legible enough before in your Tract of Will-worship in which you say that I confess to find it is such a distinction between the Habits and Acts of Love as that Love equally comprehends them both as Species Now I utterly deny that there is any such distinction in those words of yours which I recite It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then another And the reason of this my denial is because love as a Genus doth not comprehend the expressions of Love equally with the Habit. 1. Nothing can as a Genus be equally praedicated of things put in several Praedicaments but the Habit of Love and expressions of Love are put in several Praedicaments therefore Love as a Genus doth not equally comprehend them both 2. The Habit of Love is formally and intrinsecally Love the expressions of Love that is as you expound your self § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination from the inward acts of Love and therefore Love doth not as a Genus equally comprehend the Habit and expressions of Love Raynaudus in Mo◠discip dist 3. n. 144. makes mention out of Gabriel Biel of a distinction of Love into affective and effective and what is this effective Love but the effects and expressions of Love But now that he doth not take this to be a proper distribution of a Genus into its Species appeareth by what he saith out of the same Author concerning the division Effectivum dicit ipsum illius Amoris eliciti effectum Translato quippe causae nomine ad effectum is dicitur amare effectivè qui non ostentat infertilem ac sterilem amorem sed cum se dat occasio erumpit in fructus dignes amoris Quam esse admodum impropriam amoris divisionem fatetur Gabriel quia amare propriè est in sola voluntate tanquam in subjecto ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur estque actus transiens non immanens voluntatis 3. No one word can as a Genus equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect The Habit of Love is the Efficient cause and the sincere and cordial expressions of Love are the Effect therefore Love is not predicated of them equally as a Genus 4. That which is predicated properly of one thing and tropically of another cannot equally comprehend them both
as a Genus But Love is predicated properly of the habit of Love tropically viz. Metonymically of the expressions of Love by a Metonymie of the efficient for the effect therefore love as a Genus cannot equally comprehend them both § 3. Put the case Sir And what will you thence conclude against the Doctor Will this ever make him guilty of denying the Habitual Fulness of Christs Grace or prove that he never aimed at the distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act in either of these Discourses Suppose you had not found this distinction so clearly laid down in the Tract of Will-worship me thinks unless you had resolved to be captious it might have sufficed you to have seen it in the Answer to Mr. Cawdrey which was the Treatise you quarrelled at For does not the Doctor tell you plainly that he thought it legible enough in both Is there no such distinction in either Tract to be met with either in terminis or by just consequence Let us know your positive answer and run not out into new Controversies Howsoever though the whole that is here replied be a most perfect digression to a matter clearly impertinent not any waies hinted or occasioned by the Doctor yet I am resolved to follow you through all this winding Labyrinth § 4. Thus then you return The distinction which you thought legible enough before in your Tract of Will-worship in which you say that I confess to find it is such a distinction between the Habits and Acts of Love as that Love equally comprehends them both as Species Now I utterly deny that there is any such distinction in those words of yours which I recite It is possible for the same person to love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another And the reason of this my deniall is because Love as a Genus doth not comprehend the expressions of Love equally with the Habit. § 5. Well Sir if this be all you aim at your reasons might have been spared It is granted as to the recital and express mention of that distinction in the words by you recited But yet I beseech you deal plainly is it not clearly there intimated For what speak the Antecedents and Consequents Read you not in the two very next preceding lines this distinction very plainly implyed Are not these the Doctors words (a) Treatise of Will-worship Sect. 49. p. 101. edit London which loving God in a more intense degree may be observed amongst the Angels themselves the Soraphin being so called because they are more ardent in zeal then other Angels Nay for the same person constantly to love God above all and yet c. Is it not clearly here evident the Doctor means the height and fervour of the Seraphins actual Love Can their greater ardency in zeal refer to any thing else then that Love which is modificated by it But yet if this be not plain enough what think you of the words immediately following the passage by you recited and which the Doctor added on purpose to prove and explain it Consider what he saies Sir (a) Treatise of Will-worship ibid. Thus we read of Christ himself Luc. 22. 44. who we know did never fail in performing what was mans duty in Prayer or any thing else yet that he at that time prayed more earnestly which is a demonstrative evidence that the lower Degree is not sinful when the higher is acceptable to God What say you now Does not this evidently refer to the height and fervour of the inward Act of Prayer And does not the Doctor expresly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say so in the Recapitulation of this whole passage in the (b) Account of Mr. Cawd trip Diat c. 6. sect 5. §. 5. p. 222. Account to Mr. Cawdrey's triplex Diatribe and in the very words by you cited in your Vse of Confutation This that sincere Love was capable of Degrees was first shewed in several men and in the same man at several times in the several ranks of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another Is not this now plain enough and by you acknowledged also in your Mixture (c) Jeanes Mixt. of Scholast Divin with Pract. treat 2. p. 258. where you have in perpetuam rei memoriam your self recorded it And therefore said not the Doctor truly that he thought this distinction legible enough before both in the Tract of Will-worship and in the answer to Mr. Cawdrey For I hope you will not say that the Doctor in the last passage on which your Vse of Confutation is grounded does refer to the outward sensible expressions and that by Christ's greater ardenoy in this Act of Prayer in his bloody Agony he only meanes a more earnest cry and louder noise and deeper groan § 6. But suppose we that no more had been expressed concerning this distinction then what is intimated in these words rehearsed and by you acknowledged to be recited in your (d) Jeanes Mixture ibid. p. 259. Mixture Yet Sir deal plainly with the world can you think the Doctor a man of so crude raw Judgement as to take the outward sensible expressions for the inward Acts of Love Or can you believe him so weak as not to understand his own meaning or to have lost so much of Christianity with his Ecclesiastical preferments as that he is not fit to be believed and trusted when he professes to declare what was his own meaning One of these you must needs say or this whole Reply is nothing to the purpose § 7. For though it were granted as the contrary has been shewed that the Doctor in that Passage does only mention the Habit of Love and the outward expressions yet plain it is that the outward sensible expressions can refer to nothing but the inward Acts of Love which according to the Doctrine of the best Metaphysicians and Schoolmen as has been declared the Doctor makes specifically distinct from the Habit. For the expressions of Love must first and immediately refer to the Acts and by them to the Habit otherwise your great Master * Aristoteles eum qui tantum habet Habitum comparat dormienti eum verò qui Actum exercet vigilanti Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 9 §. 14. Aristotle had vainly compared the Habit to a man asleep and the Act to one waking The outward expressions in the subordinate inferior Faculties must first denote the promptness and facility in the Act and then this ready nimbleness in the Act must declare the perfection of the Habit. If therefore expressions be expressions indeed and there be a necessary relation between the sign and the thing signified then the expressions of Love the outward sensible expressions must of necessity respect the inward Acts of Love of which alone they are properly and immediately expressions And therefore we may well take the Doctors word when he saies
though in the words acknowledged and cavilled at by this Refuter he only mentioned the outward sensible expressions yet there the expressions at one time and at another must needs refer to the several Acts of the same all-full habitual Love Which inward Acts alone and nothing else he makes to be specifically distinct from the Habit of Love § 8. But in a Parenthesis to his second Argument he tells us that by the expressions of Love the Doctor expounds himself to mean § 21. the outward expressions of the inward Acts of Love which are termed Love only by extrinsecal denomination § 9. True Sir But is it with exclusion of the inward Acts How then are they expressions of them But let us view the Doctors own words in the 21. § that our Refuters fair dealing may notoriously appear I must only say saies the Doctor there that is a mis-apprehension for that by loving with all the heart in the first place I certainly meant the sincere habit of Love by love in the latter place the inward Acts of Love and by the expressions of Love the outward expressions of those inward Acts and of these Acts only I speak and of these expressions when I say they are more intense at one time then another § 10. But now though it be so clearly evident that in the places already quoted the Doctor by the expressions of Love still refers to the inward Acts which only he makes specifically distinct from the Habit yet this was hint enough to give our Refuter advantage to make a noise and a Book He has now found new matter of Dispute and with might and main he labours to prove that which no man ever doubted and the Doctor never thought of We shall now have Reasons and Authority no less then a whole Page-full in this puisny Pamphlet to prove that which might have been granted for asking And O what pitty it is that our School-man should not have Truth more often on his side because he makes so much of it when he chanceth to meet it though it be out of his rode § 11. But in good sadness Sir why no less then four Reasons to prove that which was never denied you Has Doctor Hammond asserted any thing to the contrary Did he ever affirm that Love was univocally predicated of the Habit and the outward sensible expressions as its Species If he has pray quote us the place that we may also confess and acknowledge his mistake If he has not as without doubt he no where has then you only fight with a shadow of your own casting and much good do you with the Conquest If you set up a Shroveing-Cock from your own Dunghill I shall not any waies forbid you to throw as many Cudgels at him as you please § 12. But yet Sir I cannot chuse but take notice of your Craft you have cunningly raised a Cloud of Dust to amuse your unwary Readers who will think that all this while you fight with the Doctor because they see you so zealous in your Mood and Figure and have urged no less then four Reasons backed and confirmed with two venerable Authorities most demurely against No body § 13. And now I assure you Sir it is well that your Conclusion is a Truth sufficiently evident of it self For otherwise so profound a Disputant you are your Reasons would very very hardly enforce it § 14. Your Third to begin with that for I shall not tye my self to your Methode is most ridiculously false You say not to trouble our selves about the Mood and Figure 3 No one word can as a Genus equally comprehend the Efficient and the Effect the Habit of Love is the Efficient cause and the sincere and cordial expressions of Love are the Effect therefore Love is not praedicated of them equally as a Genus § 15. Your Major Sir your Major by all means have a care of your Major For what think you Sir of all * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 2. Gener. Animal c. 4. in fine univocal productions When Fire produces Fire and Corn brings forth Corn when a Man begets a Man and one Heat makes another does not one and the same word as a Genus comprehend the Efficient and the Effect And is it not in these a certain Maxime that Qualis est causa talis est effectus such as the Cause is in nature such also is the Effect And I hope you will think it lawful for things of the same nature to be comprehended under the same Genus Nay are not these distinguished from (a) Quaedam est quae effici◠Effectum ejusdem rationis haec dicitur Vnivoca ut Ignis quum generat Ignem universaliter Causa quae operando per virtutem suae formae similem reddit Effectum est Causa univoca in suo ordine Principalis ut recte notat D. Thomas 3. p. q. 62. art 1. Alia vero est Causa producens Effectum alterius rationis quam oportet esse nobiliorem Effectu et haec appellatur Causa Aequivoca quia non convenit formaliter cum Effectu in eâdem formâ sed eminenter illam continet Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 17. sect 2. §. 21. Vid. cund disp 26. sect 1. §. 6. sect 5. §. 13 14 15 16 c. Aequivocal productions because in these Effectum est ejusdem rationis cum Efficiente but in the other Efficiens non convenit cum effectu in eâdem formâ sed eminenter illam continet Nay does not your own (b) Scheibler Metaph. l. 1. c. 22. tit 9. n. 116 117 c. Scheibler as well as Suarez both whom you so seriously commend to the Doctors perusal tell you that Causa univoca est quae producit effectum similem in specie But me thinks Sir if since your more noble more serious imployments in the study and writing of Scholastical and Practical Divinity you had thought fit to neglect such vulgar Authors and to forget the common Notions and Maximes delivered by them yet you should at least have observed this in your Reading of Aquinas that in his Summes (a) Vid. Aquin Sum. p. 1. q. 4. art 2. in corp Cajetan Javel alios in loc 3. part q. 62. art 1. in corp alibi saepissime does frequently deliver this Doctrine and makes very good use of it And now Sir I hope you will think it lawful for things of the same nature to be comprehended under the same Genus For where I pray will you rank the several Individuals of the self-same Species for such are all Vnivocal Causes and Effects as is plain from sense and experience if not under the same Genus § 16. I might prove the gross and palpable falshood of your Major Sir by divers instances drawn from Aequivocal Productions where the cause and effect must be placed in the same Praedicament and consequently under the same remote Genus at least which is sufficient to
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
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
Species unius generis subalterni ut dicantur Dispositiones illae qualitates primae Speciei quibus convenit secundum propriam rationem ut de facili amittantur quia habent causas transmutabiles ut Aegritudo Sanitas Habitus verò dicantur illae qualitates quae secundum rationem habent quod de facili transmutentur quia habent causas immobiles sicut Scientiae Virtutes secundum hoc Dispositio non fit Habitus Et hoc videtur magis consonum intentioni Aristotelis c. Thus he § 48. It will not now for a close of this Section be amiss to tell you the Doctor never takes Acts for Habits but specifically distinguishes them nor yet counts them Dispositions as that word is properly taken but saies only at large that habitual and actual love are both Qualities and Species of the same Genus And now that you may have no opportunity to mistake his meaning I must mind you of the known distinction of Acts some whereof precede the Habit to be produced and effectively concur to the making of it and others follow the Habit now compleat and perfect as effects and issues of it The first are inchoate imperfect things in order to the production of a Habit and so are Dispositions properly so called The other are not so but follow as Effects from their Cause whether the Habit be infused or acquisite and are called Dispositions not specially and properly but generally and improperly taken for reasons formerly alledged And strange it is you should not observe this doctrine in Suarez in Scheibler in Aristotle where it is to be found all which you yet recommend to the Doctors inspection for satisfaction in this kind § 49. And so much at present for our Refuters long-since forgotten Metaphysicks we come now to his Familiars his dear Acquaintance the Schoolmen SECT 11. The Doctors explication from the Refuters Concessions The Refuters Reply and valiant resolution His first Charge answered His second Charge answered in three distinct Propositions 1. Expressions gradually different may and in Christ alwaies did flow from a Love equally intense in the Habit. This not the question 2. Nothing naturally hinders but that expressions gradually different may flow from Acts of Love gradually the same Proved God's outward favours and expressions different The inward Act of his Love still one and invariable Proved against the Socinian Gods Love one infinite and substantial Act against Crellius In what sense God in Scripture said to love some more some less The doctrine of the Schools safer then that of the Socinian God by one immutable Act dispenses all the variety of his favours Illustrated The variety in Gods outward favours whence it arises Confirmed from Lombard Aquinas Scotus Applyed to the Refuter 3. In men the outward expressions ordinarily vary according to the gradual difference in the inward Acts of Love Proved by Reason and the authority of Gregory Durand Aquinas Estius The Doctors assertion hence proved as fully as the thing requires The Doctor not engaged to prove that expressions gradually different could not proceed from a Love equally intense The third Charge answered No mystery in the word proportionably The correspondence between the inward Acts of Love and the outward expressions to be understood not according to Arithmetical but Geometrical Proposition § 1. THe Doctor having now truly stated the Question in Controversie between him and his Adversary and shewed that the Acts of Christs Love of which alone he spake were sometimes gradually differenced one from another and in this respect were capable of Degrees though his habitual grace were not he comes now § 23. to explain explain he saies and not confirm or prove this by the Refuters own Confession Doctor HAMMOND 23. I Shall explain this by the Refuters own confession The Death of Christ saith he was an higher Expression of Christ's Love of ut then his Poverty Hunger or Thirst To this I subjoin that such as the Expression was such was the Act of inward love of which that was an expression it being certain that each of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions And from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superiour to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty and so the same Person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely at one time then at another which was the very thing I had said in another instance But this I have added ex abundanti more then the Refuters Discourse required of me § 2. To this our Refuter returns three things in three Sections JEANES IF you had repeated that which you call my confession full and entire as it lay in my Book the impartial and unprejudiced Reader would soon have discerned that there was in it nothing that made for your advantage My words at large are these There may be a gradual difference in the expressions of the same Love for Degree Christs Death for us was an higher expression of his love of us then his Poverty Hunger Thirst c. and yet they might proceed from a Love equally intense Now Sir have you said any thing to prove that they could not proceed from a Love equally intense You seem indeed most vehemently and affectionately to affirm that they could not but you must pardon me if I entertain not your vehement Asseverations as solid Arguments as if they were Propositiones per se notae Pray Sir review this Section and put your Argument into some form If you can make good that it conteineth any disproof of what I have said unless begging the Question be argumentative you shall have my hearty leave to triumph over me as you please however untill then I shall take your words asunder and examine every passage in them Doctor HAMMOND TO this I subjoin that such as the expression was such was the Act of inward Love of which that was an expression it being certain that each of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions JEANES THat each of these expressions had an act of inward Love of which they were so many different expressions is an obvious Truth but impertinent to the matter in hand unless you can prove that they were of necessity equal in point of intension and the proof of this you have not hitherto so much as attempted Doctor HAMMOND ANd from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent that that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superior to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty and so the same person that loved sincerely did also love and express that Love more intensely at one time then at another which was the very thing I had said in another instance But this I have added ex abundanti more
then the Refuters discourse required of me JEANES FRom hence whence I pray If from the words immediately foregoing then your Argument stands thus Every of these expressions had an Act of internal Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions therefore that Act of internal Love exprest by his dying for us was superior to those former Acts which only exprest themselves in his Poverty And here I must profess that the reason of your Consequence is to me invisible and I shall never acknowledge your Inference legitimate untill you drive me hereunto by reducing your Enthymeme unto a Syllogisme But perhaps there may be some Mystery in the word proportionably and your meaning may be that these different expressions in regard of intension must be proportioned exactly unto their inward respective Acts of Love equal or parallel unto them And if this be your meaning then your Argument is guilty of that Fallacy which is called Petitio principii It is my desire and purpose to have faire wars with you and my pen shall not drop a disrespective syllable of you but yet I am resolved to swallow none of your proofless dictates Seing you have entred the Lists with me you must not think me irreverent and sancy 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 controversie betwixt us § 3. And thus our valiant Hector is resolved to stand his Ground and not yield an Inch to this Achilles till he be forced and dragged by the heels about the walls of his falling Troy § 4. But I find him yielding already For he grants to the Doctor that it is an obvious Truth that each of these expressions had an Act of inward Love of which they were so many different expressions I shall desire him to remember it For I doubt not but from this poor Concession to prove the pertinency of the Doctors Discourse and also to demonstrate before we part that he can have nothing justly to reply against it § 5. In the mean while I come to give an answer to his three Charges he has laid in against the Doctor in these three several Sections § 6. The first Charge is That if the Doctor had repeated his Confession full and entire as it lay in his Book the impartial and unprejudiced Reader would soon have discerned that there was in it nothing that made for his advantage c. Because he added these words which the Doctor has omitted and yet they expressions gradually different might proceed from a Love equally intense § 7. How pertinent this reply is the Reader if he will but peruse your words at large as they lie in your * But of this we may say as he doth of Mr. Cawdrey's answer it is nothing to the matter now in hand Because there may be a gradual difference in the expressions of the same Love for Degrees Christ's death for us was an higher expression of his Love of us then his Poverty Hunger Thirst c. and yet they might proceed from a Love equally intense His argument then you see from Christs example will not serve the turn unless it conclude a greater intension in his Love of God at one time then at another And the falshood of such an assertion is evident from the point here handled and confirmed the absolute fulness of Christs grace which by the general consent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was such as that it excluded all intensive growth It was a Sequele of the Personal union and therefore it was from the very first moment of conception The Word was no sooner made Flesh but it was forthwith full of grace and truth His Love of God was uncapable of further Degrees unto whom God gave not the Spirit that is the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit by measure c Jeanes Mixture of Scholast c. Tract 2. p. 259 c. Vse of Confutation will instantly discern and that you are a most exquisite Architect for a Monument of Confusion that thus pull down with one hand what you build with the other For how I pray Sir understand you the word Love in the Clause you pretend that the Doctor has so much to your prejudice omitted of the Habit or the Act if you say of the Act of Love then you make the whole passage in your Vse of Confutation to be nothing to the matter there in hand that only concerns the fulness of Christ's habitual grace If you say it was meant of the Habit as the Antecedents and Consequents and Proofs from Scripture and the authority of the Fathers and School-men and your Subject and Title-Page confirm then this Reply is nothing to the present Purpose and you contradict not the Doctor who speaks only of a gradual difference in the Acts of Christs Love and the several expressions of them Which way soever you shall take you cannot avoid either the Quick-sand or the Rock § 8. The truth is the Doctor finding this Clause in that part of your Treatise which was designed to prove the allfulness of habitual grace in Christ he would not be so uningenuous as not to understand this general expression but with Relation to the subject matter of your discourse Your Title had proclaimed you a Writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity and the Doctor well knew that it was not the Custom of such Authors to speak loosely and at random Though in Poets and Orators whose aim is rather to delight and perswade then convince it may be pardonable to leap from one thing to another and Digressions sometimes may be looked on not as Blemishes but Ornaments yet those Military men among whom you desire to be numbred that by the power and force of Reason endeavour to conquer the Judgement and subdue it to assent must still carefully traverse their Canon to the Point otherwise they will prove as contemptible as the Gunner that has neither Powder nor Bullet and like the Engineer in Kett's camp that discharged his Artillery over the heads of his enemies they may fall by the Sword of that Conquerour whom they would be thought to have spared I doubt not but if the Doctor had made use of those words and imposed the sense on them to your disadvantage which your self do now give he should have been impleaded for injustice and you would have managed your cause by clear Arguments drawn from the Antecedents and Consequents in the Vse of Confutation But since you have shewed your self so ill a Master of Defence as by warding one blow upon the Shin to expose your whole Body to the stroke and since to acquit your self from the Doctors Argument à Concessis you are content to proclaim your self no Master of Method in a Professed Scholastical discourse and are willing when your Argument is the Habitual grace of Christ to restrain your general expressions to
