answer § 1. To this our Refuter returns JEANES FIrst this is an utter Impertinency unto that which is in debate between us c. § 2. Grande crimen Caie Caesar si probetur But what if it appear in the issue most evidently to prove the Doctors Position will not then our Refuter betray as great Ignorance as Impertinence in this Rejoynder And now to shew the Appositeness of the Proof I must tell him what either he knows not or will not observe That the Doctor again argues à posteriori from the Effect to the Cause and the necessary relation between the work and the reward His argument is founded upon a maxime of distributive Justice not expressed but supposed and intimated Vide Suarez 3. p. Thom. tom 1. disp 39. sect 1. p. 537. col 1. and it is this Where the reward does proceed of debt as in Christ certainly it did and is properly wages there must be a proportionable encrease of the reward and the work And therefore * 1 Tim. 5. 18. since the labourer is worthy of his hire and †Gen. 18. 25. God the Judge of all the world must needs do right we may most evidently and demonstratively prove the gradual increase in the perfection of any Act of vertue from a proportionable encrease in the reward that he gives because as the Scripture testifies he rewards every man not only according to the sincerity of his Matth. 16. 27. 2 Cor. 5 10. heart but also secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or works the more abundant labour as the Doctor saies truly proceeding from this sincerity For it is this inward heart-devotion that God alone regards this this is the thing that gives life and vigour to the outward work and makes it acceptable in Gods sight and if this go not alwaies with the outward Act or work God looks upon it as the sacrificing and cutting off the neck of a dogge and pouring the blood of a man upon his Altar But then because the outward works are the fruits and effects of the inward Devotion and ordinarily as these are more noble so also is the Love and sincerity more strongly encreased God for the inward Fervours sake does reward men secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or outward works § 3. Well then if the very multiplication of more outward Acts and works for such only the Doctor means of any vertue be more valuable in the sight of God as without doubt they are who rewards every man according to his works and this because the more abundant labour in the outward Act proceeds from the greater fervour and intenseness of the inward Act which alone gives life to it it will evidently follow that the length of Prayer the outward Oraizon he meanes in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God as the work is in it self considered and without relation to the Person that does it for of the work in it's own nature considered the Doctor speaks as appears by the whole current of his discourse and that must needs argue it more excellent in regard of the intensive Perfection of the inward Act which is that alone which God values then the smaller number of those Acts would be And this as it clearly proves the Doctors Assertion so it was the whole he aimed at in this argument § 4. But our Refuter will give us his reason why he does charge it with impertinency JEANES FOr suppose that the very multiplication of more inward Acts of any vertue in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God and so more excellent then the smaller number of those Acts would be yet this supposition will never bring you to this conclusion That one inward Act of Christs love of God may be more intense then another and my reason is because in all these inward Acts of Christs love of God and we may say the same of the inward Acts of other vertues and graces there may be no gradual dissimilitude § 5. But why I pray Sir may or must there be no gradual difference of the inward Acts of Christs love of God or holy Charity and other inward Acts of other vertues and graces Good Sir give us a proof of this Is it therefore an irrefragable demonstration because you usher it in so gravely with a Because and this is my reason But good Sir know you not that this is still Petitio principii and the Controversie between you and the Doctor And do you not prove still idem per idem thus The inward Acts of Christs Love are not gradually different or which is all one they are gradually the same my reason is because in them there may be no gradual dissimilitude If this be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not what your great Master Aristotle means § 6. How the Doctors supposition has inferred his Conclusion has already appeared and the folly also of what you have urged against it But it is no wonder that you argue so absurdly when you understand not the Discourse you