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
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
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
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
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
ratione secundi spectant ad Praedicamentum Qualitatis Smiglec Log. disp 11. q. 3. p. 417. edit Oxon. § 5. Nor must you be ready to take advantage and say that though actual Love be not a predicamental Action yet Smiglecius you see makes it a Patible Quality and so Love as a Genus cannot comprehend the Habit in the first Species of Quality and the Act in the third and therefore hence at least it will appear that the Doctor is mistaken § 6. For the same Smiglecius has sufficiently prevented this Objection when in the beginning of his disputation (a) Smiglec Log. disp 11. q. 1 p. 412. Vid. etiam Suarez Metaph. disp 42. sect 5. n. 15. he layes it down for a ground that eadem Specie qualit as potest induere omnes illas rationes esse simul Habitus naturalis Potentia Passibilis Qualitas And therefore actual Love though as considered with respect to the alteration arising by it it be ranked among Passible Qualities yet as it is Qualitas bene vel malè afficiens subjectum abstrahendo ab hoc quod sit facilè vel difficilè mobilis it belongs to the first Species § 7. Nay which perhaps will raise a wonder in our Refuter I do not think but this Doctrine will also be found in his own Master Scheibler (b) Scheibler Metaph. lib. 2. c. 8. n. 105. p. 918. For whereas it had been objected that Actionis non datur Actio his answer is Respondeo Actus immanentes per quos fiunt habitus posse bifariam aestimari nempe simpliciter in ratione Actionis vel quantum ad intrinsecum terminum suum qualitativum Actio igitur convenit hoc solum posteriori respectu ut Suarez determinat disp 18. Metaph. sect 4. disp 44. sect 8 n. 23. Actionis autem non est actio immediatè ex vi suâ seu in quantum talis est dimisso respectu ad qualitativum terminum Vid. supra c. 6. tit 4. art 3. punct 1. num 37. § 8. Well then in Actual Love two things may be considered the very Action of loving or the Quality of Love produced by that Action which is it's terminus and product Now these two by reason of the narrowness of language are comprehended under the same common name as other immanent Acts are but yet though the name and expression be the same the nature of the things are so different that they are put in several predicaments the immanent act of love considered as in fluxu is in the Predicament of Action but considered as in termino continually depending on the action of Love as light does upon illumination that produces it it is a Quality and in the first Species ranked and placed I have already cleared this Doctrine in the answer to our Refuters irrefragable demonstration § 9. But now we shall hear newes indeed and he will let us know his own Remarques in Scheibler he tells it us as gravely as the Romane Priests were wont to relate the Fate of the Empire from the books of the Sibylls which themselves could only read Never any man without doubt made the like observations § 10. There are I know saies he divers great Philosophers and Schoolmen that make all immanent Acts and consequently all inward acts of Love to be Qualities they are say they only Grammatical actions not Metaphysical actions in the predicament of Action But 1. this opinion is untrue in it self and 2ly no way advantageous to the Doctors cause in hand § 11. For once Sir be it granted And what do you thence conclude against Doctor Hammond I see you are a cunning Angler that having fished long and catched nothing now fall to troubling the stream But En Rhodus en Saltus The Doctor made use of a distinction of Love into the Habit and the Act which all the world for ought I could ever find to the contrary approve of and our Refuter to oppose it tells us that some Schoolmen and Philosophers make all immanent Acts Qualities c. § 12. And is not now Doctor Hammond confuted Sing sing your Io Paean while we look out some Diogenes with his Candle and Lanthorn to find out in what corner our baffled Doctor hides his head Well Sir I see you are so excellent a Schoolman that I must give you my Vote to answer Bellarmine There is nothing can withstand your all-powerful Confutation § 13. But good Sir I beseech you tell us what 's all this to the Doctor or the present dispute Did he ever take part with those Philosophers and Schoolmen I pray what temptation had you then to run into this Digression Truly none but that a book was to be made and Doctor Hammond to be confuted whether he spake right or wrong or say any thing or nothing By this I see Sir you can answer Quodlibets and Ergo you are a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity § 14. But if we will but stay and have patience till the Sun is up this Memnon's head will vent an Oracle First then he saies This Opinion is untrue in it self and to confirm this he shall offer to the Doctors consideration two arguments out of Scheibler which clearly prove immanent Acts to be true proper and predicamental Actions in the Predicament of Action § 15. And have you not told us newes indeed you should have brought us word that the Sun shines at Rhodes or when it is in it's Zenith There is nothing more generally received in the Schools then that is