actual love of God is taken properly only of those aâ—â—s that are terminated immediately unto God and all those that are terminated unto us men for Gods sake are termed the love of God only improperly and by a trope and Dr. Hammond speaks absolutely of the actual love of God and hath nothing to restrain his speech unto the latter sort of acts and therefore he is to be understood of the former those that arâ— immediately terminated on God Secondly If this were a mistake it had been an easie matter for Dr. Hammond to have prevented it in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a clear and distinct explication of his meaning but he hath not done this and therefore if the Refuter be to be blamed Dr. Hammond cannot be altogether excused But I deny that I am guilty of any such mistake as is imputed to me For that Christs actual love of God in Dr. Hammond cannot rationally be understood of all those acts of love that were immediately terminated on us men all duties of the Second Table c. I shall prove by an Argument drawn from the Relation that Dr. Hammonds discourse concerning Christs actual love of God c. hath to the Commandment Deut. 6.5 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 〈◊〉 and with all thy soul and with all thy might It is brought as an Exemplification and proof of his interpretation thereof and therefore this actual love of God in Christ must be the same with that love of God which is there commanded Now that love of God which is there commanded is that only which is immediatly terminated on God For 1. It must be with all the heart soul might and strength and the Acts of love that are terminated unto the creature immediatly cannot be performed in such an intension without grosse and palpable Idolatry 2. The love of God here commanded is by our Saviour himself distinguished from the love of our neighbour and of our selves and consequently 't is restrained unto the love of God which is terminated immediatly upon God Jesus saith The great Commandement 〈◊〉 the Law is 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 Commanâ—ement and the second is like unto it Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self Matth. 22. vers 36 37 38 39. Here these two Commandements are the two Summaries of the Commandements of both Tables And seeing they are distinguished by our Saviour himself we must not make any confusion betwixt them But they are confounded when the duties of the second Table or this Commandement Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self are ranged under the first Table Or this Commandement Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart soul might and strength Now those acts of charity that are immediatly terminated unto us men for Gods sake are all Duties of the second Table and belong unto that Commandment Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self 3. Unto this let me adde a third Argument which may be reduced unto the first taken from the second Part of Doctor Hammona's Exposition of the place and thus it stands That act of the love of God which transcends all those acts of love that are immediatly terminated on the creature is that high act of the love of God which is immediatly fixed and terminated on God as the only good But the act of the love of God which is commanded Dâ—ut 6.5 transcends all those acts of love which are immediatly terminated on the creature Therefore 't is that act of the love of God which is terminated and fixed immediatly on God himself as the only good The Major is undeniable and if the Minor be not Doctor Hammond's own let the Defendant expound unto us these words of his That Phrase thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy soul denoteth secondly the loving him above all other things and not admitting any thing into competition with him not 〈◊〉 any thing else in such a degree This argument may briefly be thus also varied No acts of the love of God that are superiour unto those that are immediately terminated on us men for God's sake can be those very acts that are immediately terminated on us men for God's sake for one and the same thing cannot be superiour unto it self But those acts of the love of God that are commanded Deut. 6.5 are superiour unto those that are immediately terminated on us men for God's sake and so much is evident by Dr. Hammond's exposition of the place And therefore those acts of the love of God that are commanded Dâ—ut 6.5 are not those that are immediately terminated on us men for God's sake But suppose that Dr. Hammond spake of those acts of holy charity that are terminated on us men for Gods sake yet by what the Defendant saith it will be no injustice to think that he speaks of those actâ—s under this reduplication as terminated immediately on God himself For by the Defendants opinion pag. 234 235 holy charity and it's acts are terminated unto us mea for God's sake onely as a material object and unto God's infinite goodnss alone as the formal object Now things are rather denominated from that which agreeth unto them formally then from that which is ascribed unto them onâ—ly materially for dâ—nâ—minatio fit à pottori Now those acts of charity that are terminated unto us men considered as terminated on God as their formal object ought to be in all and were in Christ alwayes at the height and one equal perfection Our Defendant himself confesses pag. 217. that to English ears this phâ—ase the love of God seems especially to import the prime and more principal love that hath God for its immediate Object but then withal he adds that in Scripture phrase it frequently does not The first place he quotes is Luk. 11.42 Wo unto you Phariseâ—â— saith our Saviour for ye tythe mint and rue and all manner of hâ—rbs and passe over judgement and the love of God these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone But this place he confesseth to be otherwise expounded by divers and we have saith he no need of doubtfull places But 't is without doubt that the love of God is not there taken in such a latitude oâ— amplitude as to contain the whole duty of man towards God and our neighbour for 't is distinguished from judgement and that compriseth if not all yet a great part of our duty towards our neighbour But the Defendant in the next place alledgeth instances out of the first Epistle of St. John that are he saith beyond all exception The first instance is 1 John 2.5 But who so keepeth his word in him verily is the love of God perfected hereby know we that we are in him But to prove the impertinency of this place we need go no