undertake to refute For Sir the Doctor does not argue from the multiplication of the inward Acts as you suppose him but from the multiplication of the outward Acts or works and from the greater reward that attends them he concludes the more noble and intensive Perfection of the inward Act from whence they flow as the more abundance of fruit argues the rich vigorousness and plenty of the vital sap of the Tree and the less argues either the unseasonableness of the year or the decay of the Stock For you your self have told us that works signifie those that are outward how properly has already been shewed in the sense you spake of it The truth is that works in a Physical consideration never signifie the Elicite Acts of the Will but the issues and Effects of them whether inward or outward whether immanent as in a Syllogism purely mental or trunsient as in the imperate Acts of the Will though certain it is as we have shewed that the inward and outward Act both concur to the essence and constitution of a Moral work or Action § 7. But he goes on as gravely as if his words were all Oracles JEANES A Great part of the Schoolmen will tell you that the moral vertue of one single Act of any vertue in Christ was infinite and in the multiplication of more Acts there is but an infinite value now one infinite cannot be greater then another infinite in the same kind wherein it is infinite and hereupon they conclude that the multiplication of Acts makes nothing in Christ unto an intensive addition of value The value of one Act is intensively as great as that of more Acts. The first Act of Christ saies Albertinus habet totam latitudinem intensivam valoris moralis etsi non adaequet totam latitudinem extensivam Corol. tom 1. 150. n. 61. And of this you have a reason p. 145. this Act is
and blood as precisely and by its self considered without relation to the end which God had appointed which Sense could not judge of § 54. And now if it here be said that these two Acts of the will volo nollem I will and I would not though they are not properly and simply contrary yet as they both respect the same material Object they are in some regard opposite and one may in part hinder and retard the motion of the other and therefore there may be some kind of reluctancy some kind of unwilling willingness in Christ and the Acts of his will § 55. To this I answer that though it may be and ordinarily it is to in all other men yet it was not so in Christ For those Acts of the Will are then only in this respect opposite and trasâ—â—ng one another when one of them proceeds as Suarez expresses it praeter rationem deliberationem voluntatis â—ut when the inefficacious Act and desire of Nature is ab ipsamet voluntate praeordinatus deliberatus is foreseen and preordained and still guided by the deliberation and counsel of the Rational Appetite it cannot at all hinder or retard in the least the rational desires of the Will because they proceed and spring up in Nature only by its good will and deliberate consent § 56 And therefore thirdly since there is found no contrariety and opposition between the natural and sensual and rational desires of Christs humane will and all are conformable to his divine will and since all were most just and honest in themselves and the issues of Nature and Reason and Grace which are the works of God no wonder it is that now God should preordain that all these should work according to their proper Motions and inclinations since hereby God is glorified and the truth of Christs humane Nature declared and his Patience and Meekness and Courage and Mercy and Piety and Love both to God and man so highly magnified § 57. And then fourthly Christ might as innocently express these natural desires in Prayer to God and petition for a removal of them so far forth as they were burdensome and dreadful to Nature with submission to Gods will and a resolution patiently and freely to submit to what God has otherwise resolved Vide Hookers Eccl. Pol. l. 5. §. 48. pag. 283 284. and appointed For what I may lawfully desire that I may as lawfully pray for with submission to Gods will so far and according to the respects as I may desire it As then these inclinations of Sense dreading death were the issues of nature so Reason might be the †Christus oravit secundum sensualitatem in quantum sci Oratio ejus exprimebat sensualitatis affectum tanquam sensualitatis advocata c. Aquin. 