And I dare say scarce any Philosopher or Schoolman of any note has for these hundred years almost delivered any thing to the contrary Why then urge you Scheibler and his reasons as if he being a late writer had discovered a Truth which former Authors were mistaken in If in the next edition of your book or Rejoynder to Doct. Hammond it may any way gratifie you I shall refer you to Authors of a greater Bulk and larger name then Scheibler for the proof of this point I shall refer you to Smiglecius to Ruvio to Suarez and all the Authors they have quoted but especially I shall refer you to Suarez his most excellent reasons which he has urged in the Demonstration of it And give me leave to tell you that your Master Scheibler first lighted his Candle at his Taper § 16. That you may see we will not alwaies be at difference and that it is not love of contention and victory but Truth only that I strive for it is granted to you and your Master Scheibler that Actio immanens verè est actio But then withall let me adde that this is not the question between you and the Doctor The Proposition you must prove is only this that Actus immanentes sunt tantum Actiones nullo respectu Qualitates that immanent Acts are only Actions and in no respect Qualities Soncinas it is true said that Actus immanentes sunt tantum
qualitates and Suarez and your Scheibler and others have demonstrated the falshood of that assertion But then this said not the Doctor and so falls not under the lash of this Vse of Confutation § 17. He said indeed that Actual Love was a Quality specifically distinct from Love that is the Habit. But he never denyed that the Action of loving comprehended under the same common name with actual Love was a predicamental Action § 18. Prove then good Sir if you will acquit your self like a Schooleman either 1. that the immanent act of Love in no respect or consideration is or can be a quality or 2ly that all immanent acts in general or 3ly that this immanent act of Love in particular has no terminus or Quality produced by it which is called by the same name When you shall have done this I shall not then blame you for starting a new Question § 19. If you will be pleased to consult you may find that the same Suarez * Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. n. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. who proves that all immanent acts are not simply Qualities but in some respect also true predicamental actions does also demonstrate †Suarez Met. disp 42. sect 5. n. 13 14 15 that immanent acts are not only actions but also qualities called by the same name with the Actions themselves and that it is de intrinseca ratione Actionis ut sic ut habeat intrinsecum terminum ad quem tendat ut producendum per ipsam and consequently that the immanent Act of Love as well as all other immanent Acts is not only a predicamental action but includes in it's essence a transcendental respect to the quality of actual Love that is it's Terminus and which is that very Quality which the Doctor truly makes the opposite species to habitual Love and equally comprehended under one and the same immediate Genus § 20. Though then true it is that all immanent Acts that are causalities of efficient causes are consequently predicamental Actions which is all Scheibler saies in his first argument yet as true it is as Suarez and others say that all predicamental Actions and consequently all immanent Acts that are truly such must of necessity relate to some term by them produced which in the present case is a Quality called by the same name as the Action is And therefore Doctor Hammond must be concluded to be in the right till you shall answer Suarez his arguments and prove his Doctrine to be in the wrong § 21. Though secondly it be granted to your Master Scheibler that immanent Acts because they terminate active powers must be concluded to be predicamental actions yet it cannot be denied to Suarez and others that immanent Acts because they are predicamental Actions must have some Quality to terminate them As there cannot be an efficient Cause without it's Causality * Suppono quod impossibile est esse motum vel mutationem realem sine termino reali Ex hoc arguo sic c. H. Cavell in Addit ad Scotum l. 1. Senten d. 17. q. 5. n. 3. so impossible it is there should be any Causality where nothing is produced and caused by that Causality As it is impossible there should be an Active power without respect to the Act that terminates the Power * so impossible it is there should be any Action without some product to terminate the Action § 22. And thus I have neither slighted Scheibler nor his reasons but acknowledged that truth which that Author labours to prove by them § 23. But he saies he can yet press us with an Author far greater then Scheibler our great Master Aristotle of whom the Doctor makes somewhere in his writings honourable mention § 24. And do you think Sir the Doctor will cease to give him that venerable respect because you now seem to have borrowed from his writings an argument against him I dare assure you the Doctor is still the same civil man and being himself a Person of great learning and Parts he knows how to give that respect such a gallant man deserves And if you can make good that Aristotle speaks on your side against the Doctor I dare pass my word to bring you his publick Recantation § 25. But what saies our great Master * Arist lib. 10. Eth. cap. 3. He tells us roundly saies our Refuter that the operations of Vertues and even happiness it self are not Qualities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 26. The words indeed I acknowledge but I cannot understand them with our Refuters Comment § 27. The truth is one * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 10. Eth. c. 2. §. 