endeavours which supposes the Fall and Mans frail sinfull weak condition § 22. Now of keeping of the Law according to exact unsinning obedience a loving God to this perfect height a loving him according to the Abilities God gave and Adam forfeited and here irrecoverably lost it is that our Divines Bishop White against Fisher Ames against Bellarmine Bishop Davenant de Justitiâ Habituali Actuali Bishop Morton de merito Bishop Andrews in his Sermon of Justification Chamier against Bellarmine Hooker against Travers and Generally the Protestants in their discourses of Justification by works and Merit ex condigno supererogation and Fullfilling of the law and the states of Perfection speak when they say God must be thus Loved And the Romish doctrines in many Branches enforce it Of this it is Saint Paul speaks in his Epistles to the Romanes and Galathians when he disputes with the Jew that expected Justification without Faith Justification by their own works according to the tenor of that Part of Moses Law that exemplified the Condition of the first Covenant and affixed the Curse to every one that continued not in every thing that was written in the book of the law to do them And according to this Tenor this Condition of the law the Apostle demonstratively proves against the Jew from the law that no flesh living can be justified because that law expresly testifies that all men have sinned and fell short of the glory of God According to this Condition expressed in Moses law the Jew must acknowledge that if he expects to be Justified his righteousness must be so exact that he must not transgress in any least branch of any the least commandment If he does as his own Conscience and the law tels him plainly that he does he must of necessity acknowledge that by this law nor he nor any man else can be Justified much less supererogate and do more then that law requires And therefore of necessity he must acknowledge himself in a damnable state if he will stand to be Justified by that law and his own righteousness No hope there can be for him unless he look for another righteousness another Covenant a Righteousness without him and a Covenant of Faith This is it that the Apostle so demonstratively proves against the Jew and clearly evidences that as no man can be Justified by that first Covenant so Abraham the Father of the Faithfull and all that ever were Justified were Justified by faith in the Righteousness of the Messiah and the second Covenant made and confirmed in his blood § 23. And this is the Righteousness we preach the righteousness Rom. 10. 6 7 8. of Faith in Christs blood the Condition of which righteousness or Justification and acquitting us at Gods bar is Repentance from dead works and Faith in our Saviours blood the Mediator of the new Covenant and a sincere endeavour to keep all the Commandments of God that Christ has imposed upon us And this the Apostle also as demonstratively proves in his Epistles to the Romans Galathians and Hebrews to have been also contained in Moses law the Ceremoniall part whereof was but the type and shadow of Gospel-Promises and Blessings and Purity and holiness § 24. But then not this but the former Legall Perfection of Charity is the Love that Chamier speaks of in his dispute with Bellarmine when he sayes we must love God according to the Tenor and Prescript of this Law totis viribus Naturae non totis viribus corruptionis And of such a sinless Perfection of love it is also that Master Cawdrey speaks and Doctor Hammond denyes to be obligatory to the Christians Justification that is not cannot be Justified by the works of the law but is therefore by Gods Mercy and Christs Merit and Purchase under the Covenant of Grace And of a love according to this sinless height it is that our Refuter speaks and would make good against the Doctor But bate him his Argument called Petitio Principii and he has not proved it Nay I tell him and shall by and by make it good that it is impossible for him to prove it by any other demonstration then what the Philosopher in his Elench's calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 25. For it is one thing to say that the Law or Covenant of works that required unsinning obedience as the condition of Justification and righteousness by that Law requires us to love God to that height and another thing to say that the Christian is obliged so to love God to Justification For that infers that believers are yet under the law when they are not but under grace which is contrary to the Tenor of the Gospel and yet for all that it may be true as the Apostle demonstrates that the Covenant of works the Law as he calls it did require such obedience and therefore no man can be Justified by that covenant or Law but by such obedience and such a height of Love § 26. If then secondly Man be confidered in regard of those Abilities he has now in the Present state of Grace and under the Gospell dispensation I say that Man according to the Gospell obligation of this Law and the Tenor of the new covenant is bound to love God to the utmost of those Abilities of Grace and the assistance of Gods spirit that God gives and shall bestow upon him bound he is so to love God that he may go on more and more to love him so to make use of the present Talent of Grace that God according to his promise in the Gospell may give more Grace and more Abilities to love him For as the Gospell commands us to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and 2 Pet. 3. 