3. part q. 21. art 2 in corp Vide Cajetan ibid. in Comment ad art 3. Oratio potest esse alicujus dupliciter uno modo sicut proponentis alio modo sicut ejus pro quo proponitur Primo modo Oratio non potest esse nisi rationis nullo modo sensualitatis quia oratio proponitur Deo Illius est ergo orare ut proponentis orationem cujus est in Deum tendere istud autem non est sensualitatis quae non transcendit sensibilia sed rationis Secundo modo potest esse oratio seusualitatis tanquam ejus pro quo proponitur sic oravit Christus quando petivit calicem passionis hujus à se transferri Durand l 3. Sent. d. 17. q 2. B. Advocate of Sense and express these desires in a Prayer for the removal of them so long as Reason still so rules and governs Sense that it patiently submits to Gods pleasure and desires it only with condition that God so sees fit And this we find to have been the condition of our Saviours Prayer First the Condition is expressed and then the Will is resigned to Gods ordering and pleasure and finally resolved and shut up in that Father if it be possible let this Cup pass from me yet not my will but thine be done § 58. The only * Sed hinc quaeritur cum ratio sciret sensualitatem non exaudiendam quomodo hanc proposuit petitionem Nich. d' Orbellis l. 3. Sent. dist 17. q 2. difficulty that remains is to consider with what propriety and congruity Christ might thus pray Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me when he knew it was not possible it should be removed because God had from all eternity decreed and absolutely resolved he should drink it when he himself had contracted and covenanted with his Father and came into the world for no other end § 59. To this I answer first that since Christ de facto did thus pray without doubt most congruous it was that he should so pray though we knew not the reason of it For plain it is that thus he prayed for a removall of this bitter Cup since all the Evangelists do punctually record it and S. Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews does further confirm it and as plain it is that he himself did know that it was impossible the hour should be removed from him because he himself does so declare his knowledge even when he prayes for a removal of it Now is my soul troubled saies he Joh. 12. 27. and what shall I say Father save me from this * Vbi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnino mortis tempus denotat Grot. Annot. in Matt. 26. vers 39. hour but for this cause came I unto this hour Nor can it here be said that any thing either now or in his bloody Agony did †Cum autem verba haec Christi quae sequuntur uno nexu cohaereaÌ„t non est putandum quicquam illi velut impraemeditatum excidisse quod prius dixerat vere proprie per id quod posterius est emendari cum multo rectius dicatur uno codemque tempore Christum exprimere voluisse tum quid vellet tum quid velit c. H. Grot. Matt. 26. vers 39. Vide Luc. Brugens ibid. Hooker's Eccles Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 282. fall from him without due pondering and regard or that his present Griefs had distracted his Thoughts and troubled his Reason or disturbed his Memory so that he should need to correct and amend what he before had spoken amiss As this were unworthy the Saviour of the world so more truly we must say that Christ did at one and the same time express the desires of Nature and Grace of Sense and Reason both his absolute and effectual Will and Resolution and his inefficacious desires and the present necessities of Nature § 60. For Prayer as Mr. Hooker has most excellently well Hookers Eccl. Pol. l. 5. §. 48. p. 284. observed has other lawful uses then only to serve for a chosen mean whereby the Will resolveth to seek that which the Vnderstanding certainly knoweth or is perswaded it
two sorts of hypocritical and counterfeit Love Nota saies he duas dilectiones fictas simulatas Una est quae fit verbo quando aliquis amat quidem sed amor ejus non se extendit ad opera sed ad sola verba bona erga eum aut de eo quem amat Huic opponitur dilectio seu amor conjunctus operi quando qui amat verbo opere amorem internum ostendit erga amatum Joh. 14. 21. Qui habet mandata mea servat ea ille est qui me diligit et Jacob. 2. 15 16. Si frater aut soror nudi sint indigeant victu quotidiano dicat autem aliquis Ite in pace calefacimini saturamini non dederit autem ea quae necessaria sunt corpori quid proderit Haec igitur est dilectio ficta quamvis enim qui sic se habet interius aliquo modo amet tamen ad verba sola progreditur Altera est quae fit solâ linguâ quando homo non amat interius tamen exterius amare se dicit iste amat linguâ cui opponitur amor dilectio in veritate De illa dicitur Matt. 15. 