1. Eudoxus as we find in the beginning of the second Chapter of that Book did maintain that Pleasure was the Last End and greatest Good And by the way give me leave to mind our Refuter of his great Master Aristotles †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist ibm §. eod observation concerning this Eudoxus He tells us that though the man's reasons were weak and no waies able to support his Opinion yet because he was looked on as a sober temperate man he gained credit and belief with many For so good and vertuous a man as he could not be deemed by them thus to teach for love of Pleasure but only because it was indeed the very truth And is not this the present Fortune of our Refuter does he not gain many Proselytes and Votaries to the Errors he has vented in this Treatise because he is looked on by some yong men not only as a man of parts and great Judgement but also as a leader and Captain in School-learning But Eudoxus though otherwise never so good was much mistaken in this Point and so is our Refuter though otherwise never so venerable and learned I doubt not but that already this has sufficiently appeared and I shall in the Process also further demonstrate it § 28. For to return to the text in Aristotle whereas Plato had undertook to refute the opinion of Eudoxus his great Scholar though he agreed with him in the Conclusion yet he could not approve of his Masters reasons as sufficient And the first of them gave occasion to this Text that our Refuter has urged It was this as I find it reduced to form by Aquinas (a) Tho. Aquim Comment in loc in his Commentary on the place Bonum videtur ad genus Qualitatis pertinere quaerenti enim quale est hoc respondemus quoniam bonum Delectatio autem non est qualitas Ergo non est bonum To shew the weakness of this Reason the Philosopher replies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It follows not as Plato thought though Pleasure be not ranked among the number of Qualities that therefore it is not good for even the Operations and Acts of Vertues and Felicity it self are not Qualities which no man yet can deny to be good § 29. And now to shew how little
this makes to our Refuters advantage the Philosopher in this reply as appears from the sixth (b) Vid. Arist l. 10. Eth. c. 6. §. 1 2 3. Chapter of this Book refers to what he had more largely delivered to this purpose in the very entrance of this Treatise He had there proved by induction that Love was a Transcendent thing and placed in all * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Arist 1. Eth. c. 6. § 2 3. Predicaments He had also proved that Felicity as it was the greatest good so it consisted not in a dull and lazy quality that it was no †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist l. 10. Eth. c. 6. §. 2. Vid. eund l. 1. Eth. c. 5. §. 3. c. 7. § 3 4 5. ibid. c. 8. §. 7. where this is at large prosecuted habitual goodness but a quick and active thing whose excellence and perfection did consist in Act and Operation in use and exercise not in Possession and that vertue too though it were in it's own nature a habit yet it did perform nothing good but only in the use and operation And both these he proves by this excellent reason because a man may be habitually vertuous and happy whilst he sleeps or does any thing or nothing even in the mid'st of sufferings and miseries and greatest misfortunes But they cannot possibly be so in regard of the Acts and exercise of vertues And therefore he concludes that as in the Olympick Games not the most beautiful and strong but those that run and strive because only such do conquer are crowned so amongst those that are good and honest in the course of humane life those only that do well do win the Prize and Laurel § 30. And now Sir what 's all this to your present purpose Because Aristotle disputing against Plato asserts as he had before proved that the Operations of vertues are not habitual qualities but Actions placed in another Predicament that Felicity consisted not in the habitual possession of Vertue but in the Act and exercise of it and that both these were good though not qualities will you therefore conclude from this place that they are Actions not terminated in qualities or that there can be any such thing without a transcendental respect to that which terminates the Action and is produced by it Saies the Philosopher any thing Pro or Con as they speak to this purpose And yet the only matter in debate between you and the Doctor is whether immanent Acts such as that of actual Love is be purely predicamental Actions and nothing else not terminated in qualities that are called by the same names with the predicamental actions by which they are produced § 31. Indeed if our moral Philosopher had here said any thing to this purpose he had digressed from his Theme into a Metaphysical Reserche and speculation he had been guilty of that which they call Transitio à Genere ad Genus