Contradiction for they incline unto frequency of their acts loco tempore debitis and incline against sinful omission of their acts This Reason may for the substance of it be collected from what the School-mâ—n usually say to prove that free-will doth not consist in a habit I shall at present content my self only with a Quotation of Aquinas Primâ part q. 83. a. 2. Corp. Habitus dicuntur secundum quos nos habemus ad pâ—ssionâ—s vel ad actus bâ—ne vel male nt dâ—citur in 2. Ethic. Nam per temperantiam bene nos habemus ad omcupiscentiâ—s Per intemperantiam a tem male Per scientiam etiam bene nos habemus ad actum incellectus dum verum cognoscimus per habitum autem contearium male Liberum awem arbitrium indifferenâ—er se habet ad bene eligendum vel male unde impossibile est quod liberum arbitrium sit habiâ—us This mutatis matandis will prove that no habit is formally free Secondly Though habits be not formally free yet I confess they are in regard of their use and exercise subject * Aquinas 1. 2 ae q. 52. a. 3. q. 63. a. 2. q. 71. a. 4. unto the impery of the will So that the will freely useth or not useth them But this will no wayes advantage the Defendant for all men are obliged to act the habit of love as touching its inward acts unto the highest ad extremum virium They are bound to love God with all their might and strength therefore with all their habitual might and strength and if their love fall short of this height it is sinâ—ul and defective which cannot without blasphemy be imagined of Christ who was impeccabilis and therefore fulfilled all righteousness and therefore when he loved God he lovâ—d him as much as he could the all-fulness of his actual love was for dâ—grees answerable to the all-fulness of his nabitual As for his Answer to my seconâ— Argument drawn from the beatifical vision in Christ that hath been sufficiently replyed unto in my examination of his distinction of Christs love of God as he was Viator and as he was Comprebenso The third and last Argument was fetcht from Christs impeceability It was impossible for Christ to sin but if the inward acts of his love of God had been less intense at one time than at another he had sinned for he had broken that first and great Commandment Thou shalte love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy soul with all thy mind with all thy might and strength Deut. 6.5 Mat. 22.37 Mark 12.30 Luke 10.27 In Answer unto this Argument the Defdenant insists from pag. 357. usque ad 520. of examining which his own concession will save the labour for he grants that if we speak of that eminent act of holy charity that is immediately terminated on God himself we are bound to love God to the utmost height we can and that he who doth not so love him doth not love him so much as he deserveth or as much as man ought and that therefore the acts of Christâ— love as immediately terminated on God were alwayes at the the height and one equal perfection p. 71. Now that Doctor Hammond is to be understood of this eminent act of holy charity that is immediately terminated on God I have clearly demonstrated and unlesse the Defendant can answer my arguments his accusation of my third argument as guilty of that Sophisme which the Philosopher calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will passe but for an idle and ignorant calumny The Defendants friends may be ready to say that 〈◊〉 decline the examination of that which followeth because 't is unanswerable but alass there 's no such matter for that it is a very â—otten eâ—roneous discourse guilty of complyance with Popâ—ry in a great measure I shall shortly demonstrate in a dâ—stinct Treatise if God grant me life health and liberty The reason then why at present I take no further notice of it is because not only the Stationer but divers good friends have for several reasons much importuned me to contract this Debate as much as I could and I should now forth with put a period to it but that I am desirous to give the Readet in brief a further taste of the inconsâ—qâ—â—â—ncies with which 〈◊〉 work of Doctor Creed is every where fraught First p. 53 54 55 56 57 he concludes that a habit of divine love in Christ was not capable of further degrees because the act and exercise of it was capable of further degrees If Christs love of God in the act and exercisâ— was capable of Degâ—ees more intense at one time than another and had in its latitude or amplitude several Degrees one different from another secundâ—m magis minus all them comprehended in because issuing from the habit of Divine Love then this babitual love of God must be acknowledged all-full and perfect alwayes pray Master Defendant mark the word alwayes in him so fall and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further degrees But the Antecedent is true and therefore also the Consequent The evidence of the sequel is supposed and grounded upon two very â—nowâ— Maxims Nihil est in effectu quod non prius erat in causâ and Nihil dat quod non habit This is an argument silly and ridiculous beyond all comparison for mutatis mutandis a man from it may argue against the growth of the habit of love in all the Saints that ever were are or shall be on the earth If their love of God in this life in the acts and exercise was capable of Degrees c. then their habitual love of God must be acknowledged all-full and perfect alwayes in them so full and perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further degrees As for the two known Maxims they will do him no service unlesse he put in the word semper Nihil est in effectu quod non erat prius semper in causa Nihil dat quod non habet semper And if you adde the particle semper every fresh-man will soone discover their notorious falshood Secondly p. 57. he hath another rare consequence The Apostle saith that Christ's being in the forme of God though he thought it no robbery to be equal with God yet made himself of no reputation and took upon him the forme of a servant and was made in the likunesse of man and being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death of the Crosse wherefere God also hath exalted him Therefore Christs love viz. actual and inward was more intense at one time than another v.z. iâ— his agony and dying for us more intense than in his suffering nakednesse and hunger for us Thirdly in p. 18 19. of my Refutation of Doctor Hammonds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have these words If this be your meaning I must needs assume the