8. Populus hic labiis me honorat cor autem longè est à me Joannes ergo verbo Opus linguae veritatem opponit quia ficta dilectio est quae sit verbo sine opere aut linguâ solâ Illa verò est perfecta sine simulatione quae fit opere veritate tam erga Deum quam erga proximum ad quam nunc Paulus exhortatur § 48. The Love then that is true and sincere and such as ought to be found among Christians is neither barren nor counterfeit hypocritical nor lame and is alwaies perfect as well in deed as in truth except where Christian Prudence does dictate a temporary concealment in some very few cases And therefore though he that pretends love where it is not is in that regard only an Hypocrite yet he also that pro tempore conceals it either in whole or in part puts on another shape and appears to be what he is not and in that sense does dissemble And if all men should do that which is lawful only for some time and in some cases and for good ends there could be no certainty and assurance of any man's Love or Friendship and the concealment of our Love generally would prove as dangerous as the personating of it § 49. Since then that Love and Charity where it is true and perfect cannot chuse but be operative and Sincerity requires that it appear no other then it is except only in some cases since also men apprehend where they conceive there is no deceipt that such as are the outward expressions such is also the inward Love and since there is no other way to distinguish the Hypocrite and pretender from the true Lover it necessarily follows that there is and ordinarily must be a Proportion and Correspondence in respect of Intension Remission between the inward Acts of Love and the outward Expressions and as the one falls or rises so commonly do the other and the Love else would prove imperfect and fruitlesse or counterfeit and hypocritical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 50. And now though this be sufficient to demonstrate the truth of the Assertion and to give a full and satisfactory Answer to the utmost pretences of the Objection yet because I conceive that this is all that with any colour of Reason can be said against it and we are now to deal with a Schoolman and a souldier that is resolved to dispute every inch of ground with us I shall to give him a total Rout call in the Auxiliary forces of the School And indeed it will be necessary at least for the Doctors Vindication For whereas he had most truly asserted that such as the Expression was such was the Act of inward Love of which that was an Expression it being certain that each of these Expressions had an Act of inward Love of which they were so many proportionably different expressions this our Refuter calls a proofeless Dictate a plain begging of the Question and a Fallacy and expresly saies that the Doctor must pardon him if he entertain not his vehement Asseverations as solid Proofs as if they were Propositiones per se notae And who that reads this and a great deal more such vaunting stuffe would not verily think that the Doctor was most grosly mistaken and had asserted that for a Truth which could not possibly be made good by any shadow of Reason or Countenance from Authority But this is not the first time that our great Writer of Scholastical and Practical Divinity has betrayed his Ignorance in the Schoolmen And that I may make this appear as evident as the Doctors Assertion which he so highly decries I shall now come to them § 51. To begin then with Durand Quantum ad secundum sc An ordo iste Charitatis attendatur secundum solum Durand l. 3. Sent. dist 29. art 3. E. affectum an secundum effectum Dicendum est quod secundum utrumque Cujus ratio est Quia quando duo Actus sic se habent quod unus dependet ab alio praecise sicut posterius à priore secundum ordinem qui est in primo oportet ponere ordinem in secundo Sed affectus interior effectus exterior se habent sicuti prius posterius quia effectus est posterior affectu ab ipso dependet praecise quia ad completum affectum seu ad completum velle sequitur effectus seu operari respectu eorum quae sunt nobis possibilia Ergo secundum ordinem qui est in affectu est ordo in effectu Unde Gregor in Homil. Probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis Unde ei quem plus teneor diligere in affectu teneor ex debito charitatis plus impendere in effectu si aequaliter indiget ita quod si oportet alterum carere eligendum esse illum carere qui minus ex charitate diligendus est Est etiam advertendum quod cum dicitur quod effectus correspondet affectui intelligendum est de effectu qui non est ex alia causa debitus c. Thus Durand § 52. To the same purpose Aquinas upon the same Question Utrum ordo charitatis sit attendendus secundum affectum vel secundum effectum His words are Sed contra Gregor dicit quod Probatio dilectionis est exhibitio operis si ergo secundum effectum est ordo oportet quod etiam sit secundum affectum 2. Praeterea Bonum est Objectum Charitatis quantum ad affectum sed ordo Charitatis ut dictum est attenditur secundum diversitatem bonorum ergo Charitas habet ordinem non solum secundum effectum sed etiam secundum affectum 3. Praeterea sicut Charitas principaliter affectum ita Beneficentia respicit effectum si ergo ordo esset solum secundum