18. 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7. that giving all diligence we should adde to our faith virtue and to virtue knowledge and to knowledge temperance and to temperance patience and to patience godliness and to godliness brotherly kindness and to brotherly kindness charity for if these things be in us and abound they make us that we shall neither be barren nor unfruitfull in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ So God has promised in the Gospell Mat. 13. 11. and 25. 29 Luk. 8. 18. and 19. 26. that whosoever hath and makes use and improves it that hath it not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in possession but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the use and exercise to him shall be given and he shall have more abundance And our Saviour expresly tells us Joh. 10. 10. that he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly And thus man by the Law as understood and expounded according to the tenor and gratious moderation of the Gospel covenant is bound to love God with all the strength he either has or shall have and thus as S. Bernard excellently modus amandi Deum est amare sine modo We can never love enough because our love alwayes
when he has betrayed so much weakness and ignorance in the first But we will consider it howsoever JEANES p. 39. The second reason is peculiar unto Christ above all other men whilest he lived here upon earth he injoyed the beatificall vision and the naturall and necessary consequent thereof is a most intense actuall love of God and therefore the inward acts of his love of God were equally intense at all times but as for the outward expressions of his love of God c. § 56. Sir how often and often have we heard of this to no purpose Onely let me ask what is all this to Christs love and holy charity as viator you must now remember you talk of obligation and duty But then this Beatifick love of Christ was simpliciter necessarius And therefore this is still the old Sophism à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter But enough and enough of this For though you are not at all troubled still to repeat the same objections yet I am very much ashamed that I should be forced still to return the same Answers and say I must as he in Plautus in a very like case vi'n tibi adferri noctuam Quae Tou Tou usque dicat tibi nam nos jam nos defessi fumus JEANES But as for the outward expressions of these acts Christ had to them a proper freedome taking the word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso and therefore they might be more intense at one time then another But of this you may if you please see further in Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae disp 37. sect 4. where the question debated is Quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens Deum in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera § 57. Here is ignorance upon ignorance and confusion upon confusion and I am quite tyred with cleansing this * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucian Pssudomant Augean Stable A †They say Hercules cleansed it by the turning of a River into it Vid. Erasm Adag Diodor. Sicul. River of Ink must do it I see the * Basket in Lucian is to very little purpose § 58. To acquit this harsh censure of calumny and to remonstrate the charge it will be fit I reduce his discourse into Form § 59. The whole supposes a Prosyllogisme and this which he calls his second Argument is a proof of the Assumption Thus then it stands If the inward acts of Christs love of God were equally intense at all times but the outward expressions of these Acts might be more intense at one time then another then the outward expressions and the inward Acts are not alwayes exactly proportioned in point of degree but may not onely equall but also transcend the most sincere expressions of Love and consequently S. Lukes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood of a graduall heightening of the outward expressions onely not of the inward ardency in prayer But the inward acts of Christs love c. Ergo c. The assumption consists of two parts and is here severally proved The first that the inward acts of Christs love of God were all equally intense at all times he thus proves because Christ whilst he lived here upon earth enjoyed the Beatisick vision the naturall and necessary consequent whereof is a most intense actuall love of God But then as for the outward expressions of these acts which is a proof of the second part Christ had to them a proper freedome taking the word freedome for an active indifferency in sensu diviso And of the truth of both these may be further seen in Suarez Ergo c. § 60. And this his second reason he sayes is peculiar unto Christ above all other men § 61. Plain then it is First that here he confounds