21. q 1. art 3. in Corp. outward Expressions depending precisely upon the inward Acts as the Effect upon their Cause it necessarily follows that the more I love the greater Expressions of this Love I am bound to exhibite and to whom I am bound to shew the greater tokens of Love him I ought to love more in proportion to the Expressions otherwise let me adde the Love will be lame and imperfect or else hypocritical and counterfeit Not that every man is bound at all times to express his Love according to the height and intension of the inward Act but that he is obliged to do it when a just Occasion offers and a Necessity requires it For sometimes they whom we love do not either stand in need at all of our outward signs and expressions or perhaps do lesse want them then others lesse beloved or else there may not be a fit Opportunity to express our Love unto the height when they want or we desire or perhaps it may be more advantage for those we love to have the height and Ardour of this Love for the present concealed as we also have already intimated But then though sometimes it be convenient not to expresse our Love unto the height yet ordinarily it is required that there be a proportion and agreement in respect of Intension and Remission between the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love For the affection of Charity which is an inclination of Grace is not less ordinate then the Appetite and Inclination of Nature because both flow from the same divine Wisedome But we see in Nature that the inward Appetite is proportioned to that outward Act and Motion which is proper to every thing For the Earth has a greater inclination to gravity then Water which naturally is seated above it And therefore since as the good Father said Amor meus pondus meum since Love is as it Augustin were the weights and plummets of the Soul the more the Soul loves in the inward Act the more it carries the Soul to higher and nobler Expressions and a proportionable agreement and correspondence there will and must be between the inward Affection and the outward Effects and as the Bounty increases and is more intense so in proportion does the Love which is the very same that the Doctor had asserted § 58. And this was abundantly sufficient to the Doctors purpose though he never had attempted to prove that Expressions gradually different in themselves could not flow from several Acts of Love that were gradually the same or that the outward Expressions and the inward Acts of Love were of necessity equal in point of Intension For since you grant to the Doctor that it is an obvious Truth That each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love in Christ of which they were so many different Expressions then if to use Cajetan's word major Benevolentia major Beneficentia mutuò se inferunt and unless there be a proportion between the outward and the inward Acts of Love the Inclinations of Grace as Aquinas proves would be less orderly then those of Nature the Doctor might very well conclude that where the outward Expressions were gradually different there the inward Acts from whence the Expressions issue were gradually different also If it be ordinarily so with all others that the greater Expressions argue the greater Love what should hinder but that the Doctor might conclude it was so in Christ § 59. It will not be enough to Reply in this case and yet this is all you have to say that the Doctor has said nothing to prove that these Expressions which are acknowledged to be gradually different in themselves might not could not proceed from a Love equally intense § 60. For though nothing naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that different Expressions because they are imperate Acts of the Will and subject to its Command may flow from Acts of Love still the same for Degrees yet ordinarily they do not And therefore unless you can shew that the case is different in Christ from all other men and that every Act of his Love that flowed from the same all-full all-perfect Habit of Divine Charity was of the same height and intenseness and equal to the Habit it cannot be denied but that the Doctors Conclusion is most rational and just § 61. For Morality admits not of Mathematical Demonstration but as the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 1. Eth. c. 3. §. 1. great Master of Method tells us sufficient it is if here the Conclusion be inferred from Praemisses and Medium's that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and most commonly so And therefore Sir if the gradual intension and remission in the inward Expressions do most commonly argue and inferr a proportionable increase and decrease in the inward Acts of Love you must needs be unjust for charging the Doctor for not saying any thing to prove that these different Expressions could not proceed from a Love equally intense and for speaking impertinently to the matter in hand unless he can prove that they were of necessity equal in point of Intension For why should you require the Proof of that which the nature of things will not admit of The Doctor now was not engaged in the Demonstration of a Mathematical but an Ethical Probleme for the Schoolmen will tell you of Theologia Moralis and he that proves that such a Proposition is most commonly so has as demonstratively concluded as that Science does re-require § 62. But why cannot the Doctors Conclusion evidently follow unless he can first prove that they ought of necessity to be equal in point of Intension For will you therefore conclude because Expressions gradually different may flow since there is no necessary reason to the contrary from Acts of Love gradually the same that therefore they do so or necessarily must If you should as you intimate by this your redoubling your charge against the Doctor I must tell you that you are guilty of arguing A potentia ad Actum affirmativè which is the most simple and palpable Sophisme of all just as if I should argue Because nothing naturally and of necessity hinders but that Mr. Jeanes may be a Jesuite in a Ministers cloak therefore without doubt he is so § 63. Whereas you then put the Question to the Doctor and thus ask him Now Sir have you said any thing to prove that they Expressions of Love gradually different could not proceed from a Love equally intense and then adde in the following Section That though it be an obvious Truth that each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love of which they were so many different Expressions yet it is impertinent unto the matter in hand unless he can prove that they were of absolute necessity equal in point of Intension the proof whereof he has not hitherto so much as attempted It is evident you are mistaken and the
intensive growth 26. But to this the Reply will be easily foreseen from the Premisses that as the point by him handled and confirmed was distinctly the all-fulness of habitual grace in Christ so his proof of it by the consent of Fathers and Schoolmen belongs still to that fulness of habitual Grace 27. Witness one for all Aquinas Par. 3. qu. 7. art 12. ad secundum Licet virtus Divina possit facere aliquid majus melius quam sit habitualis Gratia Christi non tamen though the Divine power may make somewhat greater and better then is the habitual Grace of Christ yet So 't is plain he speaks of the fulness of the habitual Grace And ad tertium In Sapientia Gratia aliquis proficere potest dupliciter uno modo secundum ip sos Habitus sapientiae Gratiae augmentatos sic Christus in eis non proficiebat alio modo secundum effectus in quantum aliquis sapientiora virtuosiora opera facit sic Christus proficiebat sapientiâ Gratiâ sicut aetate quia secundum processum aetatis perfectiora opera faciebat in his quae sunt ad Deum in his quae sunt ad homines One may increase in wisedom and Grace two waies One way according to the habits of them increased and so Christ increased not another way according to the effects when any doth more wise and vertuous works and so Christ increased in wisedom and Grace as he did in Age because according to the process of his Age he did more perfect works and that both in things belonging to God and men also 28. And thus are the Schoolmen understood by the Refuter himself in his producing their Testimonies as appears by the express words habitual Grace pag. 260. lin penult and holiness and the Image of God in him pag. 261. lin 13. And so 't is most clear their Consent belongs not even in his own opinion to the matter I had and have in hand no way denying but asserting a Capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Christs Love of God and the Expressions of it § 1. And now my good Refuter I pray deal ingenuously and speak plainly without any subterfuges and ambages Could any thing be said more fully for the proving the vanity of your Vse of Confutation For was not your Theme the All-fulness of habitual grace in Christ's Manhood Does not the Title of every Page from p. 229. to p. 297. speak as much Does not the whole carriage and Proof of your Doctrinal part evidence it Do you treat of any thing but that Nay do you not usher in your first Vse of Information from your former Doctrine thus From the dwelling of all-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ we may infer this Qualification and fitness for all his Offices c And then does it not follow in order after this Vse p. 258. thus Secondly this Point may serve for Confutation of a Passage in the learned Doctor Hammond against Mr. Cawdrey to wit that Christs Love of God was capable of further Degrees I pray Sir what does this Ordinal Secondly mean Has it not relation to that which went before Or what is the Antecedent to this Relative This Is it not the Point of the All-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ Is it not from hence that you conclude Doctor Hammond guilty Did you from pag. 237. to pag. 258. where begins your Vse of Confutation speak of any thing else Nay do you not continue on this Argument to pag. 297 Nay do your Authorities from Aquinas 3. part q. 7. art 12. in 3. Sent. dist 13. say any thing else Nay do not your Thomists and Scotists that you say are unanimous in asserting that the grace of Christs Humanity was in regard of †Vide Davenant in Coloss c. 1. v 19. p. 99 100. Suarez tom 1. in 3. Part. Thom. disp 22. sect 2. p. 322. et disp 26. p. 306. col 1 C. ibid. sect 2 p. 367. col 2. A. B. Gods Power ever which yet would be considered of were this a place fit for it Summa both positive and negative speak the same Are not your two reasons which you fetcht from Aquinas which you say are dilated on by his Commentators brought in only to this purpose Do you not say expresly in your first Reason 1. Ex parte Formae ipsius Gratiae The habitual Grace of Christ was referred unto the grace of Vnion as a consequent Ornament of it and therefore in all congruence it was to be suited and proportioned to it Is not your second Reason taken ex parte Subjecti to this purpose also Say you not that Christ was not pure Viator but in his soul he was also Comprehensor and that from the first instant of his incarnation He alwaies therefore in his soul enjoyed heaven happiness the beatifical vision and therefore all his Graces and consequently his Love of God were in termino and therefore could not admit any further degrees And do you not therefore adde to shew you speak only of habitual Grace that it is not to be denyed but that by special dispensation there was some restraint of the influence of happiness or beatifical vision in the whole course of his Humiliation and particularly in the time of his doleful Passion But surely it seems very improbable and no waies sortable unto the state of Christs blessedness for his Grace and Holiness the Image of God in him his Love of God c. to be liable unto perpetual motion and augmentation Sir If these be your Vide Jeanes Mixture of Scholast and Pract. Divinity p. 260 261. words even in the midst of your Vse of Confutation as you know they are what could be said more to the purpose to acquit the Doctor from the dint and force of it then he has done Your Subject is as clear as the Sun the fulness of Christs habitual Grace and nothing else and from this Doctrine you inferr your second Use a Vse of Confutation of Doctor Hammond who never any where denyed this fulness of habitual Grace and in the Passage you undertake to refute spake only of a gradual difference in respect of some Acts and some Expressions of Christs Love If this be not clearly to acquit himself I know not what is And I shall sooner expect that Calvin and Luther shall receive absolution in the Conclave at Rome then the Doctor in the Judgement of our Refuter But if this plea be not admitted I shall never believe that any thing can be proved and shall instantly turn Sceptick and think that all the world will be Pyrrhonists as well as my self I remember that somewhere it is reported of Diogenes that when a bold simple animal would against all sense and reason undertake to maintain there was no Motion he did instantly refute him with a blow on the Pate Yet I would not be mistaken All I urge this story for is to shew that Diogenes with his
Cudgel did not more clearly refute him that maintained there was no Motion then the Doctor by this Answer has overthrown your Vse of Confutation § 2. But the Doctor must comfort himself and patiently take up his Cross I see it is a part of his portion to be loaded with Vses of Confutation For when our Refuter cannot now deny the Doctors plea to be just and when he had cleared his Innocence from that charge and Crimination as if every line were a Sun-beam he now adventures by Engines and Consequences to torment and rack the Doctors words to acknowledge this guilt of the denial of the fulness of Christs habitual Grace For thus he saies in answer to the Doctors plea and it is divided into three Paragraphs for numero Deus impare gaudet JEANES 1. THey that can so easily foresee this your Reply may with as little difficulty foreknow the Objection against it to wit that the Intension of Christs actual Grace is exactly proportioned unto that of his habitual Grace and therefore your denial of the perpetual all-fulness of Christs actual Grace is a virtual and implied denial of the all-fulness of Christs habitual Grace and how you are provided of an Answer hereunto the event will shew It is not then so clear as you pretend That the testimony of the Schoolmen belongs not even in mine own opinion to the matter you had and have in hand 2. As for that place you quote out of Aquinas it is plain that therein by the effects of wisedom and Grace are meant such as are outward for these are most properly termed works And besides an intensive increase in the inward Acts of wisedom and Grace would argue and presuppose an intensive increase in the very Habits themselves 3. Whereas you say in the close of Section the 28. that the consent of the Schoolmen is no waies denying but asserting a capacity of Degrees among the Acts of Christs Love of God i. e. of the inward acts thereof There will be little sense in your words in themselves and less pertinency unto the matter in hand unless your meaning be as you else-where express your self that the inward Acts of Christ's Love of God were more intense at one time then at another and if this be your meaning I must needs assume the boldness to tell you that no such matter is visible unto me in any of the Schoolmen But perhaps you may mean such Schoolmen as such a Puny as I never saw or heard of however you cannot expect belief untill you produce their testimonies And I shall entreat you to alledge such as may be had in Pauls Church-yard or at least in the Library at Oxford § 2. Most gallantly spoken and with scorn and Confidence enough yet with far greater ignorance as shall instantly be proved § 3. But good Sir were all granted yet how serves this to prove Doctor Hammond guilty of denying the habitual fulness of grace in Christ the thing you undertook to make good in your Vse of Confutation inferred from the former Doctrine Have you said any thing of Deductions and Consequencies all along in that Discourse Nay do you not every where charge it upon him as his down-right opinion and do you not confront this Proposition That sincere Love is capable of Degrees with Proofs and Confirmations of the absolute fulness of Christs habitual Grace How you are provided of an Answer and defence of this so uncharitable Crimination the event has declared and though you are not so ingenuous as to acknowledge your Offence yet you dare not deny your Guilt and therefore you craftily raise a mist and a cloud that you may run away undiscovered But my good Achelous you shall not escape me so For I am resolved to hunt you Sir through all your shapes Etenim tibi saepe novandi Corporis ô Juvenis numero finita potestas Ovid. Metamor lib. 8. in fine § 4. Whereas then you say that the event will shew how the Doctor is provided of an Answer to your Objection against his Reply let me tell you that when the Event has declared how well you are provided to make good your Objection the Doctor will instantly be provided of an Answer § 5. But good Sir I had thought you had all this while been making good the Charge you laid in against him in your Vse of Confutation And is it now come only to an Objection against his Reply But for once I shall let it pass and take it for granted that the Doctor is innocent from the former Charge against which the Vse of Confutation was addressed and see whether de novo he can by Consequence be concluded guilty § 6. But what is this momentous Objection that is with as little difficulty foreknown as the Doctors Reply was easily foreseen Why in plain English this no less nor no more That the Intension of Christ's actual Grace is exactly proportioned unto that of his habitual Grace and therefore your denyal of the perpetual all-fulness of Christs actual Grace is a virtual and implied denyal of the all-fulness of Christs habitual Grace and then this will be enough at least by a Jus postliminio nati for it is built on a passage taken from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was Printed half a year after that the Charge against the Doctor was published to conclude the Doctor guilty of the Vse of Confutation § 7. A most weighty Objection indeed this and well worthy the second thoughts of a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity But I pray Sir how do you prove that the Intension of Christ's actual Grace is exactly proportioned unto that of his habitual Grace Prove me that Sir and I shall acknowledge Doctor Hammond confuted indeed But then withall I must adde that if this can be made good I shall anon also clearly prove that Mr. Jeanes and his friend Doctor Ames and Aquinas and divers others to boot are all as well as Doctor Hammond within the compass of the Lash of this Vse of Confutation I deny then your Antecedent and withall for your Comfort I tell you that it is impossible for you to prove it And if this be not proved since it is impossible from false Premisses Vide Arist 2. prior Analyt c. 2. that a Truth should per se and virtute praemiss arum be inferred I pray then Sir what will become of your Conclusion Must Doctor Hammond for all that be concluded guilty Or is the world bound to believe your Conclusion because it is inferred against the Doctor Well the world is grown to a fine pass and any thing shall be cried up for an Objection if it be thrown at Doctor Hammond as any thing was an Apple in Rome that was thrown at Vatinius § 8. But Sir to keep you close to the subject matter I shall here distinguish your Antecedent thus The Intension of Christ's actual Grace is exactly proportioned unto that of his habitual Grace so as it
anima corpore qui est unum Ens naturale licet habeat multitudinem partium ita etiam in actibus humanis actus inferioris potentiae materialiter se habet ad actum superioris in quantum inferior potentia agit in virtute superioris moventis ipsum sic enim actus moventis primi formaliter se habet ad actum instrumenti unde patet quod imperium actus imperatus sunt unus actus humanus sicut quoddam totum est unum sed est secundum partes multa To the same purpose also he speaks ibid. q. 18. art 6. in Corp. To the same purpose Durand * Durand 2. Sent. dist 42. q. 1. B. C. p. 153. col 1. Actus interior exterior sunt boni vel mali moraliter eâdem bonitate vel malitiâ secundum numerum quae est in actu interiori subjectivè in exteriori autem objectivè solum extrinsecé Quod patet dupliciter primò quia nulli actui convenit bonitas vel malitia moralis nisi voluntatio ut voluntarius est dicente Augustino quod peccatum adeo est voluntarium quod si non fuerit voluntarium non erit peccatum Sed actui interiori competit esse voluntarium subjectivè vel intrinsecè velle enim in voluntate est actui autem exteriori non competit esse voluntarium nisi objectivè actus enim exterior est objectum actus interioris voluntatis in hoc solum est voluntarius Ergo c. Though much more might be added to this purpose from other Schoolmen yet this is abundantly sufficient to clear the meaning of Aquinas and Suarez was not mistaken when he understood him of a real increase in the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace which are the formal parts of a moral Work or Action the exterior or outward Work being only the material part of it according to Aquinas his own Doctrine § 19. But he has another Reason behind that will strike it to a hair for he addes And besides an intensive increase in the inward Acts of Wisdom and Grace would argue and presuppose an intensive increase in the very Habits themselves § 20. But are you indeed sure of this good Mr. Refuter How then shall the Author of the Mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity I hope you know the man Sir escape the lash of this Vse of Confutation For though Doctor Hammond never said that there was an intensive growth in any one Act of divine Grace in Christ yet Mr. Jeanes himself has said it of many All that the Doctor ever said was only this that one Act of Divine Grace or holy Love and Charity in Christ compared with another Act was more high and intense as the light of the Sun is more intense though still equal in it self then the light of a Candle or a Starr of the least magnitude when both are compared together He saies that Christs ardency in one Act of Prayer to wit in the Garden was more intense then at another time in another Act when there was not that occasion for the heightning this Ardency He saies that Christs Love of us men was more high more intense in that Act of his Dying for us then in those other of his suffering Hunger Poverty Nakedness and the like He never saies that any one numerical Act was ever gradually intended § 21. But before I come to make this good from our Refuters own words let me be so bold to ask him how he proves that an intensive increase in the inward Acts of Wisedom and Grace would argue and presuppose an intensive increase in the very Habits themselves I deny it Sir I deny it and I beseech you let us have no more of your ipse dixit's for a proof For I assure you Sir you have all along shewed your self a most bold obtruder of the crudest notions on the world that I ever yet saw vented and published in print § 22. For are not Sir the inward Acts of the Habit of Grace elicite Acts of the Will and are they not absolutely free as the Will is from whence they flow Though it be not possible for any inward Act of the Will to be gradually more intense then the Habit is from whence it coeffectually with the Will flowes yet is not the Will free ab intrinseco I mean and still naturally at Liberty unless otherwise determined ab extrinseco by some superior command to act how and in what manner it pleases I have already demonstrated it and therefore shall not trouble the Reader with nauseous repetitions but shall recommend that piece of Art to our Refuter § 23. In short then though in acquisite Habits not yet perfect and compleat but only in fieri an intensive increase in the praecedaneous Acts that concurr to the Efficiency and Perfection of the Habit may argue and conclude an intensive increase in the very Habits themselves and * Vide Arist Eth. l. 2. c 2 3. Aristotle hath proved it yet in infused Habits and Habits now perfectly acquired and compleat and full the Intension and Remission of the Acts that are subsequent and now flow from the Habit as the Effect from the Cause does not argue a proportionable increase or decrease in the Habit but only an innocent exercise of the Liberty of the Will if that be not by some superior Cause or Command limited to a constant equality of acting which yet our Refuter has not undertook to make good in respect of all the internal Acts that flowed from that all-full and perfect Habit of Grace in our Blessed Lord. § 24. But now here enters a Conqueror indeed Nothing now but Ovations and Triumphs can serve the turn And that it may be done to purpose behold he sings his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself in a loftier strain then Nero did when he returned from his Conquest of the Graecian Musicians For in the 3d. § he cries Whereas you say in the close of Section the 28 that the consent of the Schoolmen is no waies denying but asserting a Capacity of Degrees amongst the Acts of Christs Love of God i. e. of the inward Acts thereof there will be little sense in your words in themselves and less pertinency unto the matter in hand unless your meaning be as you elsewhere express your self that the inward Acts of Christs Love of God were more intense at one time then at another Well Sir it shall be granted you for asking that it was the Doctors meaning that some inward Acts of Divine Charity in Christ were more high more intense at one time then others were at another But what then why And if this be your meaning saies our Refuter I must needs assume the boldness to tell you that no such matter is visible unto me in any of the Schoolmen But perhaps you may mean such Schoolmen as such a Puisny as I never saw or heard of However you cannot expect belief untill you produce their
Confutation That sincere Love was capable of Degrees was first shewed in several men at several times in the several rankes of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one Act of Prayer then in another But if the words of themselves were not so clear and plain yet the whole subject matter of the Treatise of Will-worship and the Account to Mr. Cawdrey would abundantly declare it For is not the whole business and design of those Discourses to shew that there be some Acts and Degrees of Piety and Devotion that are not commanded by any particular Law which yet are acceptable to God when performed and that Love which is sincere in the Habit is capable of Degrees in the several Acts and exercise And is it not for this among other Instances that this example of Christs ardency in Prayer is produced by him How then was it possible that you should be so strangely mistaken And what Temptation could you have to charge the Doctor with the denial of the habitual fulness of Christ's Grace from a Passage that speaks expresly of the Act a thing specifically distinct from it However you are a courteous man to take the Doctors word at last for his own meaning that best knew it of any man in the world But proceed in your new-begun ingenuity and take your pen and write a Deleatur also to your Vse of Confutation For to what purpose serves that against Doctor Hammond that never denied or so much as questioned your Doctrine of the Fulness of habitual Grace If you believe as you profess the world will count you unjust unless you write an Index expurgatorius unto your former Treatise For the Schoolmen will tell you non tollitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum and you cannot otherwise restore the Doctor his good Name of which you have by your confession so unjustly so unworthily robbed him § 4. But hold we are too quick and nimble For saies he not he will make the Charge good by Consequence although the Doctor never meant it Sure the man was born under a Mood-and-Figure-Planet and Ferio was the Lord of his Ascendent he is altogether for Consequences But what 's the Consequence It is this to a word and syllable JEANES THat Objection which is urged against the perpetual all-fulness and perfection of Christs actual Love the inward Acts of his Love of God strikes against the perpetual all-fulness and perfection of his habitual Love because the degrees of the inward Acts of his Love of God are commensurate unto the degrees of his habitual Love For they have no degrees at all but secundariò in regard of the Habit of his Love but now this Objection is urged by you against the perpetual all-fulness and perfection of his actual Love the inward Acts of his Love for it is brought to prove that the inward Acts of Christs Love were more intense at one time then another and a greater intension presupposeth a remission and imperfection for intensio est eductio rei intensae de imperfecto ad perfectum as Aquinas very often Therefore this Objection strikes against the perpetual fulness and perfection of Christs actual Love of God and so consequently against the perpetual fulness and perfection of his habitual Love § 5. What a monstrous Syllogism is here Like the Trojan horse it has Troops of Arguments and Proofes in the bowels of it and the Major Minor and Conclusion are not bare Propositions but Syllogismes themselves It is not a single Man of warr but a Spanish half-Moon an invincible Armado linck'd and coupled together O patria O Divûm domus Ilium inclyta bello Moenia Dardanidûm Now or never Troy is Virgil. taken and Doctor Hammond confuted § 6. But Sir there is nothing proved all this while but only by your own venerable authority For what if the whole be no other then a Sophisme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Doctors Assertion will by no means inferr your Conclusion For proof of it I first deny your Major there is no consequence at all in it for we have already demonstrated that Acts which issue from Habits that are seated in the Will are free and not necessary effects of the Will from whence they flow and therefore may be gradually different in themselvs where the Habit continues gradually one and the same We have shewed you also from Reason and Scripture and Authority of Protestants and Papists as learned as any from Schoolmen and Fathers also that there was a gradual difference in some Acts of Christs Wisedom and Grace and that they did successively increase in Perfection as he himself did in Stature though the Infused Habit of Wisedom and Grace were in him alwaies at the utmost height both intensively and extensively § 7. But what are all the Fathers and Schoolmen that are to be had in Paul's Church-yard or in the Library at Oxford to the purpose if he can prove his Major which thus he does If the degrees of the inward Acts of Christs Love are commensurate unto the degrees of his habitual Love then whosoever saies the Acts are not alwaies intensively perfect saies also by consequence that the. Habit is not alwaies intensively perfect But the degrees c. Ergo. § 8. Here Sir you are in danger of a double Sophism For first you prove Ignotum per ignotius aut aliquid saltem aeque ignotum because it is as doubtful in the sense you should mean if you speak to the present purpose whether the degrees of the inward Acts of Christs Love are so commensurate unto the degrees of his habitual Love as still to equal them in intensive perfection and to assert it without Proof is Sophisma 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly if you conclude that the Acts and Habits are commensurate in every thing because they are commensurate in this that the Act can never exceed in Perfection the Habit from whence it effectively flowes as you do all along in this Discourse but more particularly in your first Argument p. 25 26. you most sophistically argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For though the Acts of Christs Love may be full and perfect in suo genere yet they may not be all equal in themselves and with the Habit and though they may and must be commensurate with the Habit as not to exceed it in perfection because they are the effects of the Habit yet they may not for all that still equal the gradual perfection of the Habit because the Habit is not a necessary but a voluntary cause and the Acts that flow from it are all Acts of the Will And consequently this way of proof will be no other then a plain Sophism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus Because the Act Arist l. 1. Soph Elen. h. c. 4. is in some respect commensurate with the Habit Ergo it must alsolutely and in every respect be commensurate with it just as if I should argue Mr.