Brethren and Sisters yea and his own life also he cannot be my disciple § 16. And therefore what saies Mr. Cawdrey Saies he not Cawdrey Trip. Diatribe p. 114. Ames Bellar. enervat tom 2. p. 154. Chamier Panstrat tom 3. lib. 11. c. 14. § 6. expresly But we say that both these are noted and required we grant Does not Ames in the place quoted by our Refuter say Hoc aliquid est sed non totum quod his verbis praecipitur Does not the very learned Chamier say first Imò ultro concedimus non prohiberi alia quaedam praeter Deum amari quia manifestum est alterum illud mandatum simile primo in Ecclesia nihil frequentius fraternâ dilectione Concedimus ergo nihil amandum contra Deum supra Deum nihil aequè cum Deo Omnia igitur infra Deum propter Deum So again in the same Chapter Ibid. §. 17. Itaque sic concedimus significari id quod Bellarminus dicebat diligere verè sincerè non fictè non simulatè And therefore if this be to be guilty of a compliance with Papists the Doctor has good company and he had been an Enemy to Truth if he had not thus complied All then is not Popery we see nor so censured by our Writers against Bellarmine that is to be found in him § 17. But do not Ames and Chamier say that this is not all that is required in this precept †Ex his quis non videt olim Christianis persuasissimum suisse debere se ita Deum amare non tantum ut ei nihil anteponatur quod Bellarminus tanquam in Deum iâ—eralâ—ssimus concedit sed etiam ut totus in amore Dei occupetur Quod si est quis non videt sequi illud etiam ut nulla vitiosa cogitatio obrepere possit quod Bellarminus negat c. Chamier Panstrat tom 3. l. 6. c. 12. §. 34. Vide §. 35 c. p. 91. Yes and justly they say so And therefore though Bellarmine for the securing his cause is forced to maintain that these two only are meant and nothing else yet Doctor Hammond addes a third which satisfies all the defects that Chamier and Ames or any man else can justly find fault with in Bellarmine's answer For does he not say That Precept does also enjoyn sincerity of this our Love as opposed to partial divided Love or Service § 18. But before I come to demonstrate the fulnesse of this answer I shall crave leave to demand of our Refuter wherein is this answer of the Doctor guilty of the least compliance with Papists I mean in their Errors which we justly condemn For does the Doctor any where say that lukewarmnesse in our Love is acceptable to God or that he who loves God only with one degree has so perfectly satisfied the obligation of this precept that he may sit down contented and if he will vouchsafe to love God more intensely he then does a work of supererogation And yet this is directly and in terminis to be found * Si non peccem quando amo Deum nisi uno gradu amoris non teneor in rigore amplius amare Ergo si addam alterum gradum amoris amo Deum plusquam teneor atque eo modo facio actum supererogationis consilii Bellarm de Monach. l. 2. c. 13. in Bellarmine and is justly charged upon him by our Ames and †Vide Davenant de Justit habit act c. 43. p. 496 497. ibid. c. 44. p. 503 504. our worthy Bishop Davenant § 19. Does the Doctor any where say that this precept bindes men no further then to an unfeigned and sincere love of God and the observance of his Commandements without breach of friendship and that therefore it bindes us not to the shunning of venial sins And yet this and more is to be found in Bellarmine and it is justly charged upon him and disproved by our learned and reverend Bishop * White against Fisher pag. 525. White from St. Austin and Bernard and also by Chamier and Ames and †Davenant de Just habit act c. 48. p. 535 536 c. our most learned Bishop Davenant § 20. Does the Doctor any where say that these words The heart the soul the mind the strength and might are here put to signifie one and the same thing and are added only for the greater expression And yet this is charged upon Bellarmine's exposition by the learned Chamier And yet Vide Davenant de Just habit act cap. 42. p. 485. § 21. The truth is that learned man could not deny but there was some probability and truth in this part of Bellarmine's assertion And therefore he sayes At nè nos quidem serupulo si sumus in singulis voculis numerandis appendendisque sed non habere maximum pondus tam sollicitam enumerationem nemo nos persuadebit Nihil habere mysterii quia non eisdem vocibus non eodem ordine apud omnes legamus nos negamus nec ipse Bellarminus seriò dixit qui concessit majorem expressionem quae nobis satis est nisi ab his enervatur Concedimus idem posse significari per totum cor etiam si reliqua non exprimantur Sed negamus propterea nihil esse mysterii Hoc igitur nos magnum pondus esse dicimus hujus enumerationis quae omnia complectitur quibus homo moveri potest intra se inde prorumpere in opus externum c Chamier Panstrat tom 3. l. 11. c. 14. § 11 12 13. § 22. And saies not also the Doctor the same in his Annotations on Matthew Sayes he not expresly there that the Law requires that we love God with all our Will and Affections and Vnderstanding And saies not the Apostle the same when he bidds us to glorifie God in our bodies and our spirits which are Gods 1 Cor. 6. 