the state of Christ as comprehensor with his state of viator Secondly plain it is that he confounds the beatifick and necessary acts of Christs love of God agreeing to him as comprehensor with the free and meritorious acts of his love agreeing to him as viator And then thirdly plain it is that he confounds the inward acts of Christs love of God as properly taken with the inward acts of other virtues and graces suppose of religion and ardency in prayer which because they are the effects and signs of that former love of God are Metonymically so called And fourthly as plain it is that he confounds all these three very distinct acts and takes them one for another § 62. But then as if this were not sufficient he fifthly further confounds the outward sensible expressions of charity largely taken with the acts of virtue and piety that as we have formerly manifested are extrinsecall to the love of God strictly and properly taken and makes the inward acts of religion and devotion of chastity and temperance of patience and brotherly kindness and the like to be upon the matter all one with the outward sensible expressions of these virtues and graces And then sixtly he confounds the naturall necessity and freedome of the Agent with the morall necessity and freedome of the action § 63. For the better opening of which last for the former need not further clearing know we must that the Moralist and Divine distribute necessity and freedome into three kinds The first is that they call necessitas naturae and this arises from a naturall determination of the form and faculties of the Agent to one uniform kind of working and is intrinsecall to it To this they oppose that freedome which they call naturall which arises from an indetermination of the rationall appetite called the will to one uniform kind of operation and supposes it naturally left at liberty either to act or not act which they call libertatem contradictionis or Exercitii or else to do this or that which is contrary to it which they call libertatem contrarietatis seu specificationis and this at its own free election and choice Thus stones and vegetables and the like are called necessary agents but Men and Angels are called agentia libera free agents and this freedome is as essentiall and naturall to these as the other necessity is to the former The second they call necessitas praecepti a necessity of duty arising from the morall obligation in the action requiring it to be performed or omitted by a free creature that is lord of his own actions And to this is opposed that morall liberty and freedome and indifferency of the act whereby it comes to pass that it may be done or omitted without sin no law here interposing to command or prohibit it Thus whatsoever the law of God has enjoyned or forbidden is necessary and whatsoever is not thus forbidden or commanded is of a middle nature secundum speciem indifferent and morally free to be done or not done And this is a liberty extrinsecall to the Agent The third they call necessitas coactionis arising from outward violence and compulsion But
of holy Charity or the Love of God are of two sorts 1. Those that are immediately terminated on God the only good 2. those that are immediately terminated on us men for Gods sake in whose Love as the Prime Act they are all radicated and founded The one the Schooles call Charitas ut finis the other they call Charitas propter finem § 44. Now though there be a gradual difference in the tendency of these Acts to the Object of Love yet because the divine goodness though unequally communicated is one and the same and the formal Object of both (a) Licet charitas sit una virtus habet tamen duos Actus quorum unus ordinatur ad alium sicut ad finem Aquin 2. 2. q. 44. ad 1. In Dilectione proximi includitur Dilectio Dei sicut finis in eo quod est ad finem è converso ibid. ad 4m. Cum Habitus dicitur specificari per Actus id intelligendum est cum proportione Triplex enim modus Habitûs ex dictis colligi potest c. Alius est qui in esse est etiam simplex qualitas virtualiter autem seu in agendo est multiplex quia est potens ad plures Actus ita inter se connexos ut in ordine ad idem ac indivisibile objectum formale necessariam connexionem inter se habeant in aliquo primario Actu quodammodo radicantur ideo talis Habitus dici potest specificari ab illo primario actu in quo alii radicantur ut habitus verbi gratia Charitatis Amoris Dei. Suarez Met. tom 2. disp 44. sect 11. §. 70. Habitus Voluntatis tendunt ad prosequendum aliquod bonum omnis autem prosecutio boni est ex aliquo motivo seu ex aliqua ratione bonitatis quae Voluntatem attrahit Hoc ergo motivum seu ratio tendendi est absque dubio quae dat Actui specificationem quia semper id quod est formale est quod dat speciem Contingit unam eandem rationem tendendi non aequè applicari diversis materiis ideo non eodem modo attingi per Actus ut est v. g. Bonitas Divina quatenus est in Deo reddit illum amabilem quatenus per quendam respectum applicatur proximo ut illum etiam amabilem reddat Nam licet illa Bonitas in se una sit non tamen illis rebus aequè convenit ideo modus tendendi in illam non est idem Tunc vero licet inter eos actus sit aliqua diversitas est tamen quaedam necessaria connexio Quia Actus qui versantur circa Objectum intrinsecè per se habens rationem illam est radix aliorum virtute continens illos ut Amor Dei amorem Proximi c. Suarez ibid. §. 