Love of Christ in sincerity Eph. 6. 24. § 30. Thirdly this appears from the several Acts the Doctor instances in that consisted in a Latitude the Love of Adam in innocence the Zeal of the Martyrs and Confessors for Christ in their patience and sufferings the ardency of Christ in several acts of Prayer the different ardency of Prayer in other men which he acquits from sin by the example of Christ and lastly by several acts of Mercy and Liberality to the poor All which as it is plain they are Acts of the infused Grace of holy Charity all rooted in that high sublime Love immediately centred in God himself so clear it is that they are not that Love as thus specially and properly taken but rather fruits and expressions of it § 31. Lastly this will appear from express words in the Doctor § 5. of that Section thus Still it must be remembred saies he that it is not the sinless Perfection we speakof when we say it consists in a Latitude and hath Degrees but Sincerity of this or that vertue I pray mark it good Sir exprest in this or that performance and as this though it excludes not all mixture of sin in the Suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that Act for it is certain that I may in an act of Mercy mark it again give as much as any law obligeth me to give and so not sin in giving too little so to this his answer belongs not at all nor shewes any difference or reason why such Sincerity may not in any pious Christian be capable of Degrees as well as in Christ himself I pray good Sir mark it and the lower of them be sinless and all the superiour voluntary oblations more then the strict Law required of us § 32. And thus also was the Doctor understood by Mr. Cawdrey in his instance in Christ himself For whereas the Doctor had urged he was more intense in Praier at one time then another when yet the lower degree was no sin to this Mr. Cawdrey answers That Christ was above the Law and did more then the Law of God required but men fall short many degrees of what is required § 33. Nay the Doctor was understood in this sense by the Author of the Mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity himself For whereas his Theme had been the All-fulness of habitual Grace in Christ from pag. 230. to 256. he there begins to draw out four Vses from that Doctrine so largely before handled The second whereof is a Vse of Confutation of Doctor Hammond thus pag. 258. Secondly this point of the fulness of habitual Grace in Christ may serve for Confutation of a passage in the learned Doctor Hammond against Mr. Cawdrey to wit That Christs Love of God or habitual Grace for it were nothing to the purpose as the Doctor in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we also have already shewed to understand it of any thing else was capable of further Degrees And for proof of his Charge he quotes this very Section § 4 5. p. 222. And in this sense he did oppose the Doctor all along in his Vse of Confutation witness this short passage for all the rest pag. 259. And the falshood of such an assertion to wit that Christs Love of God wa◠capable of Degrees is evident from the point here handled and confirmed the absolute fulness of Christs Grace which by the general consent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was such as that it excluded all intensive growth It was a sequele of the personal union and therefore it was from the very first moment of his Conception The Word was no sooner made Flesh but it was forthwith full of Grace and Truth His Love of God was uncapable of further Degrees unto whom God gave not the Spirit that is the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit by measure § 34. Indeed as it had been nothing to that Authors purpose and his Vse of Confutation had appeared absolutely groundless to have understood the Doctor in any other sense so had it been nothing to the Doctors Argument also if by the Love of God all along in those Discourses he had understood any thing else then the several Acts of that divine Grace of holy Charity which he said consisted in a Latitude For the question in the Treatise of Will-worship was whether that first great Law Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. did oblige every man by way of Duty to the utmost height of perfection possible in every Act of Grace and goodness or to such a Sincerity in the several Acts of this or that Vertue or Grace that consists in a Latitude and hath Degrees The Doctor asserted the latter and Mr. Cawdrey undertook to make good the legal obligation to the former And therefore as it had been a vain and fruitless attempt for the Doctor to have laboured to make good his Conclusion by instancing in that Act of Christ's Love which every Smatterer in Theology and the Schoolmen knowes to be necessary because it is actus Comprehensoris so it had been nothing to the Doctors purpose because this Act being necessary and flowing per modum emanationis as they speak it could not come possibly under the power of a Command or the notion of a Duty Because the Saints in Patria that are Comprehensores that see God face to face love him alwaies to one height and fulness because they alwaies know and enjoy him at that height they love and therefore love him perfectly because they are now perfectly united to him it can be no argument or pattern for us men that are now in via to love God to that height because we can love God but to the height of our Knowledge of him And as they love God necessarily and naturally as I may so speak since their glorification because therein consists the height of Heaven's happiness so we love God freely and by way of Duty in order to that happiness which Duty consists not in one indivisible point and height in every act of habitual Grace but in sincerity that admits of a Latitude of performance in the several Acts of Grace as our Knowledge is enlarged and Occasion does require § 35. No other sense then can rationally be affixed to this phrase the Love of God either in the Treatise of Will-worship or the Vindication of it against Mr. Cawdrey Nor can any other sense be affixed on it in the Ectenesteron also For if I have not miscounted it is but 13. times to be met with in that Treatise and in most of them they are the words of Mr. Jeanes in his Vse of Confutation and are taken up by the Doctor for a necessity of argument rather then choice § 36. Besides it being a vindication of himself from a false imputation in that Vse of Confutation for a denial of the fulness of habitual
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
made of the Proposition by any man that understands the nature of Intension and Remission Nor is the Minor less evident to any that considers the nature of these efficacious and inefficacious Acts of Christ's Will holy Love De actibus efficacibus voluntatis Christi saies Suarez Suarez in 1. p. Thom. disp 38. sect 2. p. 524. c. 2. A. B. quod in illo fuerint perfectissimi nulla est difficultas aut dubitandi ratio constat enim per hos actus operatum esse omnia virtutis opera divinae voluntati ac jussioni obsecutum esse ac denique mortem ipsam suscepisse So again for those Acts which they call inefficaces Scio nonnullos authores non admittere hos actus imperfectos nisi in voluntate ut naturâ est c. Suarez ibid. p. 525. col 1. F. Voluntas seu desiderium inefficax Christi non semper habuit effectum seu impletum fuit Et ratio ex ipsis terminis constat quia si actus est inefficax non est cur semper habeat effectum imo tunc tantum per hujusmodi actum Christus aliquid volebat quando simpliciter nolebat illud fieri sed potius contrarium Suarez ibid. sect 4. pag. 530. col 1. D. § 68. Secondly I thus argue That Act of Christ's Will whereby he laid down his life for his sheep was more high and gradually intense then those other Acts of his Will when he prayed for a removal of the bitter cup of death if it had been possible or then the other Acts of his will and endeavour of the Jewes conversion by his three years preaching and miracles among them But these were Acts issuing from the Habit of Divine Charity and holy Love in Christ Therefore Some Acts that issue from the Habit of divine Charity were more high and gradually intense then other Acts of the same Habit. § 69. From whence further it seems to me at least most unavoidably to follow that though by that prime fundamental law of Divine Charity we are bound to love God with all our heart with all our soul and with all our mind yet this only obliges us to love him so as to prefer nothing before or above him so as in every Act we desire nothing but what is holy just and honest and quoad specificationem as they speak conformable to his holy Will as himself has revealed in his holy lawes and precepts and what also tends to his honour and glory and not in every Act pro hîc nunc quoad exercitium as they speak to the most high most noble and intense degree of holy Charity For otherwise I see not how these inefficacious conditionate desires of our Blessed Saviour can be excused from the breach of this Law because they had neither the most noble immediate material Objects nor were so gradually intense as other Acts of holy Charity were And yet most assured we are that all his desires and inclinations as well as his actions were holy just and good and conformable to Gods Will and were the true and genuine fruits of the Habit of Divine Grace But now most certain it is that though he came into the world for none other end then to reconcile the world unto his Father by his Death though he had received an express command from him and also voluntarily contracted and covenanted with him to perform it and though it was in it self the most high and transcendent Act of holy Charity to his neighbour imaginable yet for all that he truly and really and not in shew and complement only declined the bitter cup though still with submission to Gods will For first he prayed not only prolixius but intensius also as shall in due place be proved he prayed thrice and he prayed also more Ardently then at other times for the removal of this bitter Cup the apprehension of the approaching torment and the horror of his Fathers wrath made his soul sorrowful even to Death and it cast him into such an Agony that he sweat great drops of blood through his cloathes down to the ground so sad and so grieved he was that an Angel was sent to comfort and support him against the present conflict and approaching torments which he did by proposing the joyes set before Proprius ut ego existimo magis ad rem exponitur Angelum confortâsse Christum proponendo rationes quae possent ejus tristitiam lenire inferiorem partem confortare unde non fit Angelum docuisse Christum non enim propterea ad illum eum sermonem habuit quia Christus eas rationes ignoraret vel illas per se considerare non posset sed quia it a per rationem superiorem illas considerabat ut nullum inde solatium communicari permitteret inferiori parti ut magis constaret veritas Passionis ejus voluit Angelico ministerio rationes illas proponi quasi in memoriam revocari Et hoc modo dicitur Angelus quantum in se erat confortâsse Christum quanquam ipse neque illud consolationis genus acceptare visus sit statim enim factus in Agonia prolixius orabat Et hanc expositionem magis indicat D. Thomas hic quam ex Beda refert Luc. 22. sed etiam Hieronymi Dialogo 2do contra Pelagianos Hilarii lib. 10. de Trinitate Cyrilli Alexandrini Epist 9. Damasceni l. 3 de Fide c. 20. Bernardi sermone 1. de Sancto Andrea Suarez in 1. par Thom. q. 12. art 4. in Commentar p. 398. col 2. B. C. Vide Jansen Concord in loc H. Grot. in Annot in loc him the short and fading sharpness of those bitter torments Gods glory and the enlargement of his own Dominion over men and Angels and the freeing and the reconciling of a world of sinners unto God his Father Not that he himself was ignorant of them or did want a monitor now to mind him and bring them to his present consideration but only that his superiour intellectual part did so wholly now affix and dwell upon them that he would not suffer any comfort to be thence administred to the inferiour faculty that now did naturally therefore innocently abhor these cruel sufferings And hence it was that so the truth of his humane nature and sufferings might appear that he made use of an Angels ministry and support to strengthen him As therefore the inferiour sensual part in him did truly because naturally abhor and dread the approaching torments as destructive to it 's Being so our Blessed Saviour did innocently because naturally in compliance with these apprehensions desire and pray for a removal of them though still with a submission in the superiour part of these desires to his Fathers will Nor was there here as shall in due place more fully be declared any repugnance or contradiction of the inferiour faculties to the superiour or of his sensual will to God his Fathers * Vide Suarez in 3 p. Thom. infra
〈◊〉 more earnestly justified The Refuter's Non-sense What Ardency in Christ it was that was heightned Luk. 22. 43. Comprehensor Viator what In what state whether of Comprehensor or Viator Christ was in a Capacity to pray as that signifies either Petition Deprecation or Thanksgiving and this whether only for others or also for himself Of Prayer and the several kinds Whether though Christ were in a capacity thus to pray yet being God that was able of himself to accomplish whatsoever he might desire as Man it was expedient for him to do so and whether God had so determined What things Christ might and did pray for both for himself and others Mr. Hooker commended Whether Christ did in truth and reality or only in shew pray for a removal of that Cup which he came on purpose to drink Whether these Prayers and Desires were not repugnant to Gods Decree and the end of his coming into the world and his own peremptory resolution to drink it How those desires for a removall of this Cup might be advanced notwithstanding his readiness and resolution to drink it How Christs Ardency in Prayer for a removal of this Cup might be increased above what it either was or there was occasion for at other times Of the greatness of his Agony and bloody sweat How his Zeal in Prayer at this time might be advanced without derogation from the fulness of his habitual Grace the impeccability of his Soul and the uninterrupted happiness of it and perfect Love as he was Comprehensor Strictures on the former part of the Refuters second Answer Doctor HAMMOND § 35. BVt then 2ly saies he suppose we stick unto our own translation yet the place may fairely be so interpreted as that it may no waies advantage the purpose of the Doctor for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more earnestly may be considered in reference either to the Object unto whom he prayed God or the matter against which he prayed the evils with which he conflicted in his agony First then he did not in his Agony pray more earnestly then at other times if we consider his Prayer in reference unto the Object unto whom it was God The religion and inward worship of his Prayer was for Degrees alwaies alike equal His trust and dependance upon God love of zeal and devotion towards God from which all his Prayers flowed were not at one time more intense then at another But now 2ly he prayed more earnestly in his Agony then at other times in regard of the matter against which he prayed the evils which he encountred with which if they were not greater then those that he deprecated in the former prayer v. 42. yet at least they made a greater impression upon his humane nature for they put him into a bloody sweat Being in an Agony he prayed more earnestly and his sweat was as it were drops of blood falling down to the ground § 36. These are the words of his second answer and they are in the second part the very distinct confession of all that I pretend in this matter and therefore I need not make reflections on the first part of them for whatsoever or how great soever the occasion of the increase of his intension was which I am willing to believe proportionable to the degree of the intension a very weighty occasion that thus inflamed his Ardency yet still 't is confest that on this occasion he now prayed more earnestly then at other times that which now approached made a greater impression on his humane nature which what is it but a proof of the point by me asserted that Christ himself was more ardent in one Act of prayer this in his Agony then in another § 37. As for the greatness of the occasion so profestly great as to cast him into that prodigious sweat falling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were drops of blood that may testifie but it cannot prejudge the ardency which was occasioned thereby § 38. 'T was not in Christ he will easily suppose with me as it is oft discernable in many of us that those which really have no sincerity of love or zeal to God can yet like the Marriners in the Tempest by some pressing fear or danger be awaked to but formal and be they never so loud hypocritically zealous prayers § 39. The Ardency in Christ was sincere ardency accompanied with acts of love trust of the same temper and the heightning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was an addition of Degrees to that Act of Ardency and so of prayer and proportionably of love and trust in God above either what there was or what there was occasion for at other times § 1. To this our Refuter does reply very much yet not a word to the purpose which that I may clearly demonstrate I shall follow him step by step JEANES 1. FIrst you pretend in Sect. 21. of this your Reply that the inward acts of Christ's love of God were more intense at one time then another Now this is not contained expresly nor can it by any Logick be inferred from the words of the second part of my second answer that he prayed more earnestly in his Agony then at other times in regard of the matter against which he prayed c. and therefore this second part of my second answer is not the very distinct confession of all that you pretend in this matter and therefore notwithstanding them you must make reflections on the first part of my answer or else you will never reply thereunto § 2. To this I answer that what our Refuter saies the Doctor pretends in his 21th Section is an undeniable Truth and not only the Doctor but I also after him have most clearly demonstrated that the Inward Acts of Christ's Love of God or the all-full and perfect Habit of Divine Charity were more intense at one time then at another and then further I have proved that of necessity they must be so and this I have further confirmed by evident clear testimonies from some of the prime School-men antient and modern And if the Doctor never pretended to no more then this in any part of his writings then I must tell you Sir that if this Proposition also may be Logically inferred from these words of your second Answer although it be not there expressed then the Doctor most rationally asserted that this second part of your second answer was the very distinct confession of all that he pretended in that matter and therefore he neither then had nor shall hereafter need to make any reflections on the first part of your answer because his reply is very solid and sufficient without it And yet Sir by the way give me leave to tell you that I may to gratifie you make some reflections on it before you and I part § 3. And now that I may clearly prove that this assertion of the Doctors is most rationally logically collected from the words of the second part of
nam ante genua flexerat nunc toto corpore in terram procumbit ut ex Matthaeo Marco diximus eo autem situ corporis orare viri sancti solebant in extrema necessitate Quare errant qui hic confundunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc enim est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 H. Grot. in loc the very posture he now made use of does argue a more then ordinary vehemence and zeal and intenseness For before he prayed kneeling but now he falls prostrate and flat upon his face which as it is an argument of the most deep and profound humiliation so it is an effect and symptome of the most vehement Ardour and fervency in Prayer And therefore saies Grotius on the place Augescente dolore intendebat vim precationis gestu quoque id ipsum exprimens And the accurate * Beza in loc Beza though the Vulgar and Erasmus read prolixius saies by way of correction of this reading Ego verò malo ad ipsam orationis qualitatem referre tum hoc loco tum alibi and consequently in his Version he renders it intensius orabat With him agrees Piscator and he gives his reason as we have seen and accordingly the French the Dutch the Spanish the Italian do all render it as they do And thus we have both Reason and the consent of the most eminent modern Translations and three of the best literal Expositors all concurring with our Translation to the justifying of Doctor Hammond And therefore if it be true as without doubt it is that our Saviour was now more ardent in Prayer then formerly I doubt not but with as great evidence and clearness to inferre from it the Doctors assertion of a greater intenseness in this Act of Charity then at other times For if Ardency in Prayer be an high Act of Piety and Devotion as without doubt it is since the Apostle charges us to be fervent in Jam. 5. 16. Ephes 6. 18. Colos 4. 2. 1 Pet. 4. 7. prayer and that be an Act of Divine Charity and holy Love then it will evidently follow and our Refuter must not deny it that if this Ardency of our Saviour was in this his Agony so heightned and inflamed that now he prayed more earnestly then formerly without doubt for the Comparative imports more degrees then the Positive with which it is compared then this inward Act of Christ's Love and holy Charity at least was more intense at one time then another and consequently if our Refuter grant the one as plainly he does in the words of his second Part of his second answer he must of necessity grant the other as the Doctor had inferred quod erat demonstrandum § 6. But he thinks he has sufficiently prevented this sequele by that which he has added in this Reply as also he had done in the words of the second part of his second answer For he saies JEANES 2. THat the Ardency of Christ was a sincere ardency is not doubted of all the question is what ardency it was in Christ that was heightned § 7. Sir you whose reserches are so curious that you can find knots in Bul-rushes and write nothing but Quodlibets may question any thing you may doubt whether it be day when the Sun is in its Zenith you may make the world believe Doctor Hammond understands not the import of his own mother-tongue But they who will not be wilfully blind and complain for want of light in the midst of the Sun-shine may with half an eye see what Ardency it was in Christ that was heightned For saies not the Evangelist expresly that being in an Agony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed the more earnestly If in Grammatical construction the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can agree to nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being an Adverb of comparison denoting more Degrees of intenseness and agreeing with a verb Active of Prayer of necessity it must denote that the Ardency which was now in this Agony heightned was an Ardency in the Act of Prayer and being resolved into a Logical Proposition it is only this That Vide Hookers Eccles Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 279 towards the end the Ardency of the inward Act of Christ's Prayer and Devotion was now more gradually intense then before § 8. But now since he is so Eagle-eyed that without the help of Scheiner's Tubus Opticus he can discover spots in the Sun no wonder it is that he goes on thus profoundly JEANES There was as I plainly intimated in my Answer a two fold Ardency in Christs prayer one regarding God unto whom he prayed and this was seated in the Acts of Love and trust tanquam modus in re modificata another respected the matter against which he prayed and the res modificata of this ardency was the acts of fear of and grief for those evills with which he encountred § 10. You have said Sir and you might have replied with as much pâ—mp and astonishment to your vulgar reader that this Ardency might have been taken either Archipodialiter or Reflexivè and as much to the purpose you had spoken and as well it would have been understood § 11. For to dispell the Clouds that hang about your discourse and to draw the Curtain from before your mysterious Ompha that makes your ignorant Votaries to admire it with such Religion and reverence in plain English it is only this There was a two-fold Ardency or intension in the inward Acts of Christs Prayer the one was an intension or gradual heightning of the inward Acts of Christs Love and Trust in God to whom he prayed the other was an intension or gradual advancement of the inward Acts of Fear and Grief for the Evills with which he encountred And now that I may not seem to wrong you I shall demonstrate that this was your meaning and no other if you your self did understand what you meant when you set pen to paper § 12. To what can you understand by the Ardency of Christ regarding God unto whom he prayed Est aliquid in rebus quod neque res ipsa est neque alia res neque prorsus nihil sed medium quid inter rem nihil Atque illud solet appellari modus rei Ex. gr gradus qualitatis non est qualitas neque etiam omnino nihil est sed est modus qualitatis Itaque cum qualitas intenditur aut remittitur non fit alia qualitas sed fit qualitas aliûs modi Et cum qualitas aut alia aliqua res istâ ratione mutatur dicitur modaliter distingui à seipsa sic calor in primo gradu distinguitur à seipso in secundo aut tertio gradu manus explicata à seipsa contracta Burgersdic Log. l. 1. c. 21. theor 5. § 1. p. 96. Vide Suarez Metaph. disp 46
elicit actum conformem inclinationi naturali quae semper est ad commodum dicitur autem libera in quantum in potestate ejus est ita elicere actum oppositum inclinationi sicut conformem non elicere sicut elicere Scotus l 3. Sent. aist 17. q. 1. § 3. p. 127. col 2. Est enim voluntas naturalis non re sed ratione diversa à voluntate rationali quatenus videlicet non per modum naturae movetur velut dum naturaliter refugit ea quae sunt naturae contraria secundum se mala ut mortem cruciatus hujusmodi Estius l. 3. Sent. d. 17. §. 3 p. â—0 col 1. E. Vide Durand ibid. q. 1. art 1. of Christ that his Will had a two-fold operation the one natural and necessary which moving according to the order necessity of nature does simply and without deliberation desire whatsoever is in it self good and decline from and abhorr whatsoever is hurtful And therefore they call this Voluntas ut natura and Voluntas sensualitatis a willingness of nature and a sensual inclination § 41. The other rational and deliberate whereby it follows and embraces those things as good which the superiour faculty of the Soul the Mind and Understanding upon due pondering and consideration preferrs as good to that end which we simply and absolutely desire though otherwise never so burdensome This they call Voluntas ut ratio and Appetitus Rationalis § 42 For instance The Will desires the End absolutely but the Means in order to that end The Physician affects not the Scorpion and the Viâ—er but only for his antidote and medicine Though the stomach loaths the Potion and the flesh trembles at the Application of the Caustick yet Reason conquers Nature and the sickman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a kind of unwilling willingness submits to the Cure which in health he would as much abhor as now he does his Disease Though his Judgement tells him the Medicine is for his recovery yet Nature cannot chuse but express her reluctance even when it is applyed And therefore the great Philosopher tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they are a kind of mixt actions and though in order to the end that now Reason preferrs they are willingly Vide Aristot l. 3. Eth. c. 1. §. 3. per totum Vide H. Grot. Annot. in Matt. ca. 26. ver 39. Voluntas autem simpliciter hominis est rationis voluntas hoc enim absolute volumus quod secundum deliberatam rationem volumus Illud autem quod volumus secundum motum sensualitatis vel etiam secundum motum voluntatis simplicis quae consideratur ut natura nonsimpliciter volumus sed secundum quid scil si aliud non obsistat quod per deliberationem rationis invenitur Vnde talis voluntas magis est dicenda Velleitas quaÌ„ absoluta Voluntas quia scil homo hoc vellet si aliud non obsisteret Aquin. 3. part q 21. art 4. in Corp. Vide Cajetan in loc embraced yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no man would willingly choose them for their own sakes § 43. The Schools do well distinguish these several Acts of the Will and the one they call Actus voluntatis efficaces absolutos Vide Suarez in 3. part Thom. tom 1. disp 38. sect 2. the other inefficaces conditionatos We have already given the reason from Suarez In the one Nature expresses her present sense and apprehension in the other her Reason and Judgement that looks beyond the present which Sense cannot attain to § 44. Now these two Operations of the Will being supposed to be as truly in Christ as in all other men it will not be difficult to shew how at one and the same moment he might both tremble and stand amazed at the apprehension of his approaching Sufferings and yet most willingly submit to them he might both ardently and now more intensely pray for a removal of the bitter Cup and yet most earnestly long to taste it pray most sincerely to his Father against it and yet pray that his Fathers will might be fulfilled notwithstanding his Prayer and all this without any clashing or Opposition between his own desires among themselves or the least Repugnance to Gods Laws or Decrees or the least derogation to his own superlative Love and Charity to Mankind whom he came to purchase with his bloud And therefore God might most justly preordain that all this should be done by Christ notwithstanding any seeming contrariety to be found in it and Christ notwithstanding he knew his Father had decreed he should drink up the very dreggs of this bitter Cup might pray for a removal of it if it had been possible § 45. To clear this First then as to the matter of fact I suppose it most evident from the Scriptures That our Saviour at the very apprehension of his approaching Torments was possessed with such astonishment and terrour that he not only prayed thrice but more earnestly also for the removal of this Cup and in his agony he fell into a bloody sweat so that an Angel was sent to comfort him 2. That he so willingly and cheerfully submitted himself to death that for the joy set before him he endured the Cross and despised the shame and though he was oppressed and afflicted yet Heb. 12. 2. opened he not his mouth but brought he was as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb so opened he Esay 53. 7. not his mouth § 46. As much willingness is here as can possibly be imagined and yet as much dread and astonishment as could seize on flesh and bloud But yet here is no opposition no tumult and thwarting between the superiour and inferiour faculties and desires but only two several and distinct inclinations the one avoiding death as abhorrent to nature because destructive to its present being the other accepting it as most rationally to be embraced for the Redemption of the world Two disparate Acts of the will indeed they are but not contrary and the repugnance between them is only in shew and not in truth For the great †Aristot l. 2. de Sophist Elench c. 5. circa medium apud me pag. 435. A. Philosopher has told us that all Opposition that is really such must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Vide Luc. Brugens in Matt. c. 26. vers 39. Dicendum quod contrarietas non potest esse nisi Oppositio attendatur in eodem secundum idem si autem secundum diversa in diversis existat diversitas non sufficit hoc ad rationem contrarietatis sicut nec ad rationem contradictionâ—â— puta quod homo sit pulcher aut sanus secundum manum non secundam pedem Aquin. 3. part q. 18. art 6. in Corp. Between these desires and resolutions there was a diversity but no contrariety a subordination but no repugnance or resistance There was no contrariety