20. Nay though the Chaldee Paraphrase which renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Riches does not so properly express it as the LXX do that translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet there may be some good use made even of that interpretation also For Solomon advises us Prov. 3. 10. That we honour the Lord with our substance also The truth is that all that is within us and all that is without us must most readily be at Gods service and praise him we must not only with the best member we have but with every part and faculty both of soul and body and our lives and our liberties and wealth and honours must be all at his Devotion But then it cannot be denied what the learned Grotius has observed Illorum supervacua diligentia qui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nimium subtiliter hic distinguunt as will be evident to any that shall consider the subtilties of the Antients in their Commentaries on this place as is acknowledged also by the learned Chamier cum vocum multarum cumulatio
nihil aliud quam intensius studium designet sicut Latini dicunt corde animo atque viribus * In Graeco codice est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sic etiaÌ„ Hebraei loquuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plautus Captivis Persequarque corde animo atque viribus Corde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Animo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nam animum pro anima posuit atque viribus Lucas dixit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex totis viribus tuis Veritas Hebraica 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in omnibus viribus tuis Drusii annot in N. T. par alter in Matt. 22. 37. p. 48. ut ab aliis est annotatum Itaque eodem sensu quae hic habemus terna modo modo singula modo bina reperias Singula ut 1 Reg. 14. 8. 1 Sam. 7. 3. 2 Reg. 10. 31. Psal 119. 2. quibus addi potest illud in Eccl. c. 47. 10. Bina ut Deut. 4. 29. 2. Par. 15. 12. 2 Reg. 23. 3. Nec dissimile illud M. Antonini l. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cujus hic est sensus as the same Author had before observed qui apud Thucididen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est in id intentus sum Idem autem valet sive dicas pro viribus sive omni studio atque contentione And as this is full and high to what Chamier aymes at so it is not at all questioned by the Doctor but is expresly asserted by him in this very Treatise of Will-worship sect 16. as we have already quoted it at large § 23. But then let me ask further does Bellarmine or any Papist else in these controversies assert that this Commandement obliges us to that sincerity of Love that is opposed to Partial divided Love or Service Indeed if he had done this the distance between him and the Doctor had not been so great as now it is But then he had withall clearly yielded up the whole cause to those he disputes against And this is it that Chamier so succesfully presses against Bellarmine from the antient Fathers as shall be made good when we come to parallel the Doctors Answer with their Exposition and that of the most reformed Writers § 24. The truth of it is that the Doctor is so farr from any compliance with Bellarmine or any other Popish writer or from making use in this answer of any of their shifts in the several Controversies between us and them as the Refuter sadly laies to the Doctors charge that both Bellarmine and the rest of his party speak of another thing then the Doctor does For * Vide Davenant de Justit Act. habit ca. 39. 