30 31. it is generally resolved that the Habit whence they issue is but one simple Quality and the Acts that flow from it are called by the same name the Love of God or holy Charity § 45. Though then the Acts of Christ's Love as immediately terminated on God were alwaies at the height and one equall perfection as was never yet questioned or denyed by the Doctor yet this nothing hinders but that the other Acts of this Love of which alone the Doctor speaks regarding us for Gods sake might consist in a latitude and gradually differ from one another and fall short of the fervour of those Acts that immediately respected God as has already in some part appeared and shall further in due place be evidenced § 46. And therefore this Proposition Christs Love of God was capable of Degrees which the Doctor in the sense already given of the phrase the Love of God confesses to be not illogically inferred from his Paper will sufficiently reach the point he had in hand without your understanding the word farther For though one Act of Divine Love may in comparison of another be more intense yet nothing hinders but both may equally flow I say aequè though not aequaliter from one and the same all-full habit of Charity that is free as the Will is and indetermined in its Acts and Operations § 47. And therefore all the world will acknowledge Sir the Doctors censure of your adding not supplying the word farther as a misadventure in your proceeding to be just and not groundless § 48. And now Sir because I find you a man of such unprosperous undertakings let me advise you for the future that if you shall assume the liberty to charge the Doctor with Consequences as you boldly profess you shall that you do it purely from his own words without any additions or alterations of your own framing For otherwise you your self as the Doctor tells you will be the only author of the Proposition you undertake to refute And since by such unhappy Arts you will never be able to make good your Charge the shame will not only light as you acknowledge but also fix and dwell upon you where I leave it for the present and hasten to the next Section SECTION 6. The Refuter acknowledges his own ignorance of a generally received Opinion Love a Genus to the Habit and the Act. Proved for the Refuters instruction His charging his Ignorance on Aristotle Aristotle his Master why vainly quoted He speaks not to the present Controversie The Assumption only denied § 1. THough we have already shaken the very foundations of our Refuters Discourse yet the Doctor tells us Doctor HAMMOND 14. BUt this is but the Proemial part of my Reply there is a more Material part of it still behind which may yet seem necessary to be added viz. to mind him of what he well knows the distinction between Habits and Acts of Vertues or Graces and that Love as the Genus doth equally comprehend both these Species and that his Discourse of All-fulness belonging to the Habitual Grace of Christ I speak distinctly of another matter viz. of the Degrees of that Grace discernible in the several Acts of it § 2. To this our Refuter replies with a very unfavoury and immodest acknowledgement of his own Ignorance which he charges upon Aristotle as if he had been the sole Author of it JEANES THe distinction between the Habits and Acts of Vertues or Graces I very well know but that Love as a Genus doth equally comprehend the Habit and Act of Love is a thing which I confess that I am yet to learn and if it be a matter of Ignorance in me you must blame my Master Aristotle for he hath misguided me herein He tells me lib. 1. top c. 15. n. 11. that if a word be praedicated of things put in several praedicaments that then it is homonymous in regard of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now the Habit of Love is in the Praedicament of Quality the Act of Love in the Praedicament of Action and hereupon I cannot but conclude that the Praedication of Love concerning the Habit and
the devotions sake from whence they spring and where they are not hypocritical and counterfeit And hence it was that the Primitive Christians called their * Vide Tertul. l. de Orat. c. 14. p. 155. A ex edit Rigalt Confer l de Jejuniis c. 1 pag 701. C c 2. p. 702. A. c. 10. p. 708. A. D. c. 13. p. 7 11. Wednesdaies and Fridaies Fasts and Humiliations Dies stationarii and their Devotions stationes because not only they continued in them till * three in the afternoon but performed them constantly also †Vide H Grotium in Annotat ad Matth. 6. 5. verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 140 Confer quae vir doctissimus annotavit ad cap. 18. Luca vers 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut quae habet ad cap. 3. Act. Apost vers 1. And therefore the Judicious Hooker renders the place in Tertullians second book ad uxorem c. 4. p. 189. C. Si statio facienda est Maritus de die condicat ad Balneas thus If her presence be required at the time of Station or standing Prayer he chargeth her at no time but that to be present with him in his Baths Hooker Ecclesias Pol. l. 5. §. 