verò fuit hic metus quod veriti sunt Christum tanto dolori subjicere ne ejus gloriam minâ—erent c. Calvin in Commentar ad Psal 22. vers 2 3. p 9â— Quod si primo conflictu elicitae fuerunt sanguinis guttae ut opus fuerit Consolatore Angelo non mirum est si in ultimo Agone confessus est tantum dolorem c. Calvin ibid. were not only for a shew and to be taken notice of by men but they came from the heart the heightned outcries the streams and flouds of tears and strong clamors were true and real symptomes of a more then ordinary fervour a more intense ardency then formerly he had accasion for And therefore we may well conclude that as his now approaching torments made a stronger impression on his humane Nature then at other times so now on this occasion he prayed the more earnestly then at other times As the occasion was weighty for the inflaming of his zeal so it cannot be denyed but his fervency was advanced to a proportionable degree And so as the Doctor saies his bloody Agony may well testifie but it cannot prejudge the ardency that by this occasion was heightned § 73. And therefore †Non ergo sine causa ipse quoque Dominus quum precibus incumbere vehementius vellet in secessum procul hominum tumultu se conferebat c. Calvin Institut lib. 3. c. 20. §. 29. Mr. Calvin not only acknowledges that our Blessed Saviour did sometimes pray more ardently then at other times but also demonstrates that times of trouble distress are fit opportunities for the heightning of our fervour and ardency in Prayer and that then Vide Calvin in Matt. 26. 39. Institut lib. 2. c. 16. §. 11 12. more especially God calls upon us for it His words are these Si quis objiciat non semper aequali necessitate urgeri nos ad precandum fateor id quidem atque haec distinctio nobis à Jacobo utiliter traditur * Jac. 5. 13. Tristatur quis inter vos oret qui laetus est canat Ergo dictat ipse communis sensus quia nimium pigri sumus prout res exigit nos acrius à Deo pungi ad strenue orandum Psal 32. 6. Et hoc tempus opportunum nominat David quia sicuti pluribus aliis locis docet quo nos durius premunt molestiae incommoda timores aliaeque species tentationum ac si nos Deus ad se accerseret liberior patet accessus Calvin Institut l. 3. c. 20. § 7. So again to this purpose § 29. Sed enim istud nihil obstat quo minus unaquaeque Ecclesia cum subinde ad frequentiorem precationum usum se extimulare tum majore aliqua necessitate admonita acriore studio flagrare debeat § 74. And therefore since as Mr. Calvin most truly a time of great affliction is a fit season for the heightning our zeal and devotion and God then more signally calls upon us for it Our Saviour all whose actions especially of this nature were for 2 Pet. 2. 21. our example and instruction did now in this his Agony pray more earnestly to teach us what we should do in such cases and that we might learn from his practise that a Time of affliction is a season for the growth of our inward ardency and devotion and intenseness in Prayer as well as for the outward clamors and outcries Quoderat demonstrandum § 75. And therefore though it is evident that now it will be lost labour to make any reflections upon the former part of our Refuters second Answer yet to gratifie him in these his injunctions I shall cast some light strictures on it though the Doctor did not because it was needless § 76. Whereas then our Refuter saies in the application of the first branch of his second answer That if we consider Christs prayer in reference unto the Object unto whom it was made God the religion and inward worship of his Prayer was for degrees alwaies alike equal His trust and dependance upon God love of zeal and devotion towards God from which all his Prayers flowed were not at one time more intense then at another § 77. To this I answer First 1. That if these be considered in the Habit without doubt they were alwaies alike equal they were not at one time more intense then at another because habitually they were alwaies in him in the full height and Perfection But then this is not the question between him and the Doctor 2. But then secondly if these be considered in their several Acts and if we shall compare them one with another there must of necessity be a gradual difference in them according to the present exigence and occasion The reason is one and the same in these and all other Acts of vertue quod scilicet as Cajetan truly si homo exercet Cajetan in 2. 2. q. 38. art 12. in respons ad terlium eos tenetur eos exercere cum debitis circumstantiis A man is bound to perform them with all due and lawful circumstances And therefore though the Habit of divine Charity of Religion and Devotion c. be alwaies full yet the will of Christ did perform the several Acts of those graces according to those due measures and circumstances that Gods Law required His love to God in the Act I mean in that high that transcendent Act of divine Love immediately terminated on God was at the height his own glory and exaltation in the Humane Nature he loved in a proportionable degree next to that and then the Church and then his own life which yet he laid down for the redemption of the Faithful So also in the Acts of Prayer and Devotion they were alwaies performed with that fervency as the present occasion and the things that he prayed for did require This already has abundantly been demonstrated and therefore needs no further proof § 78. Secondly I answer That if we shall consider Christs actuall Love as immediatly terminated on God and the Acts of his trust and dependance upon him his Acts of Love and Zeal and Devotion towards him that immediatly flowed from his all-full and perfect knowledge of Gods absolute soveraignty and goodness which as Comprehensor and also by the Habit of infused knowledge of God he enjoyed those were alwaies one and the same he could not love him more then he did or reverence him more then he did or trust in him more then he did because it was impossible he should know or enjoy him more then he did But these being the spring and fountain from which all Christs Prayers flowed as our Refuter expresly acknowledges were not the Acts of that holy Love and Zeal and Devotion that are now in controversie between himself and the Doctor and therefore their constant fulness of intensive perfection makes nothing to this purpose § 79. But then there are other Acts of Love and Charity
high and necessary Act of Divine Love which he enjoyed as Comprehensor and was alwaies in Termino by which as being necessary he did not could not merit And if you had not put these your Reasons in the frontispiece and Title-page of your book and proposed them to be as rigidly examined as the Doctor pleases or any for him I should have wholy passed them by as nothing at all to the purpose Howsoever I am glad that you are a man of that equal temper that your successes and great acquests against Doctor Hammond have not so puffed you up as they did the Roman Caesar that you should vote your self perpetual Dictator and that you will not alwaies dictate but afford us some proof at last § 3. Et jam ad Triarios ventum est we are now come to our Refuters thundring and immortal legions those whom Victory it self shall not be able to conquer For these we may examine as rigidly as we please These are the very Chariots and horsemen of Israel they are the forces he is so confident of that he sings his Io Paean himself and proclaimes his conquests by them before the battel is yet begun and in the very frontispiece and Title of his book he tells all spectators Doctor Hammond his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a greater Ardency in Christs Love of God at one time then another proved to be utterly irreconcileable 1. with his fulness of habitual grace 2 the perpetual happiness and 3. Impeccability of his Soul by Henry Jeanes Minister of Gods word at Chedzoy in Somersetshire § 4. But though our Refuter when he kept within his own verge and talked of Thomas and Scotus the Summes and the Sentences amongst his Countrey neighbours seemed a tall Schoolman yet when he dares assault Doctor Hammond whose Doctrine in defence of our Church being solidly founded on the Rock of Divine Truth neither the overflowes of Tiber nor the waves of the Lake Lemannus though they beat never so violently against it could overthrow he is now in great danger to loose that little reputation he had already gained in the world § 5. But before I come to consider his arguments it will be needful again to mind the Reader of the ambiguity of the Phrase The Love of God Charitas Dei sive in Deum saies Crellius in this no Socinian quae per se tota ad Deum spectat non uno modo in Sacris literis accipitur Interdum enim sumitur latissimè pro Sanctitate in universum unde Jo. 1. ep 5. 3. inquit hanc esse Charitatem Dei seu in Deum ut mandata ipsius servemus quod idem affirmat c. 2. 5. ubi inquit Qui servaverit sermonem ipsius verè in hoc charitas Dei perfecta est nam hic quoque charitas Dei passivè accipitur hoc est pro charitate quâ Deum diligimus Idem de charitate dilectione sui affirmat Christus Joh. 14. 21. cum quo conjunge vers 15 23 24. Huic Charitati in Deum salus veluti in solidum ascribitur quod ad nos attinet Rom. 8. 28 1 Cor. 2. 9. Vide etiam Exod. 20. 6. ubi eodem sensu ponitur diligere Deum custodire praecepta ejus Deut. 11. 1. item 30. 16. Interdum verò strictius paulo sumitur ita tamen laxè ut omnia erga Deum praecepta officia complectatur sic non pictatis pars sit sed eadem cum illa Quo pacto sumitur in iis locis in quibus Lex universa dilectione Dei proximi contineri dicitur Tertio strictissime ac maxime propriè sumitur pro affectu eo quo desideramus ut ea tum à nobis tum ab aliis fiant quae Deo sunt gratissima c. Atque ex hac significatione reliquae sunt ortae Quja enim dilectionis est seu charitatis in Deum ex animo cupere ea quae Deo sunt grata inter quae primum locum obtinent ea quae ad ipsius cultum honorem praecipuè spectant hinc fit ut charitatis divinae nomine comprehendantur per quandam metonymiam synecdochicam ea Pietatis officia quae in Deum per se vertuntur quae secunda est nobis tradita hujus vocis significatio Veruntamen quia ea quoque Deo sunt grata atque accepta quae Deus hominibus servanda praescripsit hoc est omnis generis virtutes ac recte facta hinc fit ut illa quoque omnia dilectionis divinae nomine comprehendantur c. Io. Crellii Eth. Christiana lib. 3. c. 4. pag. 259 260. To the same purpose also Estius In Scriptura ferè ponuntur indifferenter charitas dilectio propterea quod in Graeco vox unica sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quam interpres modo charitatem modo dilectionem Estius l. 3. Sent. dist 27. §. 1. p. 89. col ◠E. F. vertit unde Augustinus l. 14. de Civit. Dei c. 7. disputans detribus his vocibus Amor Dilectio Charitas dicit eas cum in bono accipiuntur in sacris literis idem significare Eodem loco unum atque idem vult Charitatem voluntatem bonam similia scribit lib. de Gratia Christi c. 21. Idem Serm. 14. Par. in festo omnium Sanctorum c. 11. dicit quod nihil sit aliud Charitas quam Dilectio Et scribens in Psal 9. Amor inquit si pravus est dicitur Cupiditas si rectus Charitas Similis locus tract de Substantia dilectionis cap. 1. To the same purpose also Aquinas as shall after be shewn 1. 2. q. 26. art 3. in Corp. * Francis de Sales of the love of God l. 1. c. 14. Sales and so generally others § 6. In this general sense it is as the Love of God signifies Holiness or Charity Doctor Hammond takes it as we have beyond all exception already demonstrated And thus also our Refuter understood him as will be evident from his first argument that follows though still when it may serve for his advantage he understands it of the high most transcendent Act of Divine Love that agreed to Christ as Comprehensor which was alwaies in termino and at the highest and nothing concerning the present debate Go we then to that SECT 18. The Refuters first Argument contradicts his second and proves not his Conclusion Reduced to Form The Sequele denyed The Reason His Authorities concern not the Question His citing Aquinas from Capreolus censured The Conclusion to be proved Hurtado's and Aquinas first saying from Capreolus true with the Reason of it from Suarez but not pertinent A view of the place in Aquinas He speaks of the Habit c. not the Act. The different workings of Necessary and Voluntary Causes The Refuters Argument guilty of a double Fallacy His next place of Aquinas from Capreolus impertinent His gross ignorance or prevaricating in his third place of Aquinas Scotus Testimony impertinent
as high a degree of actual love as thou art able to reach unto Deus est totaliter diligendus potest intelligi ita quod totalitas referatur ad diligentem sicetiam Deus totaliter diligi debet quia ex toto posse suo homo debet diligere Deum quicquid habet ad Dei amorem ordinare secundum illud Deuter 6. Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo 2. 2. q. 27. art 5. But now Christ-man had in him as great abilities for the actual Love of God as Adam in Paradise as the Saints and Angels in heaven for an all fulnesse of the grace and virtue of Love dwelled in him and therefore if the inward acts of his Love were less intense at one time then another then sometimes when he actually Loved God he did not Love him as intensely as ardently as fervently as he could he did not Love him with all his might and strength ex toto posse suo and so consequently he fulfilled not all righteousnesse for his obedience unto this commandement would have been by this your opinion imperfect and sinful which to imagine were blasphemy But you will be ready to tell me c. § 2. This is your Argument and the most specious of all but yet as little to the purpose as any of the rest And that it may so appear I thus reduce it into Form He whose love of God in the inward Act is more intense at one time then an other breaks that first Commandement that enjoynes the most intense Love of God Possible But Christ that was impeccable could not did not break that Commandement Ergo Christ's Love of God in the inward act was not more intense at one time then another Or thus He that had greater abilities for the Actual Love of God then Adam in Paradise or the Saints and Angels in Heaven and yet does Love God in the inward Act more intensely at one time then an other he does not alwayes love God ex toto posse suo and as much as the Law requires But Christ had alwayes greater abilities for the actuall Love of God then Adam in Paradise or the Saints and Angels in Heaven and yet as you say his Love of God in the inward Act was more intense at one time then another Ergo By consequence according to your saying he loved not God ex toto posse suo and as much as the Law requires which consequence because it makes him sinful but to imagine were blasphemy § 3. Chuse you which Form you will the force and evidence of the Argument is the same and one answer will fit both And I shall give it you in brief and it is no more then by a denyal of your Proposition or Major in both § 4. The truth is all the seeming strength of this Discourse lies in the ambiguity of the phrase The Love of God which is differently understood by our Refuter in the premisses and Doctor Hammond whom he opposes in the Conclusion And consequently the Syllogismes consist of four termes and so are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phantastical paralogismes like the Colours in the Rainbow they make a fair show Arist Elench l. 1. c. 3. indeed to the eye but when we come to search what they are they are nothing but shew and without any solidity § 5. They are both guilty of that Sophism which the Philosopher calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first of the six in Voce For whereas Doctor Hammond as we have most demonstratively proved and as is also acknowledged in our Refuters first argument takes the Phrase The Love of God for the Acts of Divine Charity or holy Love in the General Notion our Refuter here takes it in a more restrained sense for that eminent Act of holy Charity that is immediatly terminated on God and is contradistinct from these other Acts of Charity whereby we love our selves and our neighbors as our selves And this will appear from the Tenor of the first Commandement and the places that himself has quoted Matth. 22. 37. Mark 12. 30 Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy Soul and with all thy mind This is the first and great Commandement and the second is like unto it Thou shalt Love thy neighbour as thy self Though then it were granted that all the Acts of our Love immediately fixed on God must be equal because alwaies by virtue of that Commandement we must Love God as highly as intensely as we can yet it will not follow that all the Acts of Divine Charity or holy Love must be therefore equally intense Nay because it was impossible for the Saviour of the world to sin I must conclude that the Acts of this his Love were not could not be equally intense For then he should have loved himself and his Neighbour the Finite goodness of the Creature with the same equal fervency and ardor as the infinite goodness of the Creator contrary to the Tenor of these Commandements and the fulness of our Saviours wisdom and grace § 6. But then this is not all the misadventure of our Refuter For in the latter part of his Discourse he confounds that Act of our Saviours Love of God belonging to him as Comprehensor with that other Act of Love that belonged to him as Viator and which alone is enjoyned in that first and great Commandement Now these two though the Objects be the same yet differ as really as heaven in possession from heaven in hope and expectation The one is a Free Act of the Will issuing from the Infused habit of Charity the other a necessary Act of the Will that flowes per modum emanationis from the beatifical vision as Light does from the Sun To the one he had a proper freedome and the Act by way of Duty fell under the authority and guidance of the first and great Commandement To the other he had no more freedom then now the Saints and Angels in heaven have who because they are already possessed of heaven and all that heaven can afford are not under any Law but as Naturally as Necessarily they love God as since their being made perfect they see him there § 7. And now though this be sufficient to demonstrate the weakness of our Refuters Discourse yet for the full satisfaction of the English Reader who is most likely to be deceived with these False Lights and empty shewes I shall take his whole discourse asunder that so I may sever Truth from Falshood and vain aerial shapes and Appearances from solid Bodies § 8. First then I grant that it was impossible for Christ to sin For such a high Priest became us who is holy harmless undefiled separate from sinners and made higher then the heaven Heb. 7. 26. When not only Pilates Wife calls him that just man but even his very adversaries and accusers were not able to convince him and his Judge does publickly acquit him
man at several times or two men at the same time and so both obey the praecept yet these degrees and growth of Love do argue Love not to be perfect and so not strictly answerable to the law and is so farr faulty in vitio as Hierome § 6. This latter clause is added only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might seem to say somewhat when the whole cause was yielded And indeed it carries its own confutation in its forehead because one part to use the Doctors own words is directly contrary if not contradictory to the other For sure if those of Dr. Hammond's Account of Mr. Cawdrey's triplex Diatribe pag. 222. §. 3. whom the supposition is made do both obey the precept then they do not offend against it and if they do not offend against it then is not this faulty or in vitio for sure every fault or vice must be a transgression of the Law And if as he saies that Cōmandement require of all men that Perfection of Love that is absolutely sinless then evident it is that the utmost Sincerity of Love that as himself grants implies Degrees and therefore necessarily supposes Imperfection and sin cannot be the fulfilling of it nor would Adam's sincerity supposing his Fall have ever been accepted or prevented the Curse and his eternal damnation if no new Covenant had been made And if sincere Love that is capable of Degrees be a fulfilling of this law and the same man at several times or two men at the same time that are only thus sincere and not perfectly in love do both obey this precept as he expresly supposes and grants then manifest it is that this sinless Perfection he speaks of is not required to fulfill it For it is impossible the same Law should at one and the same instant be both obeyed and transgressed by one and the same Person in one and the same respect And if he speak of several respects and according to several Obligations and Covenants he doth but confusedly beat the Ayr and deceive himself and his Reader and what he grants with the one hand he takes away with the other § 7. And then to the example of Christs ardency in Prayer he saies Christ was above the Law and did more then the Law Mr. Cawdrey's Diat of Will-worship page 116. §. 47. required did supererogate in many of his Actions and Passions and so in the degree of affection in Prayer if not in the Prayer it self c. yet thus much that example holds forth that greater pressures and necessities call for enlargement of affections not as voluntary Oblations but as Duties § 8. And therefore Sir you did very much prevaricate and impose upon the Faith of your confident Reader when you labored to perswade him that he had just reason to expect a confirmation of that exposition which the Doctor had given You should first have attempted to give a more solid answer to those reasons then Mr. Cawdrey had afforded before you had call'd for more Or else you should have been so ingenuous as he was to have yeilded to the force of that truth which you could not withstand § 9. But why has the Reader just cause to expect a confirmation of what the Doctor sayes JEANES BEcause this very answer is the shift of Papists in several controversies between them and us Bellarm tom 2. De monachis lib. 2. cap. 13. tom 4. de amissione gratiae statu peccati l. 1. cap. 12 c. And was it not fit that you should acquaint us what those cogent reasons were that necessitated you unto this compliance with Papists § 10. Well Sir I promise to acquaint you with the heads at least of those Reasons that induced the Doctor to make use of this Interpretation though not to a compliance with Papists if you will also acquaint your Reader what those cogent reasons were that necessitated you to make use of that Objection that not only opposes Doctor Hammond in this particular but equally overthrows the whole Christian Religion that destroyes the Doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity the Godhead and Satisfaction of our Saviour and the Immortality of the Soul and hell fire and eternal Torments that blowes up as well the Office as the maintenance of Ministers and opens a broad gap for the Socinian and Anabaptist the Ranter and Atheist to come and invade all that is sacred amongst us § 11. And now that the Reader may see that I do you no wrong I shall for the present suppose that the Doctor had borrowed this exposition from Bellarmine and consider the force of your argument against him upon this supposition I reduce it thus into form that the strength of it may appear Whosoever makes use of any argument or Tenent or exposition of Scripture that is to be found in Bellarmine or other Popish writers is guilty of a compliance with Papists But Doctor Hammond makes use of this very exposition which is to be found in Bellarmine Ergo Doctor Hammond is guilty of compliance with Papists § 12. What say you Sir Is not this your present argument can you give us any other Proposition to reduce your Socratical Enthymeme into a Syllogism If you cannot pray tell me then what strength is in your Major And what answer will you give to it when a Socinian an Anabaptist a Ranter or Atheist shall press you with it For does not Mr. Biddle in the Biddle's Catechism preface to the Reader preface to his Catechism upon this very score and argument decry the expositions and determinations of all Councells and Convocations and Assemblies of Divines that are opposite to his Doctrine Does he not in that very preface call those expressions of God's being infinite incomprehensible of his being a simple Act of his subsisting in three Persons of an Eternal generation of the Son and Procession of the Holy Ghost the Incarnation and Hypostatical Vnion Original sin and Christ's taking our nature on him of Christ's making satisfaction to God for our sins and purchasing Heaven for us c. as well as Transubstantiation a Babylonish confusion of language and monstrous Terms And does he not upon this very score plead for a necessity to reform Religion beyond such a stint as that of Luther or at most that of Calvin by cashiering those many intricate and devised Formes of speaking And may he not nay does he not justifie this his Crimination by this very Argument For are not all these very formes and the Tenents couched under them to be found in Bellarmine's Controversies as well as in Calvin's Institutions Are not all those expositions of the Scriptures that any Reformed Writer gives in these Socinian Controversies to be found in Bellarmine and other Popish Writers that maintain the same common truth with us What shall these also be condemned as well as Doctor Hammond for a compliance with Papists May not the whole fifth and sixth Books of Volkelius de vera Religione
Ex toto sunt etiam duae Patrum expositiones una Sancti Augustini Bernardi Thomae locis notatis qui docent illud Ex toto significare imperari nobis hoc mandato omnes gradus Charitatis quos vel in hoc mundo vel in alio habere possumus it a ut semper Deum amemus non sit in nobis ullus motus cupiditatis neque voluntarius neque involuntarius cum Dei amore pugnans ex quo recte deduc unt hoc mandatum in hac vita perfecte impleri non posse Quae sententia non pugnat cum sententia nostra de consiliis Evangelicis c. quia Patres supra-citati existimant hoc praecepto simul imperari medium indicari finem ideo docent non posse impleri perfectè hoc praeceptum in hac vita tamen non esse praevaricatorem qui non perfectè illud implet c. Quo circaremanet jam suus Consiliis locus etiam circa hoc praeceptum nam etiam si nihil possim addere huic praecepto quatenus indicat finem tamen possum addere quatenus indicat medium si non pecco ex sententiae S. Thomae si non amem Deum nisi vno gradu amoris certè non teneor in rigore amplius amare implicat enim contradictionem quod non peccem non faciendo quod facere teneor ergo si addam alterum gradum amoris amo plus quam teneor atque eo modo facio actum supererogationis consilii c. Est igitur alia Sententia illud ex toto Corde non significare omnes actus Cordis vel omnem intensionem possibilem ità ut imperetur ut nihil corde agamus nisi Deum diligere idque summâ vehementiâ amoris sed solum ut amemus Deum praecipuo amore nihilque illi in amore anteponamus vel aequemus ac proinde solum in hoc praecepto contineatur id quod faciendum est non etiam finis ob quem faciendum est ex quo sequuntur sex quasi Corollaria Primum est Huic praecepto adversari omnia peccata mortalia quia in omni peccato mortali anteponitur Creatura Creatori Secundum Huic praecepto non adversari amorem honestum affinium amicorum licet non roferatur actu in Deum quia non tenemur Deum solum amare sed eum praecipue Tertium Non adversari peccata venialia eidem praecepto quia peccata venialia non mutant ultimum finem Quartum Non adversari eidem praecepto motus involuntarios concupiscentiae etiam si rerum alioqui gravissimarum ut infidelitatis blasphemiae adulterii c. Nam cum charitas Dei sit in voluntate non adversantur ei nisi motus voluntarii Quintum Hoc praeceptum perfectè in hac vita servare posse quia non exigit nisi ut amemus Deum plus quam Creaturas Sextum Posse Deum ex toto corde magis minus diligi qui enim propter Deum abstinet se à licitis magis diligit quam qui solum se abstinet ab illicitis tamen uterque diligit toto corde Quod autem haec explicatio sit verior Scripturae conformior quam superior multis modis probari potest c. Bellarm. de Monachis lib. 2. cap. 13. col 343 344 345 346. § 4. The Doctors answer stands thus I answer that that Phrase Thou shalt love the Lord thy Treat of Will-worship §. 49. God with all thy heart with all thy Soul c. denoteth two things only First the sincerity of this love of God as opposed to Partial divided Love or Service Secondly the loving him above all other things and not admitting any thing into competition with him not loving any thing else in such a degree and in neither of these respects excluding all other things from a subordinate place in our Love Which being supposed it will be easie to discern that this sincere Love of God above all is capable of degrees and that it is possible for two men to love God with all their hearts i. e. sincerely and above all things and so both to obey the praecept and yet one to love him in a more intense degree then the other doth which may be observed amongst the Angels themselves the Seraphims being so called because they are more ardent in Zeal then other Angels nay for the same Person constantly to Love God above all and yet to have higher expressions of that Love at one time then at another Thus we read of Christ himself Luke 22. 24. who we know did never fail in performing what was man's duty in prayer or any thing else yet that he at that time prayed more earnestly which is a demonstrative evidence that the lower degree is not necessarily sinful when the higher is acceptable to God which when it is granted there is no doubt but these free-will-offerings will be reconcilable with that Command and he that loves God with all his heart may have some possibility of loving God better then yet he doth and so some room left for a voluntary oblation § 5. To this for a further clearing and unfolding his mind the Doctor thought fit in his Reply to Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe to add these two things To the first branch of his answer The sincerity of this Love of God as opposed to partial divided Love I now add saies the Dr. Hammonds Account of Mr. Cawdrey's Triplex Diatribe c. 6. sect 9 §. 1. p. 221. Ibid. §. 5. p. 222. Doctor for further explication that what we do according to the precepts of Gods Law we do out of Love toward God not hypocritically or as by constraint 2ly He sayes Still it must be remembred that it is not the sinless perfection we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath degrees but sincerity of this or that vertue exprest in this or that performance and as this though it excludes not all mixture of sin in the suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that Act. For it is certain that I may in an Act of Mercy give as much as any Law obligeth me to give and so not sin in giving too little § 6. To which let me now add what the Doctor had before delivered in his Treatise of Will-worship Sect. 16. When in the service of God a man out of a pious affection of hope and gratitude inciting to do things acceptable to God as well as of fear deterring him from all that is prohihited shall in conformity to Gods general commands and the Doctrine of the Gospel do any thing else besides what God hath commanded by any particular precept this Action of his is to be accounted so much more commendable and acceptable to God Piety being one of those vertues quarum tantae sunt amplitudines ut quanto auctiores sunt tanto sunt laudatiores which have
nihil aliud quam intensius studium designet sicut Latini dicunt corde animo atque viribus * In Graeco codice est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sic etiaÌ„ Hebraei loquuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plautus Captivis Persequarque corde animo atque viribus Corde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Animo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nam animum pro anima posuit atque viribus Lucas dixit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex totis viribus tuis Veritas Hebraica 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in omnibus viribus tuis Drusii annot in N. T. par alter in Matt. 22. 37. p. 48. ut ab aliis est annotatum Itaque eodem sensu quae hic habemus terna modo modo singula modo bina reperias Singula ut 1 Reg. 14. 8. 1 Sam. 7. 3. 2 Reg. 10. 31. Psal 119. 2. quibus addi potest illud in Eccl. c. 47. 10. Bina ut Deut. 4. 29. 2. Par. 15. 12. 2 Reg. 23. 3. Nec dissimile illud M. Antonini l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cujus hic est sensus as the same Author had before observed qui apud Thucididen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est in id intentus sum Idem autem valet sive dicas pro viribus sive omni studio atque contentione And as this is full and high to what Chamier aymes at so it is not at all questioned by the Doctor but is expresly asserted by him in this very Treatise of Will-worship sect 16. as we have already quoted it at large § 23. But then let me ask further does Bellarmine or any Papist else in these controversies assert that this Commandement obliges us to that sincerity of Love that is opposed to Partial divided Love or Service Indeed if he had done this the distance between him and the Doctor had not been so great as now it is But then he had withall clearly yielded up the whole cause to those he disputes against And this is it that Chamier so succesfully presses against Bellarmine from the antient Fathers as shall be made good when we come to parallel the Doctors Answer with their Exposition and that of the most reformed Writers § 24. The truth of it is that the Doctor is so farr from any compliance with Bellarmine or any other Popish writer or from making use in this answer of any of their shifts in the several Controversies between us and them as the Refuter sadly laies to the Doctors charge that both Bellarmine and the rest of his party speak of another thing then the Doctor does For * Vide Davenant de Justit Act. habit ca. 39. 40 41 42 43 44. they by the love of God understand the Habit of Charity and the Perfection of Righteousness whereby a man may not only fulfill the Law of God so that he may in Justice merit at Gods hands but also he may supererogate and do more of Righteousness then any Law does require and so merit a brighter Aureola a larger Crown of glory by the advantage of this Perfection But then the Doctor he speaks only of the Acts of this or that Vertue or Grace For still it must be remembred saies he that it is not the sinless perfection we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath degrees but the sincerity of this or that Vertue expressed in this or that performance and as this though it excludes not all mixture of sâ—n in the suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that Act. For it is certain that I may in an Act of Mercy give as much as any Law obligoth me to give and so not sin in giving too little § 25. And as this is very evident in it self so it is plainly acknowledged by Chamier For whereas * Bellarm. de Amiss grat stat peccat l. 1. cap. 12. col 89 90. Bellarmine had objected that the Scriptures testifie of David Josias and others that they loved God with all their soul c. and consequently the Command enjoynes onely that Love which excludes not venial sins he grants that they did love God with all their heart at some times though not at others His words are these * To the same purpose also Bp. Davenant de Justit habit act cap. 24. p. 328. Vicimus ergo nisi fortè meretur victoriam illud quiequid est de Davide Josia sed non potest Illi igitur sequuti sunt Deum toto corde suo tamen peccarunt utrumque inquam verum sed distinctis temporibus Tum enim cum peccârunt non amârunt Deum toto corde Itaque cum peccârunt peccârunt mortaliter Tum autem quis nescit Deum cum de suis loquitur saepe loqui tanquam de iis quibus nulla imputat peccata ac proinde tanquem prorsus justis Denique quid hoc ad peccata venialia c. Chamier tom 3. lib. 6. cap. 12. § 365. § 26. And therefore I shall not be sollicitous if our Refuter should suggest that the Doctors answer agrees at least with the Sixth Corellary of Bellarmine Sextum posse Deum ex toto corde magis minus diligi Qui enim propter Deum abstinet se à licitis magis diligit quam qui solum se abstinet ab illicitis tamen uterque diligit toto corde since he speaks of a gradual difference in that perfection of Love that consists in the keeping of all Gods Commandements and is fitted to the Romish Doctrine of Merit and the several states and degrees of Persection and Evangelical counsels and workes of supererogation But the Doctor speaks of the gradual difference of perfection in regard of this or that Act of this or that Virtue or Grace But then withall I cannot but observe unto the Reader that I do not find that either Ames or Chamier or Vorstius that ex professo unde take to refute the errors of Bellarmine have directly taxed him for this Corollary whichme thinks they should have done if they had condemned it as faulty § 27. Indeed me thinks it cannot be denyed but that two men may love God with all their hearts and yet one may love him more then the other as is plam from the Parable of the Talents For if God reward every man according to his works plain it is that he that received the greater Reward and Crown brought a greater improvement to his Lord and so loved him more and his Charity and Righteousnesse was greater then he that received the lesse Glory because his improvement and Righteousnesse was lesse And yet as plain it is that both these Servants loved their Lord with all their heart because both were rewarded and received that †James 1. 12. Crown of life which the Lord hath promised to them that love him § 28. And this is abundantly sufficient to acquit the Doctor from the least supicion of