a fault which the great and best Master of Method had declared to be unpardonable § 32. In short then Vertue and Felicity consist not in the Habit but in the Act and exercise and being thus properly considered and in fluxu operatione they are Actions and not Qualities and because though thus considered they are Actions and not Qualities yet the one being the greatest good and the other also good because vertuous they must be acknowledged to be good though not Qualities And this as it was sufficient against Plato so it was all that the Philosopher there intended § 33. But then secondly because these acts of Vertue and Felicity as all other immanent Acts are something more then bare Actions and carry with them a transcendental respect to the Qualities that terminate them hence it is that these Acts are in this respect called Qualities and those Qualities are placed in the same Predicament with the Habits whereof they are the Effects and Acts. § 34. And now Sir that you may see I do not speak altogether without Book you shall find the very same answer in Suarez * Suarez Metaph. disp 42. sect 5. §. 14. Solum potest obijci difficilis locus Aristotelis l. 10. Eth. c. 3. ubi sic ait Atqui neque si voluptas non est qualitas propter hoc bonum non est neque Operationes virtutis sunt qualitates neque felicitas ipsa Constat autem voluptatem felicitatem operationes virtutis esse actus immanentes ita etiam absolutè docent D. Thomas alii non aliter interpretando verba Aristotelis Existimo tamen aliquo indigere moderamine nimirum Voluptatem aut Felicitatem non esse puram qualitatem quae non necessariò consistit in actuali operatione ejus qui voluptate vel felicitate afficitur quia nemo potest aut voluptate affici vel fieri felix nisi actualiter aliquid efficiendo non tamen potest negari quin illud quod facit Qualitas sit To this for the greater confirmation I shall subjoin another passage in the same Author †Suarez Metaph. disp 48. sect 2. num 25. Rursus cum dicitur Beatitudo consistere in actione immanente si propriè loquamur intelligendum est consistere in ipso actu immanente ut est Qualitas informans ac ultimo perficiens ipsum operans nam in actione ut actio est non consistit nisi praesuppositivè in via ad talem perfectionem § 35. Indeed I wonder that you should see the Objection in that Author and not refute or take the least notice of this Answer But perhaps you thought that so great a Critick as the Doctor would not dip in Suarez Metaphysicks because there was nothing in it for a Criticks observation And therefore you might easily suspect that your objections thence taken would not be answered by him yet you did forget your art when you pointed the Doctor to Suarez for satisfaction in this kind Without doubt the Doctor though a Critick has shewen himself better read in Metaphysicks then your self though a writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity § 36. And that I may make it good and also instruct you in that wherein you profess your self yet to seek viz. that habitual and actual Love are both as the Doctor saies Qualities in the same Predicament and coordinate Species of the same next and most immediate Genus of Love nay that it is the generally-received opinion amongst Metaphysicians I shall now acquaint you with some of my observations to this purpose in that very Suarez whom for instruction in this point you recommend to the Doctors perusal First then in his Disp 14. sect 3. tom 1. § 14. I find that Habitus actus earum potentiarum in eodem genere in rigore collocantur Licèt enim Actio ut Actio I pray mark it Sir pertineat ad praedicamentum Actionis tamen ut Actus vitalis habens esse consummatum in suo genere collocatur in praedicamento
citat For 1. though the apprehension of the approaching torments was never so great yet he did but only desire the removal of them not absolutely but conditionally and with submission to his Fathers will And 2ly the inferiour faculties were no whit repugnant to the superiour but yielded patiently to it's dictates And therefore 3ly he absolutely submitted himself to God his Fathers will and pleasure And then 4ly God himself was pleased thereby to testifie the truth of his humane nature that these desires should naturally and innocently express themselves in them for our instruction and guidance in such cases All which in every part shall be fully demonstrated in due place § 70. From all which thus considered I thus argue That if our Saviour did truly and innocently because naturally desire the removal of that bitter Cup though with submission to his Fathers will even when so high an Act of divine Charity as the reconciling of the world to God by his death lay before his eyes and his Father had given him a command to perform it and he himself came for no other end into the world then to make it good then he might as innocently have endeavoured by all lawful means his self-preservation upon supposal that no such Covenant had been made nor particular command given and God had left it freely in his power either to reconcile the world to him by his death or to endeavour by just and innocent waies to save himself For plain it is from Scripture that before his hour was come which the Father had appointed for this work when the Jewes took up stones to stone him he withdrew himself to leave us an example what we might lawfully