40 41 42 43 44. they by the love of God understand the Habit of Charity and the Perfection of Righteousness whereby a man may not only fulfill the Law of God so that he may in Justice merit at Gods hands but also he may supererogate and do more of Righteousness then any Law does require and so merit a brighter Aureola a larger Crown of glory by the advantage of this Perfection But then the Doctor he speaks only of the Acts of this or that Vertue or Grace For still it must be remembred saies he that it is not the sinless perfection we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath degrees but the sincerity of this or that Vertue expressed in this or that performance and as this though it excludes not all mixture of sâ—n in the suppositum the man in whom it is yet may by the grace of God in Christ exclude it in this or that Act. For it is certain that I may in an Act of Mercy give as much as any Law obligoth me to give and so not sin in giving too little § 25. And as this is very evident in it self so it is plainly acknowledged by Chamier For whereas * Bellarm. de Amiss grat stat peccat l. 1. cap. 12. col 89 90. Bellarmine had objected that the Scriptures testifie of David Josias and others that they loved God with all their soul c. and consequently the Command enjoynes onely that Love which excludes not venial sins he grants that they did love God with all their heart at some times though not at others His words are these * To the same purpose also Bp. Davenant de Justit habit act cap. 24. p. 328. Vicimus ergo nisi fortè meretur victoriam illud quiequid est de Davide Josia sed non potest Illi igitur sequuti sunt Deum toto corde suo tamen peccarunt utrumque inquam verum sed distinctis temporibus Tum enim cum peccârunt non amârunt Deum toto corde Itaque cum peccârunt peccârunt mortaliter Tum autem quis nescit Deum cum de suis loquitur saepe loqui tanquam de iis quibus nulla imputat peccata ac proinde tanquem prorsus justis Denique quid hoc ad peccata venialia c. Chamier tom 3. lib. 6. cap. 12. § 365. § 26. And therefore I shall not be sollicitous if our Refuter should suggest that the Doctors answer agrees at least with the Sixth Corellary of Bellarmine Sextum posse Deum ex toto corde magis minus diligi Qui enim propter Deum abstinet se à licitis magis diligit quam qui solum se abstinet ab illicitis tamen uterque diligit toto corde since he speaks of a gradual difference in that perfection of Love that consists in the keeping of all Gods Commandements and is fitted to the Romish Doctrine of Merit and the several states and degrees of Persection and Evangelical counsels and workes of supererogation But the Doctor speaks of the gradual difference of perfection in regard of this or that Act of this or that Virtue or Grace But then withall I cannot but observe unto the Reader that I do not find that either Ames or Chamier or Vorstius that ex professo unde take to refute the errors of Bellarmine have directly taxed him for this Corollary whichme thinks they should have done if they had condemned it as faulty § 27. Indeed me thinks it cannot be denyed but that two men may love God with all their hearts and yet one may love him more then the other as is plam from the Parable of the Talents For if God reward every man according to his works plain it is that he that received the greater Reward and Crown brought a greater improvement to his Lord and so loved him more and his Charity and Righteousnesse was greater then he that received the lesse Glory because his improvement and Righteousnesse was lesse And yet as plain it is that both these Servants loved their Lord with all their heart because both were rewarded and received that †James 1. 12. Crown of life which the Lord hath promised to them that love him § 28. And this is abundantly sufficient to acquit the Doctor from the least supicion of
though I very much reverence and value the Learning and Judgement of that excellent man yet I have long since learned from a great Master of Morality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristoteles l. 1. Ethic. c. 6. §. 1. edit Ricobon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Truth is more sacred and venerable then any the greatest Names and that it is the honour and the duty of a Philosopher much more then of a Divine to retract or oppose an error whether in himself or any other for the preservation of this Jewel § 52. Thus therefore I should with our Refuters leave chuse to understand the words though I must confesse with a little streining because thus understood they are more agreeable to truth and other Protestant Writers and his own more sober expressions and the whole scope of that Chapter namely That all the degrees of Love to the utmost height that are possibly attainable either in this life or the next are in that commandement either proposed to our Endeavours or our Hopes and our Aimes and it is purely through our own fault if we do not attain unto it Not that any lower degree of love were a sin in us but that it is through our fault if we do not grow in grace and the love and knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ § 53. I remember that Cajetan in his Commentary on that question in Aquinas vtrum charitas augeatur in infinitum tells us of a sort of Hereticks condemned in the Council of Vienna by Clement the fifth and some such we have now among us at this day or else the world is much mistaken in them that maintained That man in this present life may attain to that height and degree of Perfection that might render him altogether impeccable Vide Concilium Viennense in Clement in c. Ad nostrum de Haereticis Vbi de nova secta dicitur tenens asserens doctrinâ suâ sacrilegâ perversâ inferius designatos errores Primo videlicet quod homo in vita praesenti tantum talem perfectionis gradum potest acquirere quod reddetur penitus impeccabilis amplius in gratia proficere non valebit Nam ut dicunt si quis semper possit proficere posset aliquis Christo perfectior inveniri Haec ibi c. Cajetan in 2. 