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
a debtor to the Law be done above it And if any man shall assert the contrary I desire either his Reason or Scripture to make it good § 39. And then secondly as to the Perfection of the Love of the blessed Saints and Angels in Heaven it is easily demonstrable and the Doctor has in part done it in his Treatise of Will-worship that though they all love God Naturally and Necessarily and ad ultimum virium yet they do not all love God in the same indivisible degree of Perfection and Point of fervour and intensenesse which to use the Doctors Dr. Ham. Treat of Will-worship sect 49. p. 101. edit Londin Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. cap. 45. p. 514 527. Jeanes p 27. words to this purpose may be observed among the Angels themselves the Seraph in being so called because they are more Ardent in Zeal then other Angels For if it be true that God rewards every man according to his works and that there be different degrees of happinesse in Heaven proportionable to the Saints proficiency in Grace here on earth it must necessarily follow that if our Refuters observation from the Schoolmen be any whit considerable and that the Scotists do rightly place the very formality of happinesse solely in the love of God or if at least Suarez and others think truly that it is essential to happinesse though the very Essence of happinesse consists not wholly or chiefly in it or if at least the rest of the Thomists who hold that the Essence of happinesse stands only in the beatifical vision yet truly make this Actual most intense Love of God a natural and necessary consequence of the beatifical vision it must I say necessarily follow that the Love of the Saints must be proportionable to their happinesse and that they cannot love God more then they see and enjoy him § 40. But to wave these speculations of the School-men Plain it is from the Scriptures and our Saviour tells us that in his Fathers house are many Mansions Plain it is from the John 14. 2. 1 Cor. 15. 41 42. Scriptures and the Apostle has told us that as one star differeth from another star in glory so also it shall be in the Resurrection of the dead Plain it is from the Scriptures and our Saviour has made it good from the Parable of the Talents that the enlargement Matth. 25. 15 c. Vide Tertul. Scorpiac c. 6. p. 622. Augustin Tract 67. in Joan. p. 171. col 1. D. col 2. A. Tract 68. p. 172. col 2. A. Gregor M. Homil. 16. in Ezech. fol. 282. B. Dialog l. 4. c. 35. fol. 238. C. F. Cyrill in loc A Resurrectione diversos fore honoris gloriae gradus Verissimum est aliisque Scripturae testimoniis probatur c. Calvin in 1 Cor. 15. 41. p. 2â—0 Nos ut profitemur quod antea diximus varios fore gradus gloriae Chamier tom 3. Panstrat l. 25. c. 4. §. 7. Vide cap. 3. §. 8 9 10. ibid. l. 21. cap. 21. §. 58. Sed nec in ipsis Comprehensoribus est haec plenitudo summa omnium gratiarum quae est in Christo Nam si stella à stella differat luce magnitudine tum multo magis differt à Sole Habent omnes beati illam gratiae gloriae mensuram quam capere potest maximam mens vniuscujusque sed non habet illam capacitatem vel gratiae vel gloriae mens cujusvis purae Creaturae quam habet anima Christi Davenant Expos in Colos 1. 19. p. 100. n. 3. Vide Davenant de Justit habit Act. cap. 44. p 516 517. Quod autem visio Dei plena dicitur non efficitur inde aequalem fore omnium Sactorum visionem fruitionem Nam in domo Dei multae sunt mansiones uti inter Stellas alia alii praefulget ita inter Sanctos diversa erit gloria Dan 12. Quisque tamen quantum maxime pro doni sui capacitate Lambert Danaeus in c. 5. Enchirid. Augustin as I find him cited and approved by Chamier tom 3. Panstrat l. 25. c 3 §. 9 10. Vide Sculteti Idea Concion p. 1097. alios of our Crowns of glory shall bear some proportion with our improvement of those Graces that God has here bestowed upon us And therefore it seemes to me most undenyably to follow that a gradual difference in the Participation of the Beatifical Vision must of necessity inferr a gradual difference in the height and Fervour and intensenesse of our Love For though all the Saints and Angels in Heaven shall love God to the utmost of their might and ability there being nothing there to interrupt it nothing there to mingle with it and this because they naturally and necessarily love him and their happinesse consists in this Love and this sight and this enjoyment of God yet because all do not equally enjoy God because their capacities are not the same they cannot therefore all love him in the same height and degree All the Stars of the firmament are full of the Suns light yet all are not of the same brightnesse and lustre because they are not of the same Magnitude We see there is one glory of the Sun another of the Moon and another glory of the Stars For one Star differeth from another Star in glory And yet the Sun the Fountain of light does equally shine on all This gradual difference in their lustre and brightnesse arises from their different Capacities If all were of an equal Bignesse and Magnitude and Distance from the Sun their sight would be the same The Essence the Form of Fire is as truly in the weak lambent flames of spirit of Wine or Straw as in red hot Iron or moulten Brass or Nebuchadnezars fiery fornace and yet they do not heat and flame and scorch alike This difference does arise from the variety of the Combustible matter now enkindled For though Natural agents do alwayes work uniformly because they work necessarily and to the utmost of their power yet the intenseness of their operations is alwaies proportioned to the vigour and efficacy and virtue of the Causes from whence they do flow Otherwise the light of a Candle would be equal to the brightness of the Sun which yet we see is lost and swallowed up by the Sun-beams And therefore Mr. Cawdrey as we have already observed without scruple grants to the Doctor that sincere Love is capable of Degrees whether in the same man at several times or two men at the same time and so both may obey the precept though yet with Chamier he maintains that the utmost height and Point of Perfection possible is required and that whatsoever is short of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and indivisible point of Perfection is so far faulty How rationally and consequently we have already declared § 41. And therefore fifthly though it be granted that Mr. Cawdrey and our Refuter and * Vide
though I very much reverence and value the Learning and Judgement of that excellent man yet I have long since learned from a great Master of Morality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristoteles l. 1. Ethic. c. 6. §. 1. edit Ricobon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Truth is more sacred and venerable then any the greatest Names and that it is the honour and the duty of a Philosopher much more then of a Divine to retract or oppose an error whether in himself or any other for the preservation of this Jewel § 52. Thus therefore I should with our Refuters leave chuse to understand the words though I must confesse with a little streining because thus understood they are more agreeable to truth and other Protestant Writers and his own more sober expressions and the whole scope of that Chapter namely That all the degrees of Love to the utmost height that are possibly attainable either in this life or the next are in that commandement either proposed to our Endeavours or our Hopes and our Aimes and it is purely through our own fault if we do not attain unto it Not that any lower degree of love were a sin in us but that it is through our fault if we do not grow in grace and the love and knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ § 53. I remember that Cajetan in his Commentary on that question in Aquinas vtrum charitas augeatur in infinitum tells us of a sort of Hereticks condemned in the Council of Vienna by Clement the fifth and some such we have now among us at this day or else the world is much mistaken in them that maintained That man in this present life may attain to that height and degree of Perfection that might render him altogether impeccable Vide Concilium Viennense in Clement in c. Ad nostrum de Haereticis Vbi de nova secta dicitur tenens asserens doctrinâ suâ sacrilegâ perversâ inferius designatos errores Primo videlicet quod homo in vita praesenti tantum talem perfectionis gradum potest acquirere quod reddetur penitus impeccabilis amplius in gratia proficere non valebit Nam ut dicunt si quis semper possit proficere posset aliquis Christo perfectior inveniri Haec ibi c. Cajetan in 2. 2. q. 24. art 7. p. 61. col 2. E. and unable to grow and increase to any higher degree of grace then he had already obtained For they said if a man might alwaies grow in grace some man at least might be found more perfect then Christ himself I shall not say that learned man did any waies countenance those errours yet it cannot be denyed but this assertion of his as understood by our Refuter will very easily and advantageously be managed to countenance that assertion since it is easie to make good that God requires nothing of us by or under the Gospel as necessary to salvation which he gives not Grace and strength to perform And some not long since have undertaken to maintain Perfection as a duty even upon this very score § 54. But then plain it is that those words construed in the sense I have given of them do no whit favour that opinion Yet be this as it will and let our Refuter make what use he can of them Sufficient it will be to the Doctors Vindication if the same learned Chamier speaks to the Doctors purpose in his Recapitulation and summary of all that he had formerly delivered And it is that very place which our Refuter has in his Margin quoted against the Doctor The words are these Nimirum huc tandem res redit ut sciamus ita imperari nobis amorem Dei ut nullus sit amoris gradus cui quisquam debeat acquiescere Summum autem dico non tantum comparatè ad res alias quae sub amorem cadunt sed etiam quidem praecipuè comparatè ad nos ipsos ut ne ultra possimus amare ita enim verè totum cor nostrum crit tota anima mens tota vires omnes nec erunt tamen quamdiu aliquis motus concupiscentiae malae vigebit in nobis quod Augustinus dixit Bellarminus negare non potest a Patribus assertum Chamier tom 3. l. 11. cap. 14. § 22. pag. 345. That is The matter at length comes to this or this is the short and summ of all That we know and take notice that the Love of God is so injoyned and required of us by this Precept that there can be no one degree of Love beneath the highest with which any man may lawfully sit down and rest contented as a fulfilling of the Command The highest I say not only in respect of all other things that fall under our Love and within the compasse of our affection but also and more especially in regard of our selves so that we cannot possibly love more or go beyond it in our affection For then and so only will truly the whole heart the whole Soul the whole mind and all our stength be placed upon this Love which yet shall not fully be accomplished in this life so long as any motion of sinful lusts and concupiscence reignes and flourishes or springs up in us And this is that which Austin hath also said and Bellarmine cannot deny to have been affirmed and maintained by the Fathers § 55. From whence plain it is First that Chamier in this place against Bellarmine speaks of an absolute sinlesse Perfection and an exact conformity to the whole Law of God not attainable in this life which no whit concernes the Doctor that speaks not at all of that but only of the sincerity of this or that vertue or grace in respect of this or that Performance which he saies consists in a latitude and has Degrees Secondly that though this sinless Perfection be not attainable in this life yet labour we must after it as much as in us lies there being no one degree of Charity or divine Love below this wherein a man may acquiesce so that he may cease to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ which was the Heresie of the Perfectists condemned in the Council of Vienna Thirdly that by the highest degree Chamier means not that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely and simply such as if there were as * We say that there are degrees of or rather to perfection here upon condition that every degree even the highest is required by the Law of God and what is short of the highest is so far culpable Cawdrey Triplex Diatribe p. 110. Mr. Cawdrey would have it one indivisible point of Love and height of Perfection to which all must arrive that obey the Precept but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is respectively and in some sort the highest not so much in comparison of other things beloved
feel the motion of it yet we know not whence it comes nor whither it goes since thus it is with every one that is born of the Spirit since we cannot so much as think a good thought as of our selves but all our sufficiency 2 Cor. 3. 5. Phil. 4. 13. is of God through whose assistance and strengthening we can do all things he therefore will own every fruit and degree of Grace that flowes onely from his own holy Spirit and gracious assistance and will not break the bruised Reed nor Mat. 12. 20. quench the smoaking flax but in due time blow it up into a bright and glorious flame and set the bones which he has broken And consequently I must conclude that the highest degree is not commanded and that an Inferiour degree of Love even of Actuall love is no sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod erat demonstrandum § 39. To recapitulate all for the Readers better satisfaction 1. First the highest degree of Love absolutely such or rather the one infinite height and simply perfect Act of Love commensurate with the Perfection and amiableness of God no body sayes is required in this Love 2. The loving God according to sinless Perfection and the abilities and originall righteousness Adam had in innocence the Apostle against the Jews and the †Vid. White against Fisher point 8. §. 1. 2. p. 510. D. p. 522. B. C. D. E. Mountague's answer to the Gagger c. 15 17 19. Davenant de Justit Habit. Actual Protestants against the Romanists say is required to Justification and according to the Tenor of the first Covenant which therefore they say is necessary because the Papists speak of a Justification by works a fullfilling of the Law and merit ex condigno Perfection and works of Supererogation This our Refuter undertakes to maintain to be now required of Christians to Justification otherwise he has no opposite But then the Doctor maintains that this Law requires not that Love and that Charity that consists in this sinless Perfection to the Justification of believers now because they are not under the law but under Grace And if our Refuter be his Adversary in this let him try his School-skill and answer our arguments in a School-way and leave his begging of the question 3. The loving God according to the Abilities and advantages we shall have in heaven when we shall see God face to face is the Perfection of Saints and those of the Church Triumphant not the duty of Christians and those of the Church Militant more then sincerely to endeavour after it and by comparing their weakness with the uprightness of the Law and the Perfection of this Love they may have wherewithall to humble them and long for and to fly to Ckrists Righteousness and Mediation and Gods Mercy And though our Refuter bring after the Authorities of Austin Bernard Aquinas and Scotus to prove that to this we Christians are obliged by the Law yet I shall demonstratively prove anon that they say it not but the contrary and so our Refuter stands alone and naked like the Shrub on the point of a Rock or the top of a Mast in open Sea in a storm that has nothing to succour it 4. That there is no one degree in this Quality and Grace of holy love so high beyond which there can be no higher or it cannot go but it must cease to be love and become somewhat else and consequently we cannot be obliged to love God in any one degree precisely much lesse in the eighth degree which is the highest as our Refuter and Master Cawdrey maintain 5. That believers by this old this new Commandment of Love as * Mat. 22. 39. Joh. 13. 34. our Saviour and S. John †1 Joh. 2. 7 8. 2 Joh. 4. 5. calls it are obliged to Love God to the utmost of their Power and sincerely to endeavour to grow more in grace and the knowledge of our Lord that so they may be enabled still to love him the more The onely measure of love here being to love him without measure not fixing upon any bounds or limits of love And this is that the Doctor and the most learned of Protestants maintain and let him see if he can disprove it and make what advantage he can by it § 40. But now though all this is said and demonstratively proved I must tell our Refuter that all this is nothing to the present controversie depending between him and the Doctor I must grant it indeed to be very usefull in it self and very fit to be known and better considered then oftentimes it is And in this respect I thank our Refuter for his digression that has thus occasioned mine And withall I must adde that though all were granted which now he contends for it would no whit at all concern the Doctors assertion Because the Doctor expresly in very many places especially in the defence of his Treatise of Will-worship professes not to speak of sinless perfection but of the sincerity of this or that virtue or Grace in this or that performance when he sayes it consists in a latitude and admits of uncommanded degrees And so much for his first reason I follow him to the next SECT 28. His Second Reason proves not yet granted God by more Obligations then he expresses to be Loved Acknowledged by the Doctor This Love infinite Not Positively and Categorematicè but Negatively and Syncategorematicè Acknowledged by Bellarmine and others Hinders not Freewill-offerings of Love These asserted by Bishop White Doctor not confuted though Bellarmine may Bellarmine and Ames at no great odds here Concerns not the Doctor Refuters Artifice censured Doctors Comfort and Precedent in this Persecution of the tongue 1. HIs second Reason whereby he undertakes to evince that this Commandment enjoyneth a most intense actuall Love of God a love of God with as high a degree as is possible to the humane Nature now follows and it is this JEANES A most intense Love of God a love of him with the utmost of our forces and endeavours is due unto God debito connaturalitatis debito gratitudinis 1. Debito connaturalitatis by an obligation of congruence for it is fitting that we love him as much as we can who is infinitely good in himself and therefore the chief good and supreme end of man The Protestants are brought in by Bellarmine de Monach. l. 2. c. 13. thus objecting against their Popish Evangelicall counsels of perfection that he that is unwilling to love God as much as he can doth hereby deny to wit virtually and interpretatively that God is the chief good of man and whereas he is so bold in his answer to affirm that non requiritur ut quis summum bonum tam ardenter amet quam forte posset Ames hath hereunto a round and acute reply tum non requiritur ut in bonum omni ratione summum feramur affectu omni etiam ratione summo 2.
This most intense Love of God is due unto God by an obligation of gratitude for hereby as Doctor Francis White against Fisher out of Bernard we are indebted and owe to the Almighty omne quod sumus omne quod possumus whatsoever we are and whatsoever we are able to do § 2. To this I answer First that this is not the Conclusion that he undertook to make good For he promised to evince by these following Reasons That this commandment enjoyneth a love of God with as high a degree as is possible unto the humane Nature which this Proof no way reaches For it is one thing to love God with our utmost forces and endeavours and as much as we can and another thing to love him with as high a degree as is possible to the humane nature The former may be and is obligatory to the Christian though this latter is not § 3. Secondly I therefore answer That all is granted that this Argument contends for § 4. Obliged we are not onely by an obligation of congruence and gratitude but also by many other obligations not here named to love God with a most intense love with the utmost of our forces and endeavours The Doctor grants and expresly proves it by the Testimony of the son of Syrach Ecclus. 43. 30. When you glorifie God the Lord exalt him as much as you can and when you exalt him put forth all your strength for you can never go far enough i. e. sayes the Doctor how far soever you exceed the Particular command you are yet within the compass of the generall one of love he means and in respect of that can never be thought to have done enough though the Particular Act or the degree of it be somewhat that you are not particularly obliged to The words are full and high and to all the Argument pretends to § 5. Because God is infinite in perfection infinitely good and infinitely amiable we that are finite in our Natures and Operations can never love him enough and as much as he deserves and because all our sufficiency is from God Naturall gratitude if there were no other Rule and Law would oblige us to imploy all that strength and sufficiency in his service from whom alone all is derived And because when we have done all we can we should yet be short of loving him sufficiently and to the height of his worth and Perfection still labour we must that we may yet more and more love him and because this life is too short endeavour we may and must to be admitted into heaven where we may love him to the utmost height we can or shall ever attain and because we cannot love him infinitely as his goodness deserves we yet may love him eternally Ratio diligendi Deum est Deus ipse modus sine modo saies S. Bernard sweetly that never speaks otherwise The onely Reason and Motive to our Love of God must be his own Goodness and the onely Measure of this Love must be Love without Measure Because God is Infinite in Perfection our Love must also be Infinite not absolutely as God is but onely in a sort that befits our finite condition Our Love must be infinite Syncategorematicè as they speak in the Schools though Categorematicè it cannot That is though the word Infinite cannot be predicated of our Love in casu recto yet it may in casu obliquo though it cannot be Positively infinite yet Negatively it may and must though still it will be finite yet it must have no set no determinate bounds and limits Though our love cannot be infinite yet we must infinitely love him love him in infinitum and never think we can love him sufficiently and unto the utmost height beyond which we neither can nor need to go Our work and labour of love must be like to the Arithmeticians Operation in Progressive Multiplication The further he goes on in his work the more is the Product and the greater still his Task And if this will content our Refuter he has mine and the Doctors free grant and I hope in this we shall be friends § 6. Nay if it were of any concernment I undertake that Vid. Bellar. de aetern Foelicit l. 3. c 8. de Gemit Columb l. 2. c. 3. c. 10. Fran. de Sales of the love of God l. 3. c. 1. l. 10. c. 1 2 3 4 5 6. alibi passim Jo. Euseb Nierembergius de Adorat in Spiritu veritate l. 1. c. 9. l. 3. c. 6. l. 4. c. 4 5 9 10 12. alibi passim Bellarmine at least in his Meditations and Prayers will acknowledge it whatsoever he does or shall do in his Polemicks and if I find not this and much more then this in F. Sales of divine Love and Nierembergius the Jesuite in his book de Adoratione in Spiritu and all the rest I have seen that write Sermons and Commentaries I am very much mistaken and I shall not believe what I read with mine own eyes and think that in a waking dream I read mine own Protestant Phansies and not the writings of Jesuites and Papists But because magna est veritas praevalebit It is much for the honour and Justification of the Protestant Doctrine that even its adversaries and opposers in their modest sober thoughts in their more humble and mortified considerations do approve and acknowledge what we so eagerly contend for § 7. If our Refuter shall here reply that he has gained all he desires in this one concession and that then there can be no Nidabah no free will offerings no uncommanded degrees of Love § 8. I shall answere that I am very glad I have pleased him and hope he will think that I am no enemy to him but onely an opposer of Errours a Lover of Truth and a defender of its Advocates and Patrons whether Master Jeans or Doctor Hammond But then withall I must adde that there must and will be free-will offerings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be found in the Law of Moses which if he can reconcile with his Argument and Principles I doubt not but to reconcile this very argument to the Doctors Exposition and Concessions And indeed we have already done it or let our Refuter call in his School-abilities to help me For he I am sure as a Divine and Expositor of Scripture is bound to reconcile the seeming contradictions of that as well as the Doctor is bound to give an answer to all Objections that may or can be brought against his doctrine § 9. Indeed I am half perswaded that upon a serious review and more setled thoughts our Refuter himself will acknowledge that it is no very difficult Task For though it be granted that a most intense actuall Love of God is due unto God by an obligation of gratitude because hereby as Doctor Francis White against Fisher out of Bernard we are indebted and owe to the Almighty omne quod sumus
ex totâ virtute quae est idem cum fortitudine unde in alio loco dicitur ex fortitudine tuâ alibi ex omnibus viribus tuis quod est idem haec quatuor insinuantur Mat. 22. Luc. 10. quamvis in aliis locis scripturae aliqua horum omittuntur hoc enim est quia illud omissum ex aliis intelligitur Ratio autem horum quatuor hic accipienda est ad praesens quia dilectio Dei de quâ agimus actus est voluntatis quae hic significatur per cor Nam sicut Cor ut dicit membrum materiale est principium omnium corporalium motuum ita voluntas quantum ad intensionem finis ultimi qui est objectum charitatis est Principium omnium actuum quarumcunque potentiarum quae moventur à voluntate hae autem sunt tres sc intellectus qui significatur per mentem vis appetitiva inferior quae significatur per animam unde secundum eam dicimur agere vitam animalem vis executiva exterior quae significatur per fortitudinem seu virtutem seu vires Praecipitur ergo nobis ut tota intentio nostra feratur in Deum quod est ex toto corde diligere quod intellectus noster totaliter subdatur Deo quod est ex totâ mente appetitus inferior reguletur secundum Deum quod est ex tota anima quod Actus noster exterior ordinetur ad Deum quod est ex tota fortitudine tua i. e. virtute vel viribus Deum diligere And this I hope will please our Refuter In the second Article the question is An modus iste possit in via totaliter impleri And he resolves it by a distinction Advertendum est quod sicut dicitur 3. Phys totum perfectum idem sunt ideo totaliter diligere est perfectè diligere sicut ergo duplex est Perfectio ita duplex totalitas dicitur enim perfectum aliquid uno modo quia nihil deest ei eorum quae natum est habere alio modo dicitur Perfectum cui nihil deest eorum quae debet habere secundum statum Prima ergo Perfectio naturae humanae solum est in gloria quando natura habebit omnem Perfectionem quam nata est habere Sed secunda Perfectio fuit in statu innocentiae quando natura habuit quicquid habere debuit secundum statum illum forte plus quia habuit Justitiam originalem gratuito naturae superadditam Ab utraque autem Perfectione deficit Perfectio quam potest secundum cursum communem habere natura humana in statu naturae corruptae quia non potest totaliter vitare quum incidat in aliquem defectum rationis saltem in aliquod peccatum veniale Secundum verò hoc in dilectione Dei potest attendi duplex perfectio totalitas una quando nihil deerit de his quae homo potest expendere in amorem Dei quin totum semper in actu in dilectione Dei ponat haec perfectio seu totalitas non ponitur nobis sub praecepto pro statu viae quia nobis non est possibilis status enim viae non compatitur continuationem in actu sed implebitur in Patriâ quando semper Beati videbunt Deum diligent ipsum omnia in ejus dilectionem referent ut in sinem Alia est totalitas vel Perfectio secundum quam homo nihil subtrahit de his quae debet ponere in dilectione Dei haec perfectio seu totalitas non excludit interruptionem actus nec amorem cujuscunque alterius à Deo etiamsi actu non ordinetur in Deum dum tamen non sit contrarium vel repugnans charitati sicut est peccatum veniale haec totalitas praecioitur nobis ut nunc implenda constat quod impleri potest quia homo diligit Deum totaliter ex toto corde c. quicunque vitat omne peccatum mortale quod solum est charitati contrarium sed quilibet homo hoc potest pro statu viae facere ergo c. § 36. According to this he shapes his answers to the objections Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus potest in viâ amari totaliter nisi quod disting uendum est de totalitate dilectionis hoc enim potest sumi vel ex parte rei dilectae sic totaliter diligitur res illa cujus nihil est quod non diligatur sic cum nihil sit in Deo quod non possit ab homine diligi Deus potest hoc modo totaliter amari in viâ in Patriâ sed perfectius in Patriâ sicut perfectius cognoscitur sicut dictum est de amore sic intelligendum est de cognitione Alio modo potest sumi hic totalitas ex parte diligentis sic potest Deus totaliter diligi diligitur ab his qui sunt in Patriâ qui nihil de potestate suâ subtrahunt quin totum ponunt in dilectione Dei semper secundum actum in viâ verò non sic potest diligi sed solum secundum habitum modo quo est expositum quod solum cadit pro nunc sub praecepto Alio modo potest sumi talis totalitas ex regulatione dilectionis ad diligibile sic totaliter diligitur illud cujus bonitati aequatur quantitas dilectionis sic Deus non potest diligi ab alio quam à seipso And then to the second he answers Quod illud argumentum bene probat quod Deus non potest in viâ diligi totaliter vel perfectè prout totalit as vel perfectio excludit omnem defectum sed illud ut dictum est non cadit sub praecepto potest tamen totaliter diligi totalitate excludente omne repugnans contrarium hoc sufficit ad impletionem praecepti His reasons of this determination are first quia nullus potest ligari ad illud quod est sibi impossibile 2. quia actus charitatis est magis necessarius in viâ quam actus aliarum virtutum secundum illud 1 Cor. 13. si charitatem non non habuero c. And since the Acts of all other virtues may be performed therefore much more the Acts of the Queenvirtue and grace without which all the rest are nothing and since no Law obliges to that which is simply now impossible and yet we are obliged to love God with all the heart while we are here in the body It follows that we may so love God as we are bound to love him which can onely be according to the sense and exposition above given So Durand § in contrarium arguitur G. § 37. But there is one thing more which I had almost forgotten to take notice of in that Author It is in his answer ad secundum in the former question Dicendum quod ◠similem modificationem habet actus charitatis sicut actus