do in such cases And hence it is from the Authority of this great example that though Martyrdome be the highest and most sublime Act of Christian Charity yet all men that profess the name of Christ are not by virtue of that first great fundamental law of divine Charity Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and all thy mind obliged in a time of Persecution to offer themselves to fire and fagot but lawfully may embrace a lesser good and follow a less noble Act of Charity consisting in a lawful endeavour of their own preservation even when an occasion offers of glorifying God by their suffering death or persecution for his names sake Otherwise Saint Paul had sinned when he was let down from the wall in a Basket otherwise the Martyriani that so eagerly coveted Martyrdome for Gods honour had been the best of Christians and are unjustly branded with the name of Hereticks and Tertullians Book against flight in time of Persecution had not deserved the mark of Montanism and Cyprian and great Athanasius had not received the name of Saints but had been enrolled amongst Apostates § 71. From all which it seems to me clearly to follow that as the Doctor asserts sincere Love in the Habit is capable of Degrees in the several Acts either in one man at several times or in two men at the same time and so both may obey that first great Precept of Loving God with all the heart in respect of some several Acts that are gradually different For though that Act that is less intense is comparatively less perfect yet is it not therefore so farre faulty or in vitio because God commands sincerity of our Love which is capable of Degrees in the several Acts as occasion offers and not alwaies pro hic nunc the highest and most noble Act of holy Charity as appears by these so great examples § 72. If it here be said that our Saviour prayed for a removal of this bitter Cup with submission to his Fathers will which alters much the Case § 73. I grant he did so but then I further argue that if it had not otherwise been lawful praescinding still from Gods decree in the present case but the great fundamental law of Charity without any other express and positive command of Gods for the laying down his life had obliged him to it he could not have been excused though he did desire the removal of it with Vide Hooker Ecclesiast Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 280. submission to his Fathers will For what I may not lawfully perform and do as in it self considered that I cannot lawfully desire and pray for though with submission to Gods will For shall I pray to God to bless me in an unlawful Act suppose of Murder or Adultery because I desire it only with submission to Gods will They must be only innocent holy things we must ask and pray for from the most holy God and still we must ask them too with a submission to his holy will and pleasure § 74. And as this was all the Doctor aimed to prove by that instance of our Saviours greater Ardency in this Act of prayer then in another so we shall have anon occasion to clear and further vindicate that instance § 75. I might in the third place demonstrate this Truth from the consideration of the gradual difference in respect of intension between the necessary Acts of holy Charity in Christ and those Acts to which his Will had a most absolute freedome For most certain it is that in the prime and most noble Act of Divine Charity that was immediatly terminated in God the only good he did love necessarily and to the utmost height of intension imaginable and he did alwaies so love him nor could he possibly do otherwise because being alwaies Comprehensor as they speak he perfectly knew him and his Love must of necessity be exactly commensurate to his Knowledge For even the great Philosopher by the light of Reason could discover that Summum bonum and finis ultimus necessariò amatur And then as certain it is that in other Acts of holy Charity he did not love necessarily but freely and his Will had an absolute freedome in them and by reason of this freedome and liberty in the performance of the Acts he was capable of meriting by them And for this our Refuter himself saies that if you please you may see further in Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae dist 39. Jeanes Reply to the Ectenesteron p. 39. sect 4. where the question is debated Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera But because our Refuter has mistaken that Author and he will give us a fitter opportunity of handling this Argument I shall defer the further prosecution of it till that Section § 76. And so I come at last to the examination of the Assumption of your monstrous Syllogism It is this But now this Objection is urged by you against the perpetual All-fulness and perfection of his actual Love the inward Acts of his Love For it is brought to prove that the inward Acts of Christs Love were more intense at one time then at