That Christ's love which Dr. Hammond saith is capable of degrees c. is that very love which is commanded Deut. 6.5 a love of God with all the soul heart might and strength c. and that is a love proper and peculiar unto God and not to be communicated unto any creature And pray Sir is not this that high and transcendent act of Divine love you speak of pag. 5. whereby the soul is immediately fixed and knit to God as the onely good and then with what face can you deny it to be the love of God properly and formally taken But however the poor Refuter must be condemned lege falsarii pag. 5. right or wrong For whereas Doctor Hammond spake expresly of Christ's love of God the Refuter is so dull and simple an Animal as to understand him of his love of the Creator whereas alas Doctor Hammond had a profounder conceit which is highly rational in it self and is to be interpreted concerning his love of the Creature And this is enough to clear me from the crime of Forgery with which this shamelesse Defendant asperseth me But his Calumny will be the more apparent if we insist upon those two Tropes One of which he sayes the Doctor makes use of The first is the Metonymie of the effect and that is when the effect is put for the efficient Now do not you by your Discourse plainly insinuate that the efficient is here taken for the effect the love of God for the issues and effects of the love of God If there were then a Metonymie in Doctor Hammond's words it was by you a Metonymie of the efficient and not of the effect And indeed you tell us pag. 217. that all the acts of piety and mercy and charity and vertue are called the love of God by a Metonymie of the efficient because they flow from it And either this is a flat contradiction to what you here say or else the Metonymie of the efficient and of the effect must be confounded and be all one But secondly Dr. Hammond doth not make use of any Metonymie at all either of the efficient or of the effect For that which is termed the love of God only Metonymically is so called only equivâ—cally and that the love of God is here taken by the Doctor for that which is so stiled only equivocally you dare not aver for that which is predicated of a thing equivocally may in propriety of speech be denyed of it that which is the love of God only equivocally may be said not to be the love of God But you may perhaps say that he speaks if not by a Metonymy of the effect yet by a Synecdoche generis But Synecdoche generis as Vossius Alsted and other Rhetoricians have taught me is when the genus is put for the species as creature for man Mark 16.15 But how the love of God is here by Dr. H. taken for any of its species passeth my dull imagination I shall not therefore adventure so much as to guess at your meaning but patiently wait for your own Learned Explication of it And thus the Reader sees how this first Evasion that Dr. Hammond speaks of the love of God only as 't is taken tropically by a Metonymy of the Effect or by a Synecdoche generis fails against both Logick and Rhetâ—rick But it may be objected from pag. 6. That Christs love of God which Dr. Hammond speaks of is his prayer unto God now prayer is properly an act of Religion and Devotion towards God and improperly and figuratively an act of holy Charity or divine Love For answer 1 Though Prayer considered formally in it self be an act of divine Love only improperly and figuratively yet it implieth the love of God properly and formally taken and 't is undeniable that Dr. H. speaketh of Prayer under this consideration as implying the love of God properly and formally such for he bringeth Christs praying more earnestly as a proof to make good his exposition of those words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul heart might and strength where the love of God is taken properly and formally Now of this exposition it can be no confirmation if the Doctor do not consider Christs prayer as implying his love of God properly and formally taken Though Prayer considered formally in it self be not properly an act of divine love but only implyedly viz. preposiâ—ivè and concomitantèr yet the reason which the Defendant brings for the confirmation of this because 't is properly and formally an act of Religion is very questionable For 2 According to the language of Protestant Divines one and the same Act may properly be an act of both Religion and holy charity too for they take Religion in so large a sense as that it comprehends all duties of he first Table Thus Ames makes all parts of Gods Worship both natural and instituted to be parts of Religion Now if this acception of Religion be proper it will not be material though it be somewhat different from that of the Schoolmen 2 But proceed we unto his Second Evasion which differs little from the former if at all but in termes and 't is concerning the acts of Christs love of God These saith the Defendant 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 Though then the acts of Christs love as immediately terminated on God were always at the height and one equal perfection as was never yet questioned or denyed by the Doctor yet this nothing binders 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 c. See pag. 3 5 22 70 71 216 c. usque ad 248 279. usque ad 291 328 329 335 336 338 343 361 372 373 516 c. Well then the great mistake of the Refuter is That whereas Dr. Hammond spake expresly of Christs actual love of God the Creator and yet meant thereby his actual love of man a creature the Refuter was such a dull Block-head as not to reach this hidden and invisible meaning of Dr. Hammond But first if this were a mistake it should not me thinks be so criminous and unpardonable For First The Refuter in his exposition of the actual love of God went by that common rule Analogum per se positum stat pro faviosiori analogato If a word hath two significations one proper another improper and â—â—opical it must be taken properly if it be put by it self and have nothing added to determine and carry it unto an improper and tropical sense Now the