sidei quia uterque habet duas primas modificationes neuter Tertiam saltem respectu principalis Objecti quod est Deus quamvis fides respectu objectorum secundariorum possit habere superfluum diminutum medium potest enim aliquis plus credere quam oportet minus quam oportet secundum quod oportet sic est in actu charitatis non quidem respectu Dei sed respectu aliorum potest enim aliquis diligere propter Deum minus quam oportet ut si diligat propter Deum tantum amicos magis quam oportet ut si malos in malitiis suis sic enim diligendi sunt homines ut non diligantur eorum errores secundum Augustinum quantum oportet ut cum diligitur Deus omne bonum propter ipsum ut ad Deum ordinatur Thus far that good old Schoolman § 38. And now let our Refuter consider and compare this with Aquinas and Scotus and then tell me whether there be not an exact harmony between them Nay let him tell me what there is in all this determination he can justly find fault with I onely except that passage where he sayes We are not bound by this Law to avoid veniall sins whilest we are in the way to heaven And yet if this had been rightly expressed or understood according to the mind of the Author perhaps our Refuter might be perswaded not to condemn it If then our Author had said that though by reason of our lapsed condition it is impossible we should arrive at an absolute sinless perfection yet bound we are by that Law to endeavour as much as in us lyes to labour after this perfection and the shunning of all sin whatsoever whether veniall or mortall which if we sincerely labour after and do not attain it as we possibly cannot now in this present state yet according to the Grace and Mercy and Tenor of the Gospel Covenant through Faith and Repentance we shall be accepted in Christ as if we had actually arrived to this sinless perfection I see not how our Refuter could find fault or else better state and determine the question then this Author has done § 39. And now if it appear that this was the sense of S. Austin and Bernard in those very places that our Refuter himself hints at I hope he will then the less blame D. Hammonds opinion for the future because it so exactly comes up to the mind of those Authors he would have the Doctors opinion to be measured by And this is our last Task And for this I shall onely appeal to those very places that Chamier himself has thought fit to urge against Bellarmine § 40. And first we shall enquire from S. Austin what is and ought to be by this Law the Measure of our Love of God And for this Chamier urges this l. 1 de Doctrinâ Christianâ c. 22. and he calls it luculentissimam disertissimámque authoritatem Chamier It is the very same that the Master of the Sentences has quoted to this very purpose l. 3. Sent. d. 27. E. de modo diligendi Deum Haec regula dilectionis divinitùs constituta est Diliges inquit proximum tuum sicut teipsum Deum verò 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 Quum autem ait toto corde tota anima tota mente nullam vitae nostrae partem relinquit quae vacare debeat quasi locum dare ut alia re velit frui Sed quicquid aliud diligendum venerit in animum illuc rapiatur quo totius dilectionis impetus currit Thus far S. Austin And thus also the Doctor as has already been demonstrated and it shall be readily subscribed by me what Chamier adds Ex his quis non videt olim Christianis persuasissimum fuisse debere se ita Deum amare non tantum ut ei nihil anteponatur quod Bellarminus tanquam in Deum liberalissimus concedit sed etiam ut totus in amore Dei occupetur Chamier Tom. 3. l. 6. c. 12. § 33. 34. p. 191. § 41. * Vid. August Enchirid. cap. 121. It cannot be denyed but that by this Law of holy Love we are bound to labour as much as in us lyes to please God in all things to mortifie every even the least sin and wicked thought and inclination to repent amend and imploy all that is within us and without us in Gods service so that whatsoever we do must all be done by us to the glory of God And as this is the most that S. Austin here in this place requires and Chamier presses against Bellarmine so it is acknowledged in terminis by the Doctor as has been proved and our Refuter may make what advantage he can by it and he shall have my most hearty leave and concession § 42. But there be two other places quoted by the same learned Chamier tom 3. l. 11. c. 14. § 1. which perhaps our Refuter may think more for his advantage § 43. The first is taken from the same S. Austin l. de perfectione Justitiae responso 15. Peccatum est cum vel non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quam debet sive hoc voluntate vitari possit sive non possit § 44. And this shall as easily be assented to by me as the Former For without doubt it must needs be a sin when any man performs not what Gods Law requires whether it be now by reason of Originall Sin in his power to fulfill it or whether by bad customes and evill habits he has further rendered himself unable to perform what the Law requires For thus the words †The whole passage in S. Austin lyes thus Peccatum est autem cum vel non est charitas quae esse debet sive hoc voluntate vitari possit sive non possit quid si potest praesens voluntas hoc facit si autem non potest pr◠terita voluntas hoc fecit tamen vitari potest non quando voluntas superba laudatur sed quando humilis adjuvatur Augustin de perfect Justit c. 6. respon ad Ratiocinat 15. may be as they lie in that passage expounded unless our Refuter can shew from some other place in that Father that he meant more then this But then what is the obligation of the Law and the duty required by it Saint Austin determines not here And therefore we must look further § 45. For this the learned Chamier insists on a passage taken out of his 29. Epistle and M. Cawdrey has borrowed it from him and so does our Refuter it is this Charitas quamdiu augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est Ex quo vitio non justificabitur in conspectu Dei
Bernard ever imagined or determined that this Law of Perfect righteousness and love according to the strictness of the Covenant of works much less according to the Perfection of Glory is the rule whereby God will Judge or absolve believers at the latter day because they are not under the Law but under Grace and the Perfection of Glory was even in Paradise impossible to Adam absolutely simply impossible and by Gods penall decree the sinless perfection of righteousness in Innocence is now according to Gods ordinary power and grace impossible to believers whilst they are yet in the way § 52. Indeed plain it is that both S. Austin and Bernard determine the contrary they say in express terms that here in this life we are bound not to suffer sin to reign that we be Vib. August de perfect Justitiae contra Coelestium per tot humble and repent and rely on Gods mercy and labour as much as possibly we can to press towards the mark to be as holy as we can and this is all they say is required of us to Justification And if they speak that more is required it is onely to let us know our last hopes and last end and last perfection beyond which we cannot go and after which we should pant and long for as the Hart does after the water-brooks They tell us it is the Crown at the end of the Goal which we must run for and not the race it self to the kingdome of heaven For otherwise they must say that believers are now under the Law as well as Adam was and not under Grace which is directly contrary to the Apostle and those very writings from whence these passages are cited and the whole tenor of their works And therefore all things being so fair and clear it would be too great a torment to the Reader to trouble him with any other places from those Fathers to this purpose § 53. And now being come to the top of the Hill let us cast our eyes back and review our walk and well consider how we are gon on in our way First then plain it is that both the Fathers and Schoolmen quoted by our Refuter against the Doctor speak of an absolute sinless perfection and more a freedome from sin and a Love as large as heaven it self and the fruition of God can afford when they say the Commandment cannot to that perfection be fulfilled in this life Secondly as plain it is that the Schoolmen in their discourses of charity as well Aquinas and his Scholars in secunda secundae and the Master of the Sentences in his third book and the 27. Distinction c. generally speak of the habit of divine Charity whereby we are enabled to fullfill Gods commandments and little or nothing of the Acts of this love especially when they expound these two great commandments of Charity and particularly they do so even in these very places from whence our Refuters quotations are taken § 54. Now I shall desire the Reader to consider how this nothing at all concerns the Doctor and the Question in debate between him and his adversary For 1. The Question is concerning the degree and graduall intension of the Acts not the habit of divine Charity and now our Refuters proofs all concern the latter and not the former which was never in debate 2. The Question betwixt the Refuter and the Doctor concerns not the Acts of that high transcendent Love which is immediately planted upon God but onely the Acts of charity as generally taken for the fruits and effects and demonstrations of this Love immediately planted on God such as are the Acts of mercy and Alms-giving zeal and fervour in Prayer and the like and his proofs belong nothing to this at all but the former if they concern that 3. The Doctor oftentimes expresly declares in his answer to M. Cawdrey written in defence of the Treatise of Will-worship which our Refuter now undertakes to overthrow that it is not that absolute sinless perfection that he means or speaks of when he sayes it consists in a latitude and has degrees but onely of the sincerity of this or that particular Act of virtue or grace when he sayes it consists in a latitude and has degrees and may be fullfilled by Gods grace though a man arrive not to an absolute sinless perfection and exactly keep not all the Commandments of God according to the strictness of the Law And yet our Refuters arguments and Quotations do all belong to the former and little or nothing concern the latter alone in debate § 55. And therefore if I thought I might any wayes gratifie our Refuter I shall grant him all he desires and so eagerly pleads for and yet undertake to make good the Doctors argument and Position § 56. And yet for all that our Refuter is confident that as if the Doctors Treatise of will-worship were like Archimedes his sphere though curious to the eye and made with great and subtle Art yet the frame was but of Glass he has utterly dashed this excellent composure to pieces with this single blow and that though M. Cawdrey had failed yet now nothing was left to secure the Doctor from his all-conquering sword of discourse but Bellarmines shield and Buckler for his last refuge and defence And therefore thus gravely he bespeaks the Doctor and with the mercy of a Conquerour JEANES The first that Bellarmine hath to avoid these testimonies is not unknown to me viz. that they are to be understood of the Command quatenus indicat finem non quatenus praecipit medium If you think fit to adventure hereupon I must needs intreat you to remove first out of your way the Replyes of Chamier and Ames unto it § 5. 57. Well Sir you have said but how well advisedly I shall leave the Reader to consider For though what is known or unknown to you I well know not yet this I know that your knowledge and skill in Bellarmine and Aquinas is not very great and that no man of Ingenuity and Judgement that had ever read the places either in Aquinas or Bellarmine would have suffered such a passage to drop from his pen. For what is the Relative to this They in this passage Is it not plain that it refers to the places of Aquinas and Scotus you name indeed Austin and Bernard but you cite them not atall And will not now any man that reads this passage against the Doctor conclude that this was a trick of Bellarmines on purpose invented to decline the force of these Quotations of Aquinas and Scotus brought against him by Chamier What else can be the meaning of it But now though it be true that this distinction is made use of by Bellarmine to declare what he thought of the meaning of Saint Austin and Bernard in the passages already quoted by us from Chamier yet was not this distinction invented by Bellarmine much less coined by him to evade the testimonies of
love of concupiscence which goes before Amorem gratuitum free Love For as the Apostle saith that is not first which is spirituall but that which is naturall or carnall and then that which is spirituall so free Love of God for himself is not first but first we love him for his benefits and then for himself and this is true love c. That which is naturall will be first concupiscentia before Amicitia or benevolentia and this is the inchoation of the other Perfect love is not attained at first for nemo repente fit summus Now Saint Chrysostome wondreth how men can slip themselves out of this Love for if they will love any for his Benefits none bids fairer for this Amor mercenarius then God for he offereth for it the kingdome of heaven c. And therefore it is lawfull to Love God for his benefits for God uses them as motives to stir us up to love him and the best of Gods servants have so practised Moses looked at the recompense Heb. 11. but we must not rest there nor love him onely or chiefly for them but for himself c. I love the Lord saith the Psalmist and why He is my defence Psal 18. 1. And in another place Because he heard my voyce yet seeing David did not Love God onely or chiefly for his benefits his love was not properly mercenary but true though not Perfect Thus far this most excellent Bishop whose words I have made use of as Jewels and ornaments to this discourse and because I think it impossible to me I am sure to express it better § 23. Now Christ being made like to us in all things sin onely excepted he must also have in him this naturall love of God for his benefits and protection and assistance that he had and might have from him and the Schools do resolve so For it was in its self naturall and therefore not sinfull and his present slate of a viator in the dayes of his flesh required it For though the Foxes have holes and the birds of the Air have nests yet the son of man had not where to lay his head He was truly vir desideriorum a man of desires as well as a man of sorrows This as it was naturall to the flesh and proper to him in the state of a viator so it agreed to him in respect of the Inferiour part of the Will and the sensitive Appetite which desired things naturall and necessary for it self but yet onely those things that were lawfull and fit And therefore the Schools though they resolve that there was not that hope Vid. Estium l. 3. sent d. 26. §. 8. alibi Aquin 3 part q. 7. art 4. Et Cajetan Suaresium alios in Loc. in Christ which is virtus Theologica Deum ipsum ut principale Objectum spectans yet there was in him another lower kind of hope bona quidem vera good and lawfull and true in it self which respected those things he had not yet obtained in the dayes of his flesh as his Resurrection the Glorification of himself in the humane Nature at the right hand of God and the honour of his Name and Enlargement of his kingdome In which respect saith the Psalmist in the Person of Christ in the Passion-Psalm 22. 10. I was cast upon thee from the womb thou art my God from my mothers Belly So again in the eighth and ninth verses He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him But thou art he that took me out of the womb thou didst make me hope when I was upon my Mothers breasts there are many other places in Scripture to this purpose but these are sufficient to our business This hope as it was the ground of his Love of God for the benefits he did expect and the assistance he stood in need of in the dayes of his flesh so it was the foundation of all his prayers either in regard of his present pressures and wants and reliefs he stood in need of or else in respect of the future blessings he expected after his resurrection As then as Aquinas tells us Christus habuit spem respectu aliquorum quae nondum erat adeptus so he did Aquin. 3. part q. 7. art 4. in corp truly in this respect divinum auxilium expectare In the midst of his afflictions and in the height of his Passion he trusted in God and he was heard in that he feared or delivered from it And as he trusted in God hoped in him and expected aid and assistance from him so he truly had a naturall love of God a love of desire and concupiscence towards God for the benefits and assistance he daily received and hoped from him And out of the abundance of this Love he cryes out upon the Cross My God my God why hast thou forsaken me § 24. But then though this Love of concupiscence be ordinarily first in men and then afterwards the Love of Complacency though we love God first for his benefits and goodness to us and afterwards for himself yet it was not so in Christ For first as Comprehensor in his mind he loved God naturally and necessarily with the highest degree of complacency benevolence and friendship And this from the first moment of the souls union with the body And secondly as viator by reason of the fullness of the habit of Divine Grace he loved him alwayes as high with this love as the present state was capable of Though he loved God alwayes for his owne sake yet this supernaturall divine Love was not the fruit of his love of concupiscence and because he was sensible of Gods blessings and favours but it was the effect of the Beatificall vision and the fullness of divine Grace supernaturally infused from the first moment of his conception and de congruo both flowed from the Hypostaticall union § 25. But then as the Schools distinguish of a threefold knowledge in Christ the one which they call beata the other infusa and the third Experimentalis and Acquisita so there is also observed by them a threefold love of complacency in Christ The first is the beatifick Love proper to him as Comprehensor the second the Acts of the infused habit of divine Love And the third a Love of Complacency flowing from the frequent experiences of Gods goodness to him in the dayes of his flesh For he also did taste and see how good and gratious to him the Lord was in that state when he was truly that man of sorrows This was Acquisite and experimentall and this we may without any dishonour to Christ or the least disparagement to divine truth say was the issue of that other Love a Love of God for his blessings and gratious assistance This was a ravishing contentment arising in the Inferiour part of his soul a sweet delight and complacency in God from the experience of his goodness answering and satisfying those desires
in these faculties § 26. Now these two Loves of God proper to Christ as viator the naturall love of God for the blessings we hope and receive from him this love of desire and that experimentall acquisite love of Complacency arising in the Inferiour faculties of Christs soul from the experiment of Gods gracious goodness may without any derogation to the height and Perfection of his supernaturall Love be said to be capable of increase and augmentation And of these the Doctor must be understood to speak § 39. when he sayes that in the time of our Saviours Agony there was more occasion for the heightening of his Love of God and Trust then there was at other times He never before now had such occasion to Love God and earnestly long for his assistance as in his bloody Agony when the comfortable beams and influence of the Godhead were now miraculously and by speciall providence pro tempore withheld This made him to cry out upon the Cross with a loud voyce My God my God why hast thou forsaken me this made him to call up all the faculties of his soul and to heighten his Ardency and zeal and fervour in Prayer proportionable to the height of his Agony As he never was in such a Passion till now as he never sweat drops of blood before down to the ground so he never had such occasion to heighten his Ardency and that his Love of desire towards God and his goodness in respect of his present aid and support should be more advanced The more we are in want and distress the more nature instructs us to love those that help us and the heightning this love and our hope and expectation of aid and assistance advances and quickens our Ardency and fervour in Prayer and the more we want we love we hope we desire the higher will our zeal and devotion in Prayer be inflamed and this Saint Luke meant when he tells us that our blessed Saviour being in an agony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed the more earnestly And now since in the dayes of his flesh he offered up Prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears c. and was heard in Heb. 5. 7. that he feared since he had an Angell sent to comfort him from this experience of Gods goodness the Inferiour faculties are so ravished and satisfied that now his love becomes bold as a lyon and we hear no more now of these naturall desires prompting him to pray for a removall of that bitter cup. Now boldly as the Lyon of the tribe of Judah he sayes to those that came to apprehend him I am he and again I have told you that I am he If therefore yee seek me let these go their way Joh. 18. 5 6 7 8. Now he willingly meets death and gives those that came to apprehend him leave to take him Now was this experimentall Love of God in the Inferiour faculties advanced to the utmost height And now his Love was as strong as death it self § 27. But then though this be abundantly sufficient to satisfie all pretences in this or any part of our Refuters discourse yet I must remind the Reader that there is a great deal of difference between the heightning Christs Ardency in Prayer of which the Doctor speaks and that advancement of Christs actuall love as Comprehensor immediately terminated on God himself of which our Refuter speaks in this discourse and never the Doctor either in his Ectenesteron or his Treatise of Will-worship or the defence of it against Master Cawdrey § 28. And thus at last is demonstrated the vanity of our Refuters Title-Page and shewed it is to be like the Apothecaries glorious titles on his Empty boxes For he has proved nothing he there pretends against the Doctor and if he had proved all he pretends to he had not so much as opposed much less refuted the Doctors Ectenesteron which alwayes speaks of another thing then himself does For all opposition must be ad idem as this of our Refuters is not as has all along been demonstrated And so I come to the next Section SECT 31. Poor Refuter Doctor digresses not Affliction a fit season to heighten Devotion Christs Ardency our Instruction The Doctor Heightning Christs Actuall Love derogates not from his Habituall fullnesse Charitas quamdiu augeri potest c variously cited The Doctors mistake The words not Jeromes but Austins This lapse how possible Veniall Occasion of Austins writing to Jerome His severall proposalls of solving the doubt His own upon the Distinction of Righteousness Legall Evangelicall Place in Austin at large How applyed against Papists How not M. Baxters censure of our differences in point of Justification Place impertinent to the Refuters Conclusion Ex vitio est how here understood against M. Cawdrey and the Refuter and the Doctor Denotes Originall Corruption This how called by Austin Signally vitium in Opposition to a saying of Pelagius Parallel places for this meaning Pelagius objection Answered Austin and the Doctor accord but not the Refuter Doctors Exposition of Austin Corrected Dilemma's Confidence springs from Ignorance Chedzoy-Confidence Learned Protestants and Papists and Himself assert what he sayes all else deny but the Doctor A new Jury of them against him for the Doctor Erasmus Cajetan Tolet. Outward works of wisdome and Grace in Tolet what Estius Jansenius L. Brugensis Beza Piscator Deodate Assembly notes Cameron Raynolds How Christ grew in Actuall Grace the Habituall still invariable Illustrated by two Instances Erasmus and Doctor Eckhard assert Christs growth in Habituall Perfection This charged on Luther Calvin c. by Bellarmine with probability on Calvin How they acquitted Refuters Conclusion complyes with the sowrest of Jesuites Maldonates censure of the Lutherans and Calvinists Answered Stapletons like censure Answered They and Bellarmine if they speak consequently must mean the same with us Whole recapitulated Refuters unhappiness Doctors safety Doctor HAMMOND § 40. OF this I shall hope it is possible to find some instances among men of whose graces it can be no blasphemy to affirm that they are capable of degrees Suppose we a sincerely pious man a true Lover of God and no despiser of his poor persecuted Church and suppose we as it is very supposable that at some time the Seas roar the tempest be at the height and the waves beat violently upon this frail brittle vessell may it not be a fit season for that pious mans Ardency to receive some growth for his zeal to be emulous of those waves and pour it self out more profusely at such then at a calmer season I hope there be some at this time among us in whom this point is really exemplified if it be not it is an effect of want not fullness of Love But I need not thus to enlarge It is not by this Refuter denyed of the Person of Christ and that is my entire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference either to M. C. or to him
of Grace to find help in time of need Our Saviour in this has left us an example and he has further given us instruction that though nature teaches without any other Tutor that we now especially should multiply our Prayers and heighten our ardour and fervency yet from his great example and Precept and instruction we should also learn still to close up our most ardent most heightned devotions with a submission to Gods will though in such an Agony as this of our blessed Saviour we may pray the more earnestly for the removall of this bitter cup yet still when we cry out Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me we must add with him yet not mine but thy will be done And this is the entire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Perfect clear demonstration of all that the Doctor undertook in Reference either to M. C. or this Refuter And I wonder how he should not see it and if he did see it why he so should cavill at it § 7. We go on then with our Refuter JEANES I suppose the antecedent to the relative is in these words May it not be a season for that pious mans ardency to receive some growth for his zeal to be emulous of those waves and poure it self out more profusely at such then at a calmer season And then there be two things that you affirm that I deny not of the Person of Christ 1. That a tempestuous time a time of affliction was a season for Christs ardency to receive some growth 2. That 't was a season for his zeal to poure it self out more profusely at such then at a calmer season As for the first sentence a time of affliction was a season for Christs ardency to receive some growth if by Ardency you understand the ardency of his Love of God I deny that it did receive any growth for to ascribe growth unto it is to charge it with imperfection Charitas quamdiu c. § 8. I wonder Sir that after so long a dispute with the Doctor you should yet be to seek of his meaning Review the whole section and tell me whether the Doctor has not fully cleared his intention The Ardency he speaks of is the Ardency and fervour of Prayer which he sayes in this so proper season as now our Saviours bloody Agony did receive some heightning and growth And this he affirms from the Authority of Saint Luke This is the utmost he ever undertook to demonstrate from the first to the last of this discourse and his very title-Page will make it good And therefore here Sir you oppose not the Doctors position but another of your own framing For though Ardency in Prayer be an act of Piety and devotion and consequently of Charity and the Love of God as that is commonly taken in scripture because by a Metonymy it is an effect and fruit of our Love of God yet the Love of God properly and formally taken for that transcendent Love that is immediately fixed on God is formally and really distinct and clean another thing from Ardency in Prayer as properly and formally taken Of the last and such like Acts of Charity as these the Doctor speaks of of the former onely our Refuter And therefore though it were granted that the Acts of this Love as properly taken were not could not be gradually augmented yet this notwithstanding Christs Ardency in Prayer might upon a just occasion be heightned The opposition here as it is plain is not ad idem § 9. But then I deny that to ascribe growth or rather graduall heightning and increase even to the Acts of this love in respect of his state of viator will argue any imperfection in this love as respecting this state or derogate any thing from the Perfection of his habituall fullness of Grace as has most evidently been already demonstrated and I shall further instantly confirm from our Refuters own assertions § 10. But though he has very little reason on his side yet at last he has met with great Authority the Authority of S. Austin JEANES For to ascribe growth unto it Christ Love is to charge it with imperfection Charitas quamdiu augeri potest saith Austin profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est § 11. The words I acknowledge to be Saint Austins but I observe they be diversly quoted by learned men Chamier Chamier tom 3. lib 11. c. 14. §. 1. Davenant de Justit habit Act. c. 17. p. 286. et c. 24. p 327. Master Cawdreys triplex Diatr p. 110. and Bishop Davenant both cite it from the 29. Epistle of Saint Austin and rightly as we shall see anon But M. Cawdrey he quotes it from the 62. Epistle of S. Jerome But there it is not and I believe not in any part of that volume that contains the genuine Epistles of that Father And therefore I conceive that he might possibly take the place upon Trust unless he followed some more antient edition For I find in Marianus victor's censure of the ninth Tome among S. Jeromes works that all those pieces there digested which were formerly ascribed to S. Jerome were put heretofore in the fourth volume of his works and read in another Order then now they are Doctor Hammond in his Account to the triplex Ham. Account c. 6. Sect. 8. §. 33 34. Diatribe he quotes it from the ninth Tome of S. Jerome page 159. and rightly as to the place for in my Colen Edition of 1616. I find it in that page 159. col 2. G. § 12. But then I must withall acknowledge a mistake of the learned Doctors For the place is not in Jeromes Epistle to S. Augustine as he supposes and sayes all along § 13. For first this appears by the Inscription of the Epistle Hieron Tom. 9. epist 44. p. 157. edit Colon as it lyes in the ninth Tome among S. Jeromes works For it is Augustinus Hieronymo de eo quod scriptum est Qui totam legem observaverit And the inscription of Augustinus Hieronymo is to be found in the top of every leaf all along that Epistle in that very edition Secondly it appears from the very beginning of that Epistle quod ad te scripsi honorande mihi in Christo frater Hieronyme quaerens de Animá humanâ c. Thirdly it is evident from the body of the Epistle For the Author twice quotes S. Jeromes treatises against Jovinian Quam eorum vanitatem in Joviniano illo qui hâc sententiâ Stoicus erat de Scripturis sanctis dilucidissimè convicisti ibid. 158. Col. 1. D. Nam tu quidem in eodem ipso opere splendide contra Jovinianum etiam hoc de Scripturis sanctis diligenter probasti ibid. p. 159. Col. 1. A. and highly commends them § 14. The truth is the Epistle is S. Austins and extant in the second Tome of his works his Epistles those which by Erasmus and all are censured and acknowledged
to be genuine Aug. tom 2. Ep. 29. p. 42. Paris 1635. And this and the former de Origine Animae as they were written by him to Saint Jerome for his resolution in two such high and difficult points so they are owned by him in his Retractations and stiled not Epistles but books And he gives this account of the Scripsi etiam duos libros ad Hieronymum Presbyterum sedentem in Bethleem unum de Origine Animae bominis alterum de sententiâ Jacobi Apostoli ubi ait Quicunque totam legem servaverit offendat autem in uno factus est omnjum reus de utroque consulens eum sed in illo priore quaestionem quam propofui ipse non solvi in posteriore autem quod mihi de illâ solvendâ videretur non tacui sed utrum hoc approbaret etiam ille consului Râ—scripsit autem laudans eandem consultationem meam sibi tamen ad rescribendum oâ—ium non esse respondit Ego vero quousque esset in corpore hos libros edere noluâ— ne forte responderet aliquando cum ipsâ responstone ejus potius ederentur Illo autem defuncto â—d hoc eâ—idâ—priorâ—m ut qui legit admoneatur c. Posteriorem vero ad hoc ut quaestionâ— de quâ ibi agitur etiam quae nobis visa est solutio ipsa noscatur August Retract l. 2. cap. 45. writing and publication of them That in both he had a desire to provoke S. Jerome to declare his resolution and Judgement and though he himself had not solved the former Question yet he thought in his own Judgement that he had sufficiently done the latter and though he had proposed his own Judgement by way of doubt and enquiry to gain Saint Jeromes opinion and resolution yet it was that which he conceived was proper for the unriddleing the doubt And therefore now since S. Ierome was dead and had not answered it he had published it to the world to declare his own opinion how that difficult place was to be solved § 15. The words then are not Saint Ieromes but S. Austins But the mistake is not materiall and that which any man might be guilty of I suppose the ground and occasion of it might be this For the Doctor minding his answer to M. Cawdrey and finding the quotation not among S. Ieromes Epistles as M. Cawdrey had cited it but in the ninth Tome of Ieromes works he minded not these minute circumstances but addressed himself to the business of the Epistle and finding it not to satisfie the pretence of his adversary but aiming at another thing he took out what was fit for his turn and writing in haste and having much business before him and the ninth Tome of S Ieromes works now in his eye he might easily forget the inscription of the Epistle and put down S. Ierome for S. Austin among whose works he now found it Or else which I rather believe the Doctor having formerly read this Passage in this volume of Ierome and considered the full purpose of it he might extract and put down in his Adversaria that part in short which might serve as a Clavis to unlock the meaning of the whole and for brevity sake as the custome is set down the place thus Hieren tom 9. p. 159. which Passage he reviewing in his Adversaria upon this occasion and finding it quoted thus from S. Ierome and M. Cawdrey agreeing also with him without further consideration and a new recourse to the place he might take it for the writing of Saint Ierome § 16. But be the occasion what it will the most that can be made of it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either a lapse of memory or hast and inadvertencie For plain it is from the Doctors answer to M. Cawdrey that he had read the Epistle and has given the true and genuine sense of the place except in one particular wherein I differ from him and shall shortly give my reasons for it which he could not have done unless he had read it all over and well considered the purport of it And therefore since the Doctor is not deceived in the meaning of the place except in that particular the mistake in the Authours name is not materiall to the present business and argument he had in hand and therefore the lapse is but veniall Ipsa enim re as Marianus victorius in his censure of this Tome of S. Ierome sayes very well non scriptoris nomine veritas aut probatur aut adulteratur And now let our Refuter himself when the names are changed of Ierome into Austin and Austin into Ierome sit in Judgement upon the Doctors account of that place and condemn it if he can § 17. But to come to the place it self and the use our Refuter makes of it The conclusion and inference he makes from it is this To ascribe growth to the ardency of Christs actuall Love or say that one Act of his Love of God was gradually heightned and more intense than another Act of the same Love is to charge it with imperfection because Saint Austin sayes Charitas quamdiu augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet in vitio est The words I acknowledge but the Inference or sequele I deny because it supposes clean an other thing then Saint Austin ever meant which thus I prove § 18. The Father writes in that Epistle to S. Ierome to resolve him in a difficulty of some concernment and which it Jac. 2. 10. Quae res talis ac tanta est ut quod hinc tibi jam non olim scripsi multum me poeniteat De agendâ namque praesenti vitâ quomodo ad vitam perveniamus aternam non de praeteritâ perscrutandâ haec vertitur Quaestio Aug. Ep. 29. p. 42. Col. 2. D. Ib. p. 44. Col. 1. C. D. repented him that he had not long since consulted him about It is concerning the sense of that place in S. Iames c. 2. 10. Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point he is guilty of all The ground and rise of the difficulty was this because the same S. Iames c. 3. 2. sayes in many things we offend all Non enim ait offenditis sed offendimus omnes cum Christi loqueretur Apostolus And S. Iohn also 1. Ep. 1. 8. sayes the same If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves And this S. Ierome also himself had observed against Iovinian that pleaded for absolute sinless perfection And therefore since we all sin in many things and as S. Iames sayes he that offends in one is guilty of all how then can any believer of the many thousands that truly and in simplicity of heart acknowledge their own sins have any thing of goodness and sanctity in them But then he subsumes Absit ut dicamus tot tantos fideles pios homines Dei non habere pietatem quam Graeci vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