Christ a fuller enjoyment of himself because of a larger measure of Grace then he ha's upon Angels For though the will of Angels be Naturally more perfect then the created Will of Christ yet by Grace it is capable to receive whatsoever is fit for it and God shall bestow upon it § 25. And is not our Refuter a very unsuccessful Man in all his Quotations How can this in any measure concern the present debate For does not here Scotus consider first what was possible for God to do or Christ to receive Does he not also here consider him in the state of Comprehensor and not of a Viator Is not the question moved concerning the possibility of Glory upon the supposal of an Habitual fulness of Grace and not at all of the Acts of Grace Does he not prove by the very words that our Refuter has quoted that since it was possible for Christ to have a fulness of Grace that therefore it was also possible for him to have a fulness of heaven-happiness and this because Glory is the necessary effect of Grace and Acts that necessarily flow and by way of emanation from their Forms and Causes must of necessity be equal in Perfection to the Forms from whence they issue If then our Refuter will say any thing to the purpose he must conclude that all the Inferiour Acts of Vertue and Grace in him did as Naturally flow from the Habits as Glory does from Grace and that Christ had no more proper Freedom to them then he had or has now to the Sight and enjoyment of God which Position as it expresly destroyes the Foundation of his Merit and the Redemption of the world by his death so it is expresly contrary to the Scriptures and all the Fathers and Schoolmen and Orthodox Divines in the world for ought I could ever learn § 26. And thus having shewed the absolute impertinency of his Testimonies to the matter in hand I come to prove that both Thomas and Scotus maintain that very Proposition which he would confute in Dr. Hammond by the Testimonies of Aquinas and Scotus § 27. I shall not trouble the Reader with what I have already observed to this purpose from Aquinas The Passage I insist on is taken from Lib. 3. Sent. d. 29. q. 1. Art 2. The question is Vtrum ordo Charitatis sit attendendus secundum affectum vel secundum effectum It is affirmed against this when it was objected thus 2. Actus mensuratur secundum rationem Objecti sed quamvis plura sint quae ex charitate diliguntur tamen in omnibus est una ratio dilectionis sc divina bonitas quae est Objectum charitatis Ergo ad omnia quae ex charitate diliguntur aequalis affectio est The Conclusion is the very same with our Refuters who affirms that the Inward Acts of Christs Love were all equal though the Outward Acts were not that his Love was the same quoad affectum but not quoad effectum To this the answer is Dicendum quod quamvis sit eadem ratio communis diligendi in omnibus tamen illa ratio non aequaliter participatur in singulis ideo nec aequalis affectio eis debetur So again Art 3. of that question in his answer ad Quintum he saies Quod Deus ubique aequaliter diligitur tamen divinum bonum in isto esse non est tantum amabile sicut ipsum esse in Deo quia non aequè perfectè in omnibus est The sum of all those determinations in short is this That though the Habit of Divine Charity respecting God and our Neighbours be one and the same yet because of the different Participation of the divine goodness the formal Object of Charity which is infinitely perfect in God and but unequally communicated to the creature there must of necessity be a gradual difference in the Acts of divine Charity because every thing must be beloved according to the order of the divine goodness shining in it § 28. The place in Scotus which for the present I insist on is taken out of the 3. book of the Sentences dist 14. q. 3. The question is Vtrum anima Christi noverit omnia in genere proprio Now whereas to this it had been objected First Luc. 2. Jesus proficiebat aetate sapientia coram Deo hominibus Secondly Heb. 5. Didicit ex his quae passus est obedientiam Thirdly Fuit Viator igitur habuit cognitionem competentem Viatori § 29. To these he thus answers in order Patet ad primum per hoc quod Textus Evangelii non est exponendus ut tantum proficiehat secundum apparentiam quia secundum Augustinum 83. quaest q. 9. contra Apollinaristas Evangelistae narrant historias ideo verba eorum vera sunt ut exprimuntur non sic à aliis sermonibus tropic is scripturae sacrae Et hoc etiam declarat authoritas Ambrosii Apostoli ad Hebraeos quia vere in eo aliquis sensus profecit non quod aliquorum cognitionem abstractivam habitualem acquisivit sed intuitivam tam actualem quam habitualem And then to the third he answers quod illa cognitio quae est ex multis Actibus experientiis quoad cognitionem intuitivam semper est necessitatis quoad hoc competebat Christo quia fuit nobiscum Viator Scotus tom 2. lib. 3. sent dist 14. q. 3. § 8. p. 102. ex edit H. Cavelli § 30. The summe is that S. Luke is to be understood literally and that Christ did truly and not in outward appearance only grow and increase in the Perfection of Actual Knowledge and Grace and that this must agree to him as Viator But there is another passage in the same Author in due time to be cited where he proves that the Act of loving God as Viator cannot be so perfect as it is and must be in him as Comprehensor though the Habit of them both be one and the same It is lib. 3. sent dist 31. q. 1. § 9. p. 213. And so I come to our Refuters second Argument SECT 19. 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 Beatisick 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 Refuter's grave Propositio malè sonans His Argument a Fallacy à dicto secundum quid Christ's twofold state Though the infused Habit of Grace in him alwaies full yet not so the Acts. The Reason Mr.