2. q. 24. art 7. p. 61. col 2. E. and unable to grow and increase to any higher degree of grace then he had already obtained For they said if a man might alwaies grow in grace some man at least might be found more perfect then Christ himself I shall not say that learned man did any waies countenance those errours yet it cannot be denyed but this assertion of his as understood by our Refuter will very easily and advantageously be managed to countenance that assertion since it is easie to make good that God requires nothing of us by or under the Gospel as necessary to salvation which he gives not Grace and strength to perform And some not long since have undertaken to maintain Perfection as a duty even upon this very score § 54. But then plain it is that those words construed in the sense I have given of them do no whit favour that opinion Yet be this as it will and let our Refuter make what use he can of them Sufficient it will be to the Doctors Vindication if the same learned Chamier speaks to the Doctors purpose in his Recapitulation and summary of all that he had formerly delivered And it is that very place which our Refuter has in his Margin quoted against the Doctor The words are these Nimirum huc tandem res redit ut sciamus ita imperari nobis amorem Dei ut nullus sit amoris gradus cui quisquam debeat acquiescere Summum autem dico non tantum comparatè ad res alias quae sub amorem cadunt sed etiam quidem praecipuè comparatè ad nos ipsos ut ne ultra possimus amare ita enim verè totum cor nostrum crit tota anima mens tota vires omnes nec erunt tamen quamdiu aliquis motus concupiscentiae malae vigebit in nobis quod Augustinus dixit Bellarminus negare non potest a Patribus assertum Chamier tom 3. l. 11. cap. 14. § 22. pag. 345. That is The matter at length comes to this or this is the short and summ of all That we know and take notice that the Love of God is so injoyned and required of us by this Precept that there can be no one degree of Love beneath the highest with which any man may lawfully sit down and rest contented as a fulfilling of the Command The highest I say not only in respect of all other things that fall under our Love and within the compasse of our affection but also and more especially in regard of our selves so that we cannot possibly love more or go beyond it in our affection For then and so only will truly the whole heart the whole Soul the whole mind and all our stength be placed upon this Love which yet shall not fully be accomplished in this life so long as any motion of sinful lusts and concupiscence reignes and flourishes or springs up in us And this is that which Austin hath also said and Bellarmine cannot deny to have been affirmed and maintained by the Fathers § 55. From whence plain it is First that Chamier in this place against Bellarmine speaks of an absolute sinlesse Perfection and an exact conformity to the whole Law of God not attainable in this life which no whit concernes the Doctor that speaks not at all of that but only of the sincerity of this or that vertue or grace in respect of this or that Performance which he saies consists in a latitude and has Degrees Secondly that though this sinless Perfection be not attainable in this life yet labour we must after it as much as in us lies there being no one degree of Charity or divine Love below this wherein a man may acquiesce so that he may cease to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ which was the Heresie of the Perfectists condemned in the Council of Vienna Thirdly that by the highest degree Chamier means not that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutely and simply such as if there were as * We say that there are degrees of or rather to perfection here upon condition that every degree even the highest is required by the Law of God and what is short of the highest is so far culpable Cawdrey Triplex Diatribe p. 110. Mr. Cawdrey would have it one indivisible point of Love and height of Perfection to which all must arrive that obey the Precept but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is respectively and in some sort the highest not so much in comparison of other things beloved