and I have already given my Reason for it Certainly that which iâ— less than it ought to be viz by the rule of Perfect Righteousness and Charity the Law is caused or arises from our inbred Corruption Ex vitio est it is By reason of which inbred corruption it is that there is not a just man upon earth which doth good and sinneth not Fro. which inbred corruption it is that in thy Gods sight shall no man living be justified By reason of which inbred Corruption it is that if we say we have no sin me deceive our selves c. § 35. By this view of the place it is evident that the virtue which on occasion of the Place in S. James he speaks being an universall impartiall observation of the whole Law and consequently every fayling in that a vice for to that all the proofs belong that there is no man but sinneth sometimes there is no reason to extend his speech any further then to this and then it will be no more applicable to our business which is onely of the degrees of this or that Particular virtue which it is certain a man may have who yet is guilty of some other sin in other particulars § 36. This therefore I willingly acknowledge that he that fails of any part of his duty is therein faulty or this is Ex vitio in him proceeds I understand it from his naturall inbred Corruption and if of that onely S. Hieromes read S. Austins words quamdiu augeri potest be understood as it is most reasonable it should whether we judge by the occasion or the Proofs of his speech or by the express words quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est that which is less then he is bound to do is faulty read proceeds from his own corruption ex infirmitate est as he elsewhere in the same Epistle then as I fully consent to the truth of them so when that is granted no man can hence infer therefore every regular Act of Obedience which comes short of the highest degree of Perfection is a sin for besides many other inconveniences formerly noted this fresh one will be observable from S. Hieroms read S. Austins own words that then every Act of virtue in this life is a sin for as for that fullest perfection which cannot be increased the beginning of this Testimony acknowledgeth that it is not to be found in any man in this life § 37. In a word the word Perfection is capable of two Notions either it may signifie the perfect obedience of never sinning and of this onely S. Hierome read S. Austin speaks both when he saith it is not attained in this life and when he adds that whatsoever is less then this is sinfull read proceeds from our Naturall corruption or else it may signifie any higher degree of exercise of any Particular virtue Chastity Mercy fortitude c. And of this onely it is that I speak and S. Hierome Arist Eth l. 5. c. 1. §. 9 10. read S. Austin in the words cited from him appears never to have thought of it for he indeed as we have already demonstrated speaks onely of the habit of Charity or obedience to the whole Law like that of the Philosophers * Vniversalis Justitia est obedientia erga omnes leges ideo dicitur universalis quia complectitur sub se omnes virtutes de quibus leges universaliter praecipiunt Magâ—r Com. in loc Universall Justice not at all of the graduall intension of any single Act of any Particular Virtue or Grace and to this onely my affirmation belongs that there are degrees in that Perfection and that he that hath attained to any of these degrees sins not against Christs precept of Perfection though he has not arrived to the highest degree Thus far the learned Doctor § 54. And now I shall make bold to desire our Refuter to answer me these Dilemma's Either he read this Account to M. Cawdreys Triplex Diatribe or he read it not If he read it not how comes he then so confidently in the next sentence but one to this to say I cannot but extreamly wonder that you affirm this to be the utmost you undertook to demonstrate to M. Cawdrey or to justifie now against me If he read it how comes it then to pass that he takes no notice of this answer of the Doctors to this very passage of S. Austin but crudely thrusts it upon the world and obtrudes it upon the Doctor as if it were unanswerable If he read not this whole Account in defence of the Treatise of will-worship how then is he fit to oppose that Treatise as he does which the Doctor had so largely defended And if he read it how comes it so to pass that he is so ignorant every where of the Doctors meaning and still talks of another Love and other Acts then those the Doctor had fully and expresly declared himself to speak If he both read and well weighed and considered the Treatise and Defence and understood the Doctors meaning where then was his Judgement to impose another sense upon the words than the Doctor ever dreamed of Why was he so discourteous to his Reader to trouble him with Arguments that had already been answered without affording the least Reply to demonstrate their weakness Let him chuse which part he please and he will either betray his own weakness and Ignorance or his Partiality and double dealing and consequently manifest how unfit he is to manage a Controversie in Publick especially against so able so learned so acute and modest an adversary as the Doctor § 55. But yet all this notwithstanding our Refuter is now with this single sentence of S. Austin so proud and secure of his victory and Acquests against the Doctor as ever Tamerlane was when he rode in his Triumphall Chariot drawn by Bajazet and the Asian Kings And therefore he goes on and thus magnificently bespeaks the Doctor JEANES And I am very confident that besides this Replyer no learned man either Protestant or Papist hath ascribed any such growth unto the Ardency of Christs actuall Love of God As for the second sentence c. § 56. Not to speak of your prevaricating again with the ambiguity of this Phrase Christs actuall love of God I shall for the present suppose but not grant that the Doctor had so said and in the very words and sense you impose upon him and your Reader What then will be the issue why very great For swelled with success and scorn he sayes I am very confident that besides this Replyer no learned man whether Protestant or Papist sayes so § 57. Well Sir you may be very Confident I confess but never a whit the more knowing For by experience I find in my little observation both of my self and others that Confidence is most commonly the Bastard of Ignorance and very rarely the genuine and legitimate Issue of true knowledge Admiration and
which the * Rom. 7. 12. law still holy and the Commandment holy just and good is the eternall Rule as the full condition of their Justification here and Salvation hereafter § 32. And thus is evidently shewed the great difference between the Obligation of our Saviour to holiness and purity and that of all other Men besides § 33. Though then it is readily granted to our Refuter that Legal sinless perfection did admit of no degrees nor growth nor proficiency nothing less then what was absolutely sin-less yet since even M. Cawdrey himself grants that Cawdreys Triplex Diatribe p. 116. our Saviour still innocent and spotless did yet supererogate in many his Actions and Passions and do more then the law required particularly in the degree of affection in prayer if not in the prayer it self it evidently follows that such Perfection as this will not at least according to this doctrine of M. Cawdrey conclude that the inward Acts of our Saviours Charity were alwayes equally intense but onely that they were equally innocent which as the Doctor does in that very place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expresly grant so it is so far from infringing his Assertion of the greater ardency in Christs prayer that he layes it down as the very Basis and foundation of his Argument § 34. But since M. Cawdrey's concessions may be of little moment to our Refuter whose Apologist yet he is I shall onely mind him that it is not legal sinless perfection that the Doctor any where speaks of when he sayes it consists in a latitude and has degrees but onely the sincerity of this or that particular grace in this or that particular performance suppose of prayer or alms-deeds or the like above what any particular Law requires of all persons at all times and in all Cases And therefore his following Reasons might very well have been spared that concern so distant a purpose § 35. But at least for our promise sake we will hear his Reasons for all that JEANES The first Reason agreeth unto Christ in Common with other men Christ as man was alwaies obliged unto the most intense ardent and fervent inward Acts of love of God but he was not alwayes obliged unto the most intense expressions of these inward Acts the reason of the difference between his obligation unto the intension of the inward Acts of his Love and his obligation unto the intension of the outward expressions thereof you may fetch from what is said by Aquinas secunda secundae q. 27. art 6. ad tertium Nec est simile de interiori actu Charitatis exterioribus actibus Nam interior actus Charitatis habet rationem finis quia ultimum bonum hominis consistit in hoc quod anima Deo inhaereat secundum illud Psalmi mihi adhaerere Deo bonum est Exteriores autem actus sunt sicut ad finem ideo sunt commensurandi secundum charitatem secundum rationem The second reason is peculiar unto Christ c. § 36. The Argument stands thus If Christ as man were obliged to the most intense Inward Acts but not to the most intense Outward expressions then there may be a graduall difference between the Inward Acts and the Outward expressions of Love But Christ was obliged c. ergo § 37. The Assumption consists of two parts and therefore cannot be answered at once § 38. To the first part then I say that this Proposition Christ as man was alwayes obliged unto the most intense inward Acts of Love of God is very ambiguous and therefore must be distinguished First then Christ as Man may be considered according to his twofold state either of Comprehensor in the superiour part of his soul or as Viator Secondly this term The love of God may be diversly understood For first either it may signifie the Love of God properly and as taken in a Formall sense for that which the Schools call Dilectio Dei and Aquinas and the Schoolmen call Charitas ut finis or Metonymically and in a Causall sense for the Love of our Neighbour for Gods sake or any other virtue or Grace of the first table suppose of Religion and the like that springs from the Love of God and is in order to him And this is that which the Schools call Charitas ut medium and Charitas Praecepti Thirdly this phrase the most intense ardent and fervent inward Acts of love may be variously taken For first either they may signifie the most intense absolutely and simply that the humane nature of Christ either by the omnipotent power of God can or else de facto shall ever arrive at Or secondly Comparatively and that either first in respect of the Law or secondly in respect of the present State or thirdly in respect of the grace or quality precisely and abstractly considered § 39. Now unless these be distinctly considered it is impossible to give a true and satisfactory answer And for want of this distinct consideration it is that our Refuter all along is so confused in his discourse and exposed to so many errours and mistakes § 40. First then Christ as Man considered in the state of comprehensor and enjoying the beatificall vision in his mind was not under any Obligation to love God because as the learned Chamier well observes Precepts are not given to Angels and the spirits of just men made perfect because they Chamier Panstrat tom 3. l. 6. c. 12. §. 35. p. 191. Col. 2. D. Vid Suarez in 3. P. Them â—o 1. disput 37. sect 4. p. 516. col 2. B. are extra statum merendi in a state not of Tryall but of Trust not in the way but at the end of their Race And the Schools resolve that this Beatifick love of God was simpliciter necessarius whereby our Saviour loved him to the utmost height possible for that state as a naturall and necessary consequent of the beatificall vision Secondly Christ as considered in the state of viator was not obliged to the most intense Act simply and absolutely attainable or as enjoyed by him as Comprehensor for this implyes a contradiction in Adjecto that he should be Comprehensor and viator in one and the same respect Thirdly Christ as viator was obliged to the most intense love of God formally taken that he in that state could possibly arrive at by the assistance of grace Fourthly Christ as viator was obliged to the most intense Acts of Charity Metonymically taken that the Law of God still required Fifthly The quality and grace of the love of God properly taken as precisely and abstractly considered has no set limits and periods beyond which it cannot be increased no such gradus ad octo as all other Naturall Qualities capable of intension and remission have And consequently nor Christ nor any Man else is obliged to any one such highest degree Sixthly the love of God as Metonymically taken for the love of our Neighbours has its set
bounds and limits For we must love them as our selves and some more some less according to their nearness of allyance and kindred and Countrey and the grace of God shining in them and the like And therefore it is resolved in the Schools that datur ordo in charitate And then for the other virtues and graces they have all except the three Theologicall Graces of Faith Hope and Charity that have an infinite Object God and therefore can have no limits their excesses as well as defects they have their set periods and bounds they consist as Aquinas resolves in a middle point between two extreams But then this middle point also is not like the Eclipticke but the Zodiack and consists in a Latitude And therefore Seventhly in these last the Law requires not at all times the most intense degree of the Act but onely such a degree as befits the Object at this time and with relation to all other Circumstances § 41. And hence it is that the Doctor speaking onely of some of these Acts in particular affirms them to consist in a latitude and that in respect of the particular Law obliging all men to the performance of them there may be degrees above that particular command that God leaves to our Liberty freely to exercise that so we may have something to offer to him freely out of those very graces which himself has freely bestowed upon us And consequently that Christ in the Acts and Exercise of these in particular the Ardency of Prayer was not alwayes obliged to one equall uniform highest degree of intensness And therefore the first part of his Assumption as confronted to D. Hammonds Assertion is unsound § 42. All these in their severall orders have been largely prosecuted and confirmed and therefore nothing now remains but that we proceed to the second part or Proposition contained in the Assumption § 43. And it is this But Christ was not alwayes obliged unto the most intense expressions of these inward Acts of his Love § 44. To which I answer that if by the Expression of these inward Acts he means the outward sensible expressions of the inward acts it is thus far granted that nor Christ nor any man else is obliged to any one particular act or kind of outward expression suppose in prayer to use any one particular gesture or language or form and the like but by Gods law is left indifferent to use any that is quoad specificationem decent and fitting § 45. But then I must add that Aquinas his authority comes not up to this purpose nor am I moved to this concession for any reason that I or any man else can gather from the passage cited to confirm it For Aquinas here means not by the exteriour acts of charity the outward sensible expressions of it but onely the performances of those duties and graces of the first and second table quae sunt in ordine ad finem which God requires us to perform in order to our last end and happiness our eternall union and sight and love and enjoyment of God in heaven The exteriour acts of charity he there means are I say no other then the acts and performance of all virtues and graces whatsoever as no man that is any way versed in that Author can be ignorant § 46. But because our Refuter is a Schoolman and a Souldier and resolves to dispute every inch of ground with us I shall for a full displaying of his Ignorance proceed to make it good § 47. Thus then I lay down the full sense of the place By this interior actus charitatis the inward act of divine love the Schoolman means the immanent and elicite act of that love that is immediately fixed on God in which love mans last happiness consists This other where he calls finis praecepti from S. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy the end of the commandment because all the commandments onely drive at this and aim to bring us unto God And in the place here urged he sayes it has rationem finis because mans last happiness consists in this love and this union of the soul with God in heaven By the exteriour acts of charity he means not the materiall sensible expressions as for instance the more abundance of tears deeper sighs more patheticall phrases and forms and expressions more humble gestures of the body in prayer which is all the heightening and advancement our Refuter will allow to our Saviours ardency in prayer in the garden not the outward acts but morall duties and gratious works and performances of any virtue or grace that the law of God prescribes § 48. The first are elicite acts of divine love and therefore immanent and interiour to it But these latter morall duties are imperate acts of that love And therefore though they are or may be intrinsecall to the will wherein they are subjected yet are they extrinsecal to charity belong not to the formall essence and nature of it but are outward fruits and effects and symptomes of it because the more the man loves God the more he will labour to keep his commandments and the more sincere and cordiall he is in the exercise of any duty or grace the more it appears that he truly loves God that has commanded it But then though these be exteriour because imperate acts of divine love yet in their formall nature and essence they are immanent acts of the will because they are the elicite acts of the virtuous habits there seated and consequently they are not as our Refuter very ignorantly outward corporeall sensible tokens and expressions For the exteriour Acts of Charity he speaks of he sayes are siout ad finem such which God has commanded us to perform as the way and means that we may be perfectly united to him and see and enjoy his goodness in the land of the living and love him eternally ideo sunt commensur andi secundum charitatem secundum rationem and therefore are to be measured and proportioned according to charity and reason which words cannot possibly have any sense after the meaning of our Refuter § 49. Now that this and no other is the meaning of Aquinas will appear from the very question it self the answer in corpore and the beginning of this answer ad tertium which our Refuter warily omitted The question is utrum charitas habeat modum whether charity has any set bounds or limits any gradus ad octo as M. Cawdrey and our Refuter sayes it has He resolves it in the Negative from the authority of S. Bernard Causa diligendi Deum est Deus ipse modus sine modo His answer in corpore is this Dicendum quod modus importat quandam mensurae determinationem In omnibus appetibilibus agilibus mensura est finis Et ideo finis secundum seipsum habet modum ea vero quae sunt ad finem habent modum ex eo quod sunt fini proportionata Finis
when he has betrayed so much weakness and ignorance in the first But we will consider it howsoever JEANES p. 39. The second reason is peculiar unto Christ above all other men whilest he lived here upon earth he injoyed the beatificall vision and the naturall and necessary consequent thereof is a most intense actuall love of God and therefore the inward acts of his love of God were equally intense at all times but as for the outward expressions of his love of God c. § 56. Sir how often and often have we heard of this to no purpose Onely let me ask what is all this to Christs love and holy charity as viator you must now remember you talk of obligation and duty But then this Beatifick love of Christ was simpliciter necessarius And therefore this is still the old Sophism à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter But enough and enough of this For though you are not at all troubled still to repeat the same objections yet I am very much ashamed that I should be forced still to return the same Answers and say I must as he in Plautus in a very like case vi'n tibi adferri noctuam Quae Tou Tou usque dicat tibi nam nos jam nos defessi fumus JEANES But as for the outward expressions of these acts Christ had to them a proper freedome taking the word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso and therefore they might be more intense at one time then another But of this you may if you please see further in Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae disp 37. sect 4. where the question debated is Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera § 57. Here is ignorance upon ignorance and confusion upon confusion and I am quite tyred with cleansing this * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucian Pssudomant Augean Stable A †They say Hercules cleansed it by the turning of a River into it Vid. Erasm Adag Diodor. Sicul. River of Ink must do it I see the * Basket in Lucian is to very little purpose § 58. To acquit this harsh censure of calumny and to remonstrate the charge it will be fit I reduce his discourse into Form § 59. The whole supposes a Prosyllogisme and this which he calls his second Argument is a proof of the Assumption Thus then it stands If the inward acts of Christs love of God were equally intense at all times but the outward expressions of these Acts might be more intense at one time then another then the outward expressions and the inward Acts are not alwayes exactly proportioned in point of degree but may not onely equall but also transcend the most sincere expressions of Love and consequently S. Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood of a graduall heightening of the outward expressions onely not of the inward ardency in prayer But the inward acts of Christs love c. Ergo c. The assumption consists of two parts and is here severally proved The first that the inward acts of Christs love of God were all equally intense at all times he thus proves because Christ whilst he lived here upon earth enjoyed the Beatisick vision the naturall and necessary consequent whereof is a most intense actuall love of God But then as for the outward expressions of these acts which is a proof of the second part Christ had to them a proper freedome taking the word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso And of the truth of both these may be further seen in Suarez Ergo c. § 60. And this his second reason he sayes is peculiar unto Christ above all other men § 61. Plain then it is First that here he confounds the state of Christ as comprehensor with his state of viator Secondly plain it is that he confounds the beatifick and necessary acts of Christs love of God agreeing to him as comprehensor with the free and meritorious acts of his love agreeing to him as viator And then thirdly plain it is that he confounds the inward acts of Christs love of God as properly taken with the inward acts of other virtues and graces suppose of religion and ardency in prayer which because they are the effects and signs of that former love of God are Metonymically so called And fourthly as plain it is that he confounds all these three very distinct acts and takes them one for another § 62. But then as if this were not sufficient he fifthly further confounds the outward sensible expressions of charity largely taken with the acts of virtue and piety that as we have formerly manifested are extrinsecall to the love of God strictly and properly taken and makes the inward acts of religion and devotion of chastity and temperance of patience and brotherly kindness and the like to be upon the matter all one with the outward sensible expressions of these virtues and graces And then sixtly he confounds the naturall necessity and freedome of the Agent with the morall necessity and freedome of the action § 63. For the better opening of which last for the former need not further clearing know we must that the Moralist and Divine distribute necessity and freedome into three kinds The first is that they call necessitas naturae and this arises from a naturall determination of the form and faculties of the Agent to one uniform kind of working and is intrinsecall to it To this they oppose that freedome which they call naturall which arises from an indetermination of the rationall appetite called the will to one uniform kind of operation and supposes it naturally left at liberty either to act or not act which they call libertatem contradictionis or Exercitii or else to do this or that which is contrary to it which they call libertatem contrarietatis seu specificationis and this at its own free election and choice Thus stones and vegetables and the like are called necessary agents but Men and Angels are called agentia libera free agents and this freedome is as essentiall and naturall to these as the other necessity is to the former The second they call necessitas praecepti a necessity of duty arising from the morall obligation in the action requiring it to be performed or omitted by a free creature that is lord of his own actions And to this is opposed that morall liberty and freedome and indifferency of the act whereby it comes to pass that it may be done or omitted without sin no law here interposing to command or prohibit it Thus whatsoever the law of God has enjoyned or forbidden is necessary and whatsoever is not thus forbidden or commanded is of a middle nature secundum speciem indifferent and morally free to be done or not done And this is a liberty extrinsecall to the Agent The third they call necessitas coactionis arising from outward violence and compulsion But
indifferent to the inward acts nay rather more then to the outward expressions of them otherwise he could not be the meritorious cause of our salvation § 68. If here he shall reply though this be true in respect of all other men yet the case is otherwise with Christ The reason here is peculiar unto him above all other men whilest he lived here on earth he enjoyed the beatificall vision and the naturall and necessary consequent thereof is a most intense actuall love of God I accept of his answer But then withall I must desire him to tell me how he can reconcile this position with the many Scriptures that so clearly assert the meritoriousness of our Saviours whole life and glorious example as well as of his death and passion For if Christ had onely a proper freedome of will and active indifferency to the outward expressions and not to the inward acts of virtue and charity but did perform them all ex necessitate by a necessity of his glorified state and condition and clear intuitive sight of God it was not possible he should merit by any of them as has already been observed § 69. If he understand his assertion in the second Notion of liberty for a morall indifferency of the action it self plain it is that Christ had no more morall freedome and indifferency to many if not to most of the outward expressions then to the inward Acts themselves For where the outward act and expression does aeque cadere sub praecepto and is aswell the object and matter of duty commanded as the inward act there both outward and inward act are equally necessary to be bone or omitted I desire him to tell me what greater liberty and indifferency there was to Christ in respect of the outward acts of all the negative precepts of the moral law more then to the inward acts what liberty and indifferency there was in respect of the outward acts of many of the affirmative precepts more then to the inward acts was he not aswell bound at least in most cases to the outward acts of adoration of honouring Gods name of reverence to parents and the like as he was to the inward acts But then what thinks he of all the Mosaicall rites and ceremoniall observances which clearly consisted in the exterior Act As he was born of Abrahams seed and under the law so was he not bound upon pain of excision to be circumcised the eight day And consequently being thus circumcised did he not become a debtor to the whole Mosaicall law ceremoniall and judiciall that consisted chiefly in the outward acts as well as to the morall and this upon condition of the curse annexed to the very least breach of the least tittle that was written in the book of Moses law was he not bound to the outward sanctification of the Sabboth the rites and ceremonies of the Passover and the like as well as all other persons circumcised Once more what thinks he of our Saviours obligation to the outward acts and exteriour expressions and performances of his prophetick office As the spirit of the Lord was upon him anointing him to preach the Gospel to the poor c. So an * Joh. 12. 49 50. cap. 18. ver 37. Luk. 2. 49. obligation from God his Father lay upon him to do it And Luk. 4. 18 21. therefore sayes he to his parents that found him in the Temple disputing with the Doctors and asking them questions How is it that ye sought me wist ye not that I must be about my Fathers business To conclude what thinks he of the death and passion of our Saviour was it not an high act of charity and love both to God his Father and us Men and yet plain it is that an absolute necessity lay upon our Saviour for performance of the outward act and manifestation of this love bound he was to suffer and to lay down his life for his sheep For ought not Christ to suffer these things and then to enter into Joh. 10. 49. Luk. 24. 26 27. Heb. 10. 5 6 7 8 9 10. his glory For what sayes he himself Sacrifice and burnt-offering thou wouldest not but a body hast thou prepared me Then said I lo I come in the volume of the Book it is written of me to do thy will O God by the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all And it is observable from Suarez even in this very question to which our Refuter here referrs that this Precept did directly and immediately first fall upon the outward act and expressions Quod maxime declarari potest in praecepto illo moriendo pro hominibus nam illud praeceptum directe cadit in actum ipsum exteriorem qui est objectum interioris actus voluntatis qui etiam consequenter praecipitur quatenus cum exteriori componit unum actum moralem liberum Suarez in 3 part tom 1. disp 37. sect 4. where the question is Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera p. 519. col 2. A. and immediately and by consequence onely on the interiour inasmuch as the outward is the object of the inward act of the will and together with it does compound and constitute one compleat morall action § 70. If here he shall reply that he spake not of the outward expressions that were matter of duty and under command but onely of those expressions of the inward acts that were left indifferent such as are the outward prostrations and gestures the words and other signs of the inward ardency in prayer though it is evident that his words indefinitely proposed must reach to all the outward acts and expressions of the inward acts of divine love that necessarily issued from the beatificall vision yet I shall for the present accept of this answer though nothing at all to the words and the purpose of this his second reason which he sayes is peculiar to Christ above all other men But then withall I must tell him that this grant and acceptation will do him no service § 71. For though it be true even in respect of the outward acts and expressions of the inward ardency and devotion in prayer that no law of God has interposed to determine and necessitate the outward act of devotion either quoad speciem or quoad exercitium either for kind or degree as that we should use this gesture suppose of standing kneeling or prostration c. this form of words these lifting up the eyes or hands to heaven and the like but has left us at liberty to use what we shall see fit in either kind whensoever we pray yet since the law of God and religious prudence requires that all things be done decently and in order in Gods worship it evidently follows that whatsoever outward gestures or words or signs or expressions he should make use of they were of necessity to