41. p. 264. standing Their giving no ease to the body in their publick prayers and their perseverance and continuing in it were fruits and effects and arguments of the Primitive Devotion And is it not usual with us upon publick daies of Humiliation to have 3 or 4 Preachers and as many to pray for the service And are not we willing by these multiplied Acts of Devotion and our whole daies continuance in them to testifie the deep sense of our humiliation and the sincerity of our Repentance and the utmost height of our Devotion We truly guess at the strength and quickness of the Bow and the vigor of the Arm that draws it by the further flight of the Arrow § 13. But then as in those who are truly pious the multiplying of the Acts of Prayer and a longer continuance in the performing that duty does argue a greater Ardency of Devotion so 2ly the frequent repetition of the same words does much more express the inward fervour of the Spirit As the multiplying of Circles in a Pond or River or the continued revolutions in a Wheel or Top do argue the more violent descent of the Stone into the water and the strenger violence and force impressed into the Wheel or Top. And therefore we read that our Saviour in his bloody Agony did not only pray thrice and so prolixius but also the same words and therefore in respect of them both intensius also When Beggers would express their utmost earnestness and the violence of their desires of a relief of their wants they redouble their Petitions in the same language and it had not been taken up for a Custome among the men of that trade if there had not been an argument and evidence of truth it it all the world over When blind Bartimaeus and his fellow-begger understood that Jesus passed by they lift up their voices and cried still Mark 10. 46. Luc. 18. 35. Matth 20. 30. Quo magis turba obstrepebat tanto vehementius caecus clamabat eadem iterans sanctâ improbitate declarans hac ratione ardens desiderium invictum fidei robur c. Jansen Concord Evangel cap. 105. p. 741. col 2. C. D. Vide Luc. Brugens in Matt. c. 20. ver 1. 2. H. Grot. ibid. redoubling the same words Jesus thou son of David have mercy on us And when the Company reproved this practise of the Begger in them the Text saies they cried the more earnestly saying the same words And our Saviour that as well knew the fervour of the heart as the noise and language of the tongue did rightly measure the inward Devotion of the Spirit by their out-cries and redoubling of their Prayers Even he himself to express his inward grief and earnest longings after the comfortable influence of the Godhead now restrained cries out upon the Cross My God my Matt. 27. 46. God why hast thou forsaken me § 14. As then the Doctor did truly and most demonstratively conclude and argue an increase of the inward fervour and ardency of our Saviours Devotion from the multiplying of the exterior Acts of Prayer and so from a greater length in them did infer by way of Proportion a greater intension in the inward Acts of his Love and Zeal and Devotion So shall I also as firmly and as evidently conclude this aggrandation and more then ordinary intenseness in the inward Acts of his Devotion by his more then ordinary use and repetition and redoubling of the same Prayer § 15. Our Refuter then did either ignorantly or wilfully mistake the Doctors meaning For he never took a number for a single Quality nor argued the gradual increase of Christ's ardency from the multiplying of so many several Acts of Prayer of the same gradual perfection all numerically distinct For though Children and Fooles mistake a Posy for a single flower yet Wise men know it is a bundle And so I proceed to the next Section wherein the Doctor further evidences his Assertion upon that supposal that the vulgar reading of place were to be approved as our Refuter would have it SECTION 15. The pertinency of the Doctors Argument and impertinence of the Refuters Charge The Doctors Argument à Posteriori from the necessary relation between the work and the reward Not understood by the Refuter The outward work more valuable in Gods sight for the inward Fervour and Devotion The Refuters Petitio principii Works in a Physical sense what and what in a Moral The Refuters discourse of the infinite value of Christs merit arising from the dignity of his person Nothing to the purpose The dignity of a moral Action according to the Physical Entity of the Act or according to the dignity of the Person performing it The Actions of Christ in regard of his Person infinite in value Not so in regard of their substantial Moral goodness Proved and acknowledged by our Refuter's own Suarez Consequently in this regard they might exceed one another in Moral Perfection The Doctors Argument that it was so in Christ The appositeness of the Proof The Scriptures say the same Doctor HAMMOND § 34. THis is clear and I need not adde what else I might the very multiplication of more Acts of any Vertue supposing it equally sincere in the Habit and such is the length of Prayer when it is in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God that argues it more excellent then the smaller number of those Acts would be and proportionably more abundantly rewarded by him who rewardeth every man not only according to the sincerity of his heart but also secundum opera according to the multiplied Acts or works the more abundant labour proceeding from this sincerity And so that will suffice for his first
because he did alwaies love God ex toto posse suo with all his might and strength which strength did differ according to the variety of his several states and conditions as Viator and Comprehensor § 15. But then lastly let me add to prevent all mistakes that this is not by me applyed to any but onely our Saviour that was still holy harmlesse undefiled For God is not cannot be unjust if by virtue of this Law he should require us to love him according to the Abilities he gave us and we have wilfully lost and squandered away nor can we be said to love God with all our might and with all our strength though in this lapsed depraved condition we love him as well as we can with this body of sin we carry about us because it is by our own default that we can now love him no better and we our selves by our own sin and wilful default have disabled our selves that we cannot love him so well as we ought and as Gods Law requires and which we might have kept if Adam and we his off-spring had continued in our first innocency But then also let me add that we and Adam in innocency should not have loved God with that height and ardor as now the Spirits of just men made perfect do love him because Adam they knew should have known him only by Grace and Revelation but now they know him face to face and their love is inlarged by the greatnesse of their happinesse and the fulnesse of their glory § 16. I shall clear all this by the Testimonies of some Schoolmen of great note and worth in themselves and of great repute with our Refuter I begin with Suarez § 17. He in his first Tome on the third part of Aquinas Summes disputing of the Merit of Christ laies it down for a ground that Christ in the dayes of his flesh and in the state of a Viator was truly in statu merendi and that all the conditions requisite to make an Action meritorius and the Person that performes it to merit by it were to be found in him And if this be not granted he could not be the Meritorious cause of our Justification Ex his ergo omnibus sufficienter concluditur omnes conditiones ad perfectum meritum requisitâ— in Christo Domino inventas esse atque adeo potuisse mereri ac denique de facto meruisse Quae assertio de fide certa est quam ex Scripturis melius infra demonstrabimus c. Ratione etiam patet ex dictis quia omnis Viator gratus Deo illi obediens studiosè operans propter ipsum ex gratia ejus meretur coram ipso haec est una ex magnis perfectionibus viatoris sed Christus assumpsit statum Viatoris erat gratissimus Deo optime operabatur c. ergo meruit coram Deo sine causa enim assumpsisset statum Viatoris hâc perfectione seipsum privasset Suarez tom 1. in 3. part Thom. disp 39. sect 1. p. 539. col 2. C. D. § 18. And now having proved that Christ as Viator was in statu merendi he proceeds in the next section to determine by what Acts Christ merited and this he layes down distinctly in four conclusions I shall give them here ordine retrogrado beginning with the last first Dico quarto meruisse Christum per omnes actus liberos suae voluntatis etiam si illi fuerint ordinis naturalis ut sunt amor naturalis Dei actus aliarum virtutum mortalium acquisitarum Probatur quia omnes illi actus erant honesti à Christo refebantur in spiritualem finem quam vis non referrentur sola dignitas suppositi deificantis illos satis esset ut haberent omnem proportionem valorem ad meritum c. Dico tertio meruisse Christum per actus omnes virtutum infusarum quos liberè exercuit Est certissima sic enim meruit per actum obedientiae ut testatur Paulus per actum religionis ut orationis c. Et ad eundem modum meruit per Passionem suam c. Dico secundo meruisse Christum per actum Charitatis proximorum Est communis Theologorum certa quia in illo actu concurrunt omnia necessaria ad meritum solum est notandum hunc amorem proximi non solum potuisse esse meritorium ut consesequentem scientiam infusam quod indubitatum est sed etiam ut consequentem scientiam beatam ut Alexander Alensis Scotus supra docuerunt And then for the clearing the latter part of this Conclusion he adds two things that will give light to our present Controversie Voluntas Christi non majorem necessitatem habuit perseverandi semper in illâ actuali dilectione proximi quam habendi illam in primo instanti quia neque ab Objecto neque a Deo ipso necessitatem patiebatur Referre autem hanc necessitatem in solam naturam illius actus est gratis dictum est quaedam petitio Principii nam cum ille actus sit quid creatum ex hâc parte non est immutabilis in quo differt multum ab actu increato voluntatis cum alias sit actus potentiae liberae versetur circa objectum quod non infert potentiae necessitatem neque etiam ex sua specifica ratione immutabilis est non est ergo