tell us that for the joy that was set before him he endured the Heb. 12. 2. Crosse and despised the shame and is now set down on the right hand of God Does he not also say that when Christ had by Heb. 1. 3 4. himself purged our sins he sate down on the right hand of the Majesty on high being made so much better then the Angels as that he hath obtained a more excellent name then they what are these also Propositions harshly sounding in the ears of Christians that are jealous of their Masters honour Review your assertion Sir and confesse and acknowledge your own thoughts or will you write uses of Confutation against the pen-men of sacred writ as well as against Doctor Hammond For can a state of Sorrow and Grief and Misery and Want consist with an absolute and compleat uninterupted heaven happiness where the Scripture testifies there shall be no more death nor sorrow nor crying neither Revel 21. 4. shall there be any more pain for the former things are passed away If in the dayes of his flesh he were so absolutely and compleatly happy that this blessedness could in no respect be interrupted how then as the Apostle testifies did he offer up prayers supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to help him For how can he pray for assistance that is in an absolute incapacity of want that is alwayes as happy as God and heaven-happiness can make him If he were so absolutely and compleatly happy so that in no respect it could be interrupted why then for the joy set before him which sure was not therefore yet Heb. 12. 2. obtained did he endure the cross and despise the shame why prayed he so earnestly for his own after-glorification Why John 17. 1. 2. said he to his Disciples after his Resurrection Ought not Christ Luke 24. 16. to suffer these things and to enter into his glory § 10. If here now you say that Christ in the state of his humiliation may be considered 1. Either in respect of the present state of his soul in the soveraign part of it his Mind and understanding or else 2ly in respect of the present state of the Inferiour sensitive part of his soul and the frail mortal passible condition of his flesh In the first respect he was Perfectus Comprehensor and enjoyed the fulness of heaven-happiness and therefore alwaies did love God to the full height that he enjoyed him And of this only you now spake But then in the second respect he was in a state of frailty and misery and sorrow and want and because truly a Viator he was not yet possessed of heaven-happiness and of this speak the Scriptures I shall accept of your answer and acknowledge the truth of it But withall I shall desire you to apply this distinction to your own argument and the assertion of Dr. Hammond § 11. And now I pray deal ingeniously with the world and tell us whether ever Dr. Hammond did deny the fulness of Christs happiness in the soveraign Part of his Soul Does not he allow him to be truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God man from the first indued with the fulness of habitual grace And does not of congruity a fulness of happiness in Christs soul flow from this Vnion and fulness of grace And does not an absolute uninterrupted Act of divine Love in its utmost height and intenseness flow necessarily from this happiness shew us then whether ever this was brought into debate betwixt you and the Doctor Nay do not you your self acquit him of this charge in your first argument when you conclude that the Inward Acts of the habits of all virtues and graces were alwaies full in him because the habits themselves were so will you say that the habits of virtues and other graces were proper to him as Comprehensor and that he could watch pray Tast suffer be meek patient humble c. as now in the state of heaven-happiness And have we not most evidently proved that Doctor Hammond understands by The Love of God only that Love and that Charity which was proper to Christ as Viator in the daies of his flesh and not that other necessary Act of Divine love proper to him as Comprehensor § 11. And therefore I pray now what is become of your argument and your grave Propositio malè sonans do you not all this while build upon an empty Sophism argue à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and conclude because Christ was perfectly happy in his Soul as Comprehensor and did therefore necessarily love God at the height therefore he must be absolutely so too in every respect and happy equally happy he must be also as Viator and according to that respect and so must also all his other Acts of divine Charity towards God himself and his Neighbours be equal all in themselves and with that high transcendent Act of Love immediately seated on God And is not this now a weighty argument well deserving to be put in the Title page of the Book to tell all the world how Doctor Hammond is subdued by it But because I see you sufficiently ignorant in this point I shall adde something for your instruction § 12. Plain it is that there was a twofold state of Christ during his abode upon earth The one was status Comprehensoris in respect of the soveraign Part of his Soul the Mind The other Status Viatoris in respect of the Inferiour Faculties of his soul and his frail mortal passible condition in the Flesh In this he was in statu merendi in the other not And consequently the Schoolmen do distinguish and observe a twofold Act of Divine Charity or holy Love in him The one †Necessary Vide Suarez in 3 part Thom. tom 1. disp 39 Sect. 2. p. 540. col 1. pag. 541. Col. 1. qui non potuit esse meritorius quia non erat liber sed necessariò consequebatur visionem beatam This they call Actus amoris Dei beatificus and Actus Comprehensoris and is the same with that of Christ and the Saints and Angels now in heaven who because they see and enjoy God face to face cannot chuse but perfectly love him The other * a Free Act and though it is Vid Suarez ibid. supernatural as flowing from the all perfect Habit of Divine Charity in Christ yet distinguished it is from the Beatifick Love that necessarily flowes from the Fulness of heaven-happiness this was proper to him as Viator § 13. Now though the habit of this Love was alwaies in Christ full and without any interruption even as he was Viator yet the Acts that flowed from this Habit were de facto some or other still interrupted because his present finite state and condition could not actually apply himself to the performance of all at once and the acts themselves were not all compossible in the same subject in one
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
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
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
and the Racovian Catechism be defended by this very argument and the Catholique doctrines be overthrown And do not the Socinians frequently run to this Argument for shelter and by it with the greater plausibility insinuate their damnable Doctrine to their Proselytes Nay has not Mr. Hobbes of late founded his whole kingdom of darkness upon this very Argument Does he not as well damn the Immortality Hobbes Leviathan Part. 4. c. 44. p. 339 340 343 344 345 346 347. c. 46. p. 370 c. 379 c. 44. p. 335 336 341 342. c. 47 p. 382 383 c. of the Soul and the eternal Torments of Hell as the fire of Purgatory as well Tithes and Vniversities Presbytery and Discipline as the Pope's Supremacy and Monastick Perfection upon this very score because maintained in the Romish Church Nay did not the Independent refute the Presbyterians at Oxford upon the proof of their calling by this very Argument And if Episcopacy has been damned by this one Objection as Antichristian has not also Presbytery and Discipline and Tithes and Maintenance of Ministers been arraigned for Antichristian and condemned in cart-loads of Pamphlets by this single evidence And does not the Anabaptist undermine the Independent by this one Engine as now the Ranter and Quaker does by it also labour to undercreep the Anabaptist And therefore since this is so evident in it self and so clearly confirmed by a long succession of experiences I cannot but wonder why our Refuter in his Anger should take up a Delphick sword that will fit every scabbard as well as his own and which will at every blow he gives his Adversary recoil upon his own breast But whatsoever answer he shall make to this Objection for the securing his own Interest and Principles will equally serve for the defence of Doctor Hammond and I undertake to make it good § 13. But then though this were sufficient to demonstrate the weakness and folly of this Crimination which could serve for nothing but only to amuse and terrifie vulgar Readers and may as well fright them from the Truth as from an Error yet I shall not content my self with this but shall in the next place declare that this is not Bellarmine's exposition or that known Protestants have given it as well as he and that Doctor Hammond himself has fully acquitted it in that very Treatise and the defence of it against Mr. Cawdry from any such Popish compliance § 14. But I shall first hear your second Reason For you say JEANES THose Protestants that have dealt in the controversies betwixtus and the Papists have proved this your sense to be too narrow and withall have given another exposition (a) (a) Nimirum huc tandem res redit ut sciamus ita imperari nobis amorem Dei ut nullus sit amoris gradus intra summum 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 erit tota anima mens tota vires omnes c. Chamier tom 3. l. 11. cap. 16. sect 22. of the words which they have cofirmed and vindicated from the exceptions of Papists Now of all this it had been equitable for you to have taken notice and not to have troubled your Reader with that which hath been so abundantly refuted by Protestant pens § 15. And thus we see no less then four or five very severe Criminations are in this and the former Paragraph laid to the Doctors charge by our Refuter and not one of them is proved but only by his own venerable authority Consider Sir consider do not you here barely dictate What proof have you offered us of any one charge Let us muster them up 1. You lay it to the Doctors charge that he borrowed this exposition from Bellarmine and that it is to be found in the places by you quoted 2ly That in this the Doctor is guilty of Compliance with Papists 3ly That those Protestants that have dealt in the Controversies betwixt us and the Papists have proved this sense too narrow 4ly They have given another exposition of the words which they have confirmed and vindicated from the exceptions of the Papists 5ly That Doctor Hammond has taken no notice of all this but without all equity has troubled his Reader with that which hath been so abundantly refuted by Protestant pens § 16. Now for the proof of all these we have our Refuters own word and two citations of Bellarmine and one place quoted from Chamier in the Margin which yet through his over great hast is mistaken for it is not in the xvi chapter but the xiv of that book which figures our Refuters hasty eye did very easily mistake And I am perswaded that if he had sat down and well weighed that Chapter and the design and scope of that learned man he would never have made use of his authority against the Doctor that speaks every thing that he undertakes to make good against Bellarmine § 17. And now to acquit the Doctor from these Criminations I conceive it necessary to lay down the Doctors answer at large and to acquaint the Reader with the ground and occasion of it and what he has added further to it in his Reply to Mr. Cawdrey And then I doubt not but our Refuters ingenuity and fair carriage will appear to the most ordinary Capacity To begin with the Occasion SECT 22. The Occasion of the Doctors exposition of the first great Commandement of Love The Reasons of his fundamental Position in short If any one of them demonstrative as Mr. Cawdrey grants one is then all not bound to it to every Act acceptable to God nor to perform it to a degree even when they are obliged ad speciem This the utmost the Doctor undertook either against Mr. Cawdrey or the Refuter Reasonable the Refuter should answer these before he suggested to the Reader a need of further Proof § 1. And it is this The Doctor in in his Treatise of Will-worship having undertaken to vindicate the true Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the ordinary misprision and contempt that was vulgarly thrown upon it layes this down for his ground that there were certain Acts of Religion and degrees of Piety to which no man by any particular Law was obliged which yet when they were spontaneously and voluntarily performed were approved by God and accepted of him as Free will-offerings over and above what the Law in Particular required Treat of Will-worship sect 9. § 2. And this he proves by diverse Arguments As first by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or free-will-offerings under the Law sect 29. and before Secondly from the Sect of the Hasidaei mentioned and defined to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Macc. 2. 42. Which according to the Protestant Scaliger were