would infallibly perform whatsoever God had commanded him yet this outward morall determination of the action by the precept would not at all hinder the naturall liberty of the will but remain it would free as before supposing no such command And when he had explained and confirmed this assertion he at last concludes Sic igitur expositus sensus divisus compositus sufficienter solvit difficultatem hanc In the fourth Section he further proceeds to enquire Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera And this is the question our Refuter referrs us to for our further satisfaction And here in the first place he proposes a difficulty indeed drawn from the beatifick love of Christs soul qui erat simpliciter necessarius tam respectu Dei quam respectu propriae beatitudinis To this he proposes diverse answers which he rejects as unsatisfactory And then in the fifth place gives his own 77. I shall set it down at large that the Reader may perceive for a close how hand over head our Refuter does referr us for instruction to the Schoolmen Propter haec sayes he potest excogitari quintus respondendi Suarez in 3. par Thom. tom 1. disp 37 sect 4. p. 518. col 1. D. E. F. 2. A. B. modus ad quem suppono Christum non habuisse praeceptum proprium charitatis amandi Deum that is a precept alone peculiar to himself as comprehensor and distinct from that obliging other men tum quia cum voluntas ejus esset necessariò determinata ad hunc amorem non indigebat tali praecepto tum etiam quia hac ratione alii beati non habent hujusmodi praeceptum quia de necessariis non dantur praecepta Secundo suppono praeter amorem Dei beatificum esse potuisse in anima Christi alium amorem Dei nam sicut anima Christi duplici supernaturali scientiâ cognoscebat Deum beatâ infusâ ita potuit duplici actu amoris illum amare ut infra q. 19. disp 39. de merito Christi latius dicam Tertio suppono Christum fuisse simul Comprehensorem viatorem ex quâ mirabili conjunctione consequenter effectum est miraculose 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 amasse Deum necessariò ut amor ille sisteret in sola formali conjunctione et 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 sit per modum cujusdam efficientiae poterat facile impediri sicut fruitio beata impedita est ne omnem tristitiam expelleret nec inferiori portioni se communicaret Hoc ergo supposito facile intelligitur illum Dei amorem quem anima Christi habuit veluti consequentem scientiam infusam non beatam fuisse liberum quia neque ab intrinseco habuit necessitatem cum non versaretur circa Deum clare visum ut sic nec ex praecepto quia ostensum est Christum non habuisse speciale praeceptum amandi Deum Et ulterius probari potest quia nec tale praeceptum est veluti connaturale intrinsecum ipsi charitati quia illi satis est unico actu diligere Deum unde si habeat unum actum necessarium dilectionis Dei ex natura sua non obligat ad alium actum nec verò est cur fingamus datum esse Christo speciale praeceptum de hujusmodi actu quia ad hoc asserendum nullum est fundamentum positiva praecepta sine fundamento multiplicanda non sunt erat ergo ille amor liber Ex quo ulterius facile intelligitur ab illo amore libero liberè etiam processisse actus obedientiae charitatis proximi aliarum virtutum quas Christus Dominus ut viator exercuit tum quia ille amor est sufficiens principium causa illorum tum etiam quia amor beatificus ut dictum est veluti continebatur ne influerit in hujusmodi actus sed relinqueret voluntatem operari modo accommodato Viatori Et ita videtur fieri satis omnibus difficultatibus positis This he further confirms and explains § 78. And now I appeal to the whole world whether any thing could be said more high and full to the Doctors position and what we have delivered in the clearing and confirmation of it and more contrary and destructive to the pretences of our Refuter in his second argument in every part and parcell of it For first plain it is that Suarez here distinguishes Christs state of Comprehensor from his state of Viator Secondly he distinguishes the necessary acts of his Beatifick love from the free acts of his love springing from the infused habit of charity Thirdly he asserts that the Beatifick necessary love had no influence upon the infused love and consequently this might be most free and meritorious in the act and exercise though the other were not Fourthly that this free infused love was a sufficient cause and principle of all the inferiour acts of obedience and piety and virtue which as Christ in the state of viator did freely exercise so they did as freely issue from that free meritorious love properly so called as their first spring and issue And then lastly it appears from the words that these elicite acts of virtue piety obedience and the like are the exteriour acts of charity that Suarez here means and not the outward sensible expressions as our Refuter suggests § 79. And therefore since he has been so extreamly unhappy in the quoting of Suarez Aquinas and other Schoolmen my advise for the future shall be to him that he let the Schoolmen and Scholastick Divines alone and content himself onely with the Practicall wherein I hope he will be more happy § 80. Much more to our present purpose might be observed out of the following question Sect. 5. where he determines Quomodo Christus videns semper in verbo omnes actus suos eos liberè exercere potuerit as also from his 39. disputation de merito Christi where he proves that Christ did merit though not by his Beatifick and necessary love of God yet by the elicite acts of the infused as also by the elicite act of charity to his neighbour and all other infused virtues and graces and the like But because we cited part of this disputation already and our Refuters gross mistakes need not further conviction I refer the studious Reader to it where he shall find some things worthy his perusall For now extremo in fine laborum Vela traho terris festino advertere proram to mine and the Readers
25. proposition r. proportion p. 194. l. 19. dicir diei p. 230. l. 33. onoc r. once p 304. l. 1. 28. as every r. as of every p. 341. l. 27 partialis sit aequalis r. partiali deficiente deficiet effectus licet reliqua causa sit aequalis p. 365. l. 32. mortalium r. moralium p. 383. l 4. to 4. to r. by l. 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 392. l. 17. sinners r. sins p. 396. in marg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 417. l. 13. externum r. extremum p. 430. l. 6. his great r. this great p. 483. l. 18. our r. your p. 484. l. penult vices r. vires p. 501. l 14. oppositè r. oppositi p. 504. l. 10. quum r. quin. p. 508. l. 11. in his r. not in his p. 527. l. 8. possibili r. passibili p. 564. l. 2. in cautis r. incautis p. 566. l. 12. fome r. fomes p. 598. l. 13. by the r. of the. p. 621. l. ult dilectionis r. dilectioni A TABLE of the QUESTIONS here handled WHether Doctor Hammond be guilty of a direct or consequentiall deniall of the fulness of Christs habituall Grace neg Whether all actions as well immanent as transient have their terms affir p. 26. c. Whether the immanent acts of the habit of divine Grace or holy charity in Christ are terminated in the quality of his actual holy love affir p. 30. c. Whether immanent acts are dispofitions and ranged under the first species of quality aff p. 33. c. 120. c. 126. Whether grace may physically and effectively by humane endeavours be augmented or dispositively onely p. 35. c. Whether the acts of divine love in Christ are and justly may be called dispositions aff 37. c. 127. c. Whether acts and habits are specifically distinct aff p. 38. c. 73 74 75. 126. Whether the perfection and in being of the habit can any other way be rationally discovered then by the perfection of the Acts neg And consequently Whether the Doctor has not taken the best course to demonstrate the fulness of Christs habitual grace p. 53 54 c. Whether there were an all-fulness of habituall grace in Christ aff p. 58 c. 195 571 c. 586 587 588. Whether though the habit of divine grace in Christ concretively considered were allwayes so full that it was incapable of increase yet precisely and abstractly considered it were capable of intension at least by the extraordinary power of God aff p. 60 61 214 215. Whether the love of Christ were more intense at some times in some acts viz. in his agony and death then at other times in other acts viz. in his suffering hunger c. And whether his death be the greatest act of his love to us men aff p. 57 63 66 67. Whether a graduall heightning in the Acts of Christs love could possibly intend and augment the habit of his love neg 65. And consequently whether an intensive increase in the inward acts of wisdome and grace in Christ will argue and conclude an intensive increase in his habituall grace and whether the Doctor asserting the one does by consequence assert the other neg p. 63 65 184 c. 201 202 248 249. Whether our charity to God and our neighbours be one and the same habit aff p. 70 233 234. Whether the distinction of love into the habit and the act be not onely legible in the Doctors writings but love is also truly a genus to the habit and the act p. 81 c. p. 116 c. Whether love as a genus does equally comprehend the habit and the outward sensible expressions of it neg p. 84 c. 89 90. Whether criticisme be not highly usefull to compleat the Divine aff p. 97 c. Whether the intension of the act be so proportioned to the intension of the habit as still to equal it in perfection neg p. 109 110 111. And consequently Whether the actual grace of Christ be so exactly proportioned to his habitual grace as still to equal it in fulness height and intension neg p. 101 177 178. Whether any thing naturally and ab intrinseco hinders but that several outward expressions of love in themselves gradually different may sometimes flow from the same or severall acts of inward love gradually equal neg p. 139. Whether though the outward acts of Gods favour be different yet the inward act of his love is still one and the same substantiall act no other then himself aff against the Socinian p. 141 c. And confequently Whether any thing but God himself can be the proper object of Gods love neg p. 145 c. Whether the gradual intension and remission in the outward expressions of love in men do most commonly argue and infer a proportionable increase and decrease in the inward acts of love aff p. 155 c. And consequently Whether we are obliged ordinarily to afford the greatest expressions and demonstrations of our love where we are bound most to love aff 161 c. 165. Whether the gradual intension and remission of the inward and the outward acts and expressions of love must be so exactly proportioned in point of degrees as to be alwayes equall or parallel neg p. 168 169. And consequently Whether the Doctor did rightly conclude that that act of internall love expressed by his dying for us was superiour to those former which onely expressed themselves in his poverty aff p. 166 167 168 170. VVhether the Schoolmen particularly Aquinas affirm that the intension of Christs actuall grace is exactly equall to that of his habituall neg p. 180 c. VVhether a morall work or action consists of the inward and the outward act as the two essentiall parts aff p. 183 184. 591. 601. VVhether the Fathers and Schoolmen Protestants and Papists and the Refuter among the number affirm that Christ did truly and really increase in the perfection of the inward acts of wisdome and grace and holy love aff p. 188 c. VVhether the acts of Christs love were primario and per se and not onely secundario and per accidens capable of degrees aff p. 209 c. VVhether D. Hammond by the phrase the love of God means any thing else then the grace of divine charity in its general notion and comprehension neg 216 c. VVhether the acts of the grace of divine charity in Christ were not only de facto different in graduall perfection among themselves and from the habit but ought also thus to differ aff 216 c. 245 c. And consequently VVhether the first great law of holy charity binds all in every act to the same equal intenseness and utmost degree of love and holy charity neg 240 241 c. 360 361 433 464. Whether when the number of degrees of any quality is multiplyed in the same subject the quality it self also is
proportionably intended aff p. 253 254 255 256. Whether the multiplication of the outward acts of prayer and a longer continuance in them and a repetition of the same words argue a greater ardency of inward affection and true devotion aff 257 c. Whether though the merit of every act of Christ were infinite in regard of his person yet it were finite in regard of the real physical value of the works themselves And consequently Whether one work of his might in this respect be more valuable and meritorious then another aff p. 270 c. 574 580. Whether the English Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayed more earnestly be just and best aff 279 c. Whether the ardency of Christs inward devotion were heightned in his agony aff 283 c. 322 c. 328 c. 543 c. VVhether Christ in the state of his humiliation was both comprehensor and viator aff 292 346 347 c. 525. VVhether Christ being alwayes comprehensor upon earth were in a capacity to pray aff 293 c. VVhether Christ being still God as well as man it were convenient for him to pray And God had so decreed And Christ de facto did pray And for himself as well as others And with a difference aff p. 296 297 298 299 300. VVhether Christ in truth and reality and not in shew did pray for a Removal of that cup of his passion which he knew his Father had determined he should drink and when himself came into the world for that very purpose aff p 301 c. VVhether Christs agony and prayer for a removal of this bitter cup implyed any unwillingness in him to suffer or contrariety of desires in himself or repugnance to the will of God neg p. 306 c. VVhether Christ and consequently we from the authority of this great example might lawfully and rationally pray for a removal of that cup which God had absolutely decreed he should drink aff p. 315 316 317 318 319. Whether as the greatness of our Saviours agony in the garden exceeded all his former sufferings so his ardency in prayer for a removal of it were proportionably intended aff 322 c. 537 538. Whether affliction be a fit season for the heightning our devotion and more then ordinary fervour in prayer And God now calls for it And Christ by his own example has instructed us what to do in such cases aff 327 328 522 523 528 542 543 544 545. Whether the inward acts of Christs habituall grace were alwayes in termino and at the highest and belonged to him as comprehensor neg 3â—7 338. Whether Aquinas Capreolus Scotus assert that the inward acts of Christs habituall grace were all equally intense in gradual perfection neg 334 c. Whether Aquinas and Scotus assert the contrary and that which the Doctor maintains aff 342 343. Whether it were possible for Christ to merit and only as viator aff 348 349 525 526 527 626 627 628 And by what acts 365 366 367. Whether he that affirms that the inward acts of Christs love of God or holy charity were lesse intense at one time then another does deny Christ to be happy in his soul at those times neg 351 c. Whether he that affirms that the acts of Christs love or holy charity were more intense at one time then another does by consequence make him guilty of the breach of the first great law of love neg 361 c. Whether Christ as viator had the same abilities to love God as he had as comprehensor and the charity of the Saints on earth can possibly equal in perfection the charity of the Saints in heaven neg 369 c. Whether he that makes use of any Scripture exposition to be found in Bellarmine or other Popish writer is eo ipso guilty of a complyance with Papists neg 378 379 380. Whether D. Hammonds exposition of the first great commandment of love be the same with Bellarmines neg 386. Whether the Doctors exposition be agreeable to that of the Fathers and most learned of Protestants aff 400 401 402 c. How reasonable it is 433 434. Whether the state of Adam in innocence were a state of proficiency aff against M. Cawdrey 421 456 612. Whether the Saints and Angels in heaven all love God to the same indivisible degree neg 423 466. Whether the Saints and Angels in heaven differ in degrees of glory aff 423 424 425 466 467. Whether Christians are now bound sub periculo animae to that degree of innocence and prudence and perfection of Adam in paradise neg 425 426 429 430 446 447 605 606 607 608. Whether Christians are now bound by the first great law of love to all the degrees of love either in this life or the next so that whatsoever falls short of the utmost height is sinful as Chamier asserts neg 431 432 486 487. Or to as high a degree as is possible to the humane nature as the Refuter Neg. 433 445 446. Whether the first great law of love excludes all possibility of freewill-offerings neg 442 443 c. And consequently Whether there be certain acts of religion and degrees of piety to which no man by any particular law is obliged which yet when spontaneously and voluntarily performed are approved by God and accepted of him as freewill-offerings over and above what any law in particular requires as the Doctor maintains aff 383 442 c. 446 447. Whether this Doctrine of Gospel-freewill-offerings inferrs the Romish Doctrine of supererogation neg 448 c. And whether the Doctor has freed it from this charge aff 436 437. Whether the Doctor asserts lukewarmness in love neg How it differs from sincerity And whether Christianity be a state of proficiency and growth aff 438 c. 455 456. Whether God is to be loved above all things objective appretiativè intensivè And whether the Doctor approves all aff 442 443 444 496 c Whether the Christian is bound to aspire to and endeavour after the loving of God according to the perfection of the Saints in heaven aff 446 447 448 467 472. Whether the modus of virtue and charity falls under the precept neg 453 454. Whether charity may be increased in infinitum aff 458 468 469 502. Whether the creature may be obliged to love God as much as he is lovely neg 459. Whether we are bound to love God as much as we can in this life and infinitely and without measure aff 460 464 465 474 475 476 505 619. Whether the quality or grace of divine charity or holy love admits of an eight or any set highest degree to which all are bound to arrive at neg 467 468 469 470. Whether Aquinas maintains that the first great commandment of love requires of Christians by way of Duty that perfection of love that is onely attainable in heaven neg 485 c. Whether perfection of state according to Aquinas admits of uncommanded acts and
counsels but perfection life does not aff 491 492 493. Whether Scotus maintains that the first great law of love requires that perfection of Christians by way of duty that is onely attainable in heaven neg 496 c. Whether Durand maintains the same neg 504 c. Whether S. Austin and S. Bernard do assert the same neg 509 c. Whether the distinction of Quatenus indicat finem and quatenus praecipit medium were invented by Bellarmine to avoid the Refuters testimonies of Aquinas and Scotus 517 c. and whether it is agreeable to the sense of S. Austin aff 519. Whether the clear intuitive knowledge and happiness and necessary love of Christ as comprehensor had any influence on or altered the nature and freedome of the acts of his love and virtues and graces as viator neg 522 c 529 634 635 636 637. Whether Christ as comprehensor though he had alwayes sufficient cause to love God to the utmost height yet could have any more grounds and motives thus to love then he had occasions neg 530. 531. Whether as viator he might have occasions grounds and motives to heighten his love and ardency in prayer aff 532 533. Whether as viator he were capable of hope aff 535 536. Whether the love of desire and complacency immediately fixed on God were in Christ as viator capable of increase and de facto augmented aff 533 534 535 536 537 538. Whether it may be rightly inferred from this saying of S. Austin Charitas quam diu augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est that to ascribe growth to the ardency of Christs actuall love is to charge it with imperfection and sin neg 550. Whether the phrase ex vitio est be to be causally understood as denoting our originall corruption aff 558 c. What was S. Austins opinion concerning original sin and whether all born in it aff 560 c. 605 606 c. Whether the Refuter be very unjustly confident that besides this Replyer D. Hammond no learned man either Protestant or Papist hath ascribed any such growth to the actuall love of God And whether severall eminently Learned both Protestants and Papists have asserted it aff 570. c. How Christ might increase in actuall grace the habituall still continuing in one equal fullness 583 584 585. Whether the first Covenant since the fall of man were ever in force to justification or obligatory by way of duty to any but Christ neg 605 c. Whether God under the second Covenant requires sinless perfection to the justification of believers neg or onely faith and evangelicall righteousness aff 460 462 610 611 612. Whether from the more profuse pouring out of the outward expressions of devotion at the time of our Saviours agony may rightly be concluded the increase of his inward ardency aff 598 c. Whether Aquinas means by the exterior acts of charity moral duties and not outward sensible expressions aff 617 c. Whether the will of Christ had the same equall natural and proper freedome to the inward acts of love and the outward expressions of it aff 628 629. Whether Christ had more morall freedome and indifferency to many or most of the outward acts and sensible expressions then to the inward acts of charity neg 629 630 631. Or might indifferently use any outward gestures or actions or expressions in prayer then what pro hic nunc were prudentially decent and fit neg 632 c. Whether every act of piety and charity that is meritorious or remunerable is quoad exercitium and in individuo determined in respect of outward circumstances affirm 632. Whether Suarez asserts that the will of Christ had a naturall and proper freedome or active indifferency in sensu diviso to the outward sensible expressions onely and not to the inward acts of the love of God or holy charity neg 633 c. Authors omitted in the Catalogue Petrus S. Joseph Suarez F. Errata Epist ded p. 4. l. 26. Raunandus Raynaudus Treatise p. 123. l. 21. love good 139 8. intrinseco extrinseco 167. 13. inward outward 377. 23. perfectly perfect 387. 24. aliud aliud nisi 393. 23. the form and that form of 415. 32. Deum ex parte De um amari ex parte 422. 6. de quibus praecepta de quibus dantur praecepta 562. 11. ut omnino non ut omnino 581. 24. as with out as we in all things without 640. l. 12. would call would you call Smaller literall escapes the Reader will amend and pardon THE END A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane London Books written by Doctor Hammond and Printed for Richard Royston and Richard Davis A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Hen. Hammond D. D. in fol. the second Edition enlarged 2. A Paraphrase Annotations upon the books of the Psalms briefly explaining the difficulties thereof by Hen. Hammond D. D. fol. new 3. The Practical Catechism with other English Treatises in two volumes in 4. 4. Dissertationes quatuor quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis Primaeva Antiquitate adstâ—uuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum in 4. 5. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries in 12. 6. Of Schism A defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists in 12. 7. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice in 12. 8. Paraenesis or a seasonable exhortation to all true sons of the Church of England in 12. 9. A Collection of several Replies and Vindications published of late most of them in defence of the Church of England now put together in four volumes Newly published in 4. 10. The Dispatcher Dispatch'd in Answer to a Roman Catholick Book intituled Schism Dispatch'd in 4. new 11. A Review of the Paraphrase and Annotations on all the Books of the New Testament with some additions alterations in 8. 12. Some profitable directions both for Priest and people in two Sermons in 8. new Books and Sermons written by J. Taylor D. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays of the year together with a discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity Sacrednesse and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ third Edition in fol. 3. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12. 4. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying in 12. 5. The Golden Grove or A Manuall of daily Prayers fitted to the daies of the week together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness in 12. 6. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance rescued from popular Errors in a large 8. newly published 7. A Collection of Polemical and Moral discourses in fol. newly reprinted 8. A Discourse of the Nature Offices and Measure of Friendship in 12. new 9. A Collection of Offices or forms of prayer fitted to the needs of all Christians taken out of the Scriptures and Ancient Liturgies of severall Churches especially the Greek together with the Psalter or Psalms of David after the Kings Translation in a large octavo newly published 10. Ductor Dubitantium or Cases of Conscience fol. in two vol. Now in the Press Books written by Mr. Tho. Pierce Rector of Brington THe Christians Rescue from the grand error of the heathen touching the fatal necessity of all events in 5. Books in 4. new The new Discoverer Discover'd by way of Answer to Mr. Baxter with a rejoynder to his Key for Catholicks and Disputations about Church government 4. new The Sinner Impleaded in his own Court whereunto is added the grand Characteristick whereby a Christian is to be known in 12. newly printed The Lifelesness of Life on the hither side of Immortality with a timely caveat against procrastination Books in Fol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae Anglicane Suspiria The Tears Sighs Complaints and Prayers of the Church of England setting forth her former Constitution compared with her present condition also the visible Causes and probable Cures of her Distempers by John Gauden D. D. of Bocken in Essex fol. new The Royalists defence printed at Oxon. 4. The Regall apology printed at Oxon. 4. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas by the Archbishop of Tuam 4. printed at Oxon The Image unbroken or a vindication of his Majesties Book entituled A Pourtraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his solitudes and sufferings in 4. by B. Bramhall in a reply to Milton Reliquiae Sacrae Carolinae or the Works of that Great Monarch and Glorious Martyr King Charles the first 8. with a short view of his Life and Death Place this CATALOGUE at the end of the Book The End
potest quam quod per istos actus producatur Notitia habitualis Sed haec inprimis per acoidens est ad actus illos ut hic etiam fatetur Suarez d. l. aliique But now how far short this is of Proof will appear to any man that considers either the nature of the things themselves or what Suarez ha's delivered in this Argument in the place quoted by this Author § 21. The whole strength of the Argument is built upon the force of this Consequence Si omnes Actus immanentes habeant terminum Ergo omnes actus immanentes sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive effectivi Now this Sequele is very infirm nor ha's he brought any thing material to countenance it (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 6. Eth. c. 4. §. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist ib. §. 1. For if he take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive effectivi properly as Effection is distinguished from Action as he seems to do by his quotation from Aristotle as also by his (b) Ad primum respondeo omnem actionem esse causalitatem sed non omnis causalitas est per modum productionis propriè rigoresè pet quam sc producatur aliquid post actionem remanens c. Scheibler ibid. §. 82. answer to the first reason of Suarez it is most evidently false § 22. For first it is not true of all transient Actions that are acknowledged to be terminated in Qualities ut res producatur permanens transacto actu which is proper to Manual effections and the like Artificial Productions For Illumination is properly a Praedicamental transient Action c Suarez Metaphys disp 48. sect 2. §. 17. p. 558. productiva proprii termini scil Luminis quod tamen ita ab illuminatione dependet ut illuminatione cessante seu transactâ non manet an Action this that so depends upon the constant influx of the Sun that it no sooner sets or is eclipsed but it instantly vanishes unless which yet is nothing to the present Argument we may give credit to what Galileus doth somewhere relate That there are a sort of stones found in Italy as I take it that are of a spongy pumiceous substance that will imbibe and fix the Rayes of the Sun and retain the Light in them for four or five days together And therefore it follows not that if Actions immanent be Praedicamental Actions and have their Terminos that therefore their terms must remain as in Artificial productions and operations most commonly they do For though it be affirmed to be essential to every Praedicamental Action to have its term yet it is accidental to a Praedicamental Action ut sic to have its term produced by that Action permanent and lasting after the Action is ended For even that Author in this very discourse * Scheibler Metaphys l. 2. c. 10. tit 3. art 3. punct 1. n. 36. acknowledgeth that Quod convenit alicui quatenus ipsum convenit omni sub illo comprehenso § 23. Nor secondly is it true of all Actions that are Artificial and according to Aristotles (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist Eth. l. 6. c. 4. §. 1. determination in the place quoted by that Author confessedly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that their terms and worke does remain after the Action is past as appears in the Artificial actions of singing and playing on the Lute and other Musical Instruments And this is sufficient to prove the inconsequence of his Argument and the weakness of whatsoever Proof the Refuter shall draw from it § 24. But then it was a plain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Author to prove that some immanent Actions have no terms because nothing produced by them remains For one thing it is for an Action to be productive of a Quality another thing to produce a Quality that is permanent after the Action is finished And even (b) Dico de intrinseca ratione Actionis ut sic et omnis Actionis esse ut habeat terminum ad quem tendit ut producendum per ipsam consequenter in essentiali completo conceptu Actionis includi transcendentalem respectum ad hujusmodi terminum Prior pars probatur c. Suarez Metaph. disp 48. text 2. §. 16. pag. 558. Suarez as good a Metaphysician sure as Scheibler that undertakes to demonstrate and in my Judgment has done it that it is essential to every Action ut sic to have its term does make this to be a difference between Immanent and Transient Actions that in these the terms are still permanent unless by accident in the other they are not but are still dependent upon the Actions by which they are produced His words are these Differentia ergo consistit in hoc quod Actio Immanens non habet unquam terminum permanentem post ipsam Actio verò Transeuns regulariter illam habet quanquam interdum ac rarò aliter evenit In quo etiam est differentia nam quando id quod fit per actionem transcuntem non permanet solum est ob imperfectionem vel imperfectam participationem ratione cujus non potest permanere nisi actu conservetur sic Sonus qui est terminus factus per actionem cytharizandi aut cantandi non permanet ob imperfectionem suam Lumen similia At vero in Actionibus immanentibus vitalibus id provenit ex peculiari quadam naturâ pertinente ad Perfectionem sunt enim ultimi actus vitae ideo permanere non possunt sine actuali influxu Principii vitalis Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. § 21. pa. 559. § 25. And now if our Refuter shall think fit to lodge any strength upon Scheiblers Confirmation I shall refer him for an answer to Scotus l. 1. Sentent d. 3. q. 6. where he shall find this largly discussed that though Habitual knowledge be not the intrinsick term of these Operations sed quasi consequens extrinsecus and that Operationes hujusmodi possunt intelligi esse sine habitu ut patet in habentibus habitum intentissimum ut in Beatis and in Christ in respect of habitual Grace which was alwaies in him in its utmost height possible yet they cannot possibly be or conceived to be without Actual knowledge the Quality that terminates them To this purpose also may the same Scotus be seen l. 1. Sent. d. 3. q. ult s 130. et 1. Sent. d. 27. q. 3. p. 347. ad 3. ex edit Cavelli § 26. But this is plainly a Metaphysical Parergon and no way subservient to the design of the Refuter And therefore to return § 27. Though it were graunted to his great Master Scheibler that some immanent Actions have no Terms which yet at first sight seems very absurd yet plain it is that the Acts of this divine habitual Grace of holy Charity are terminated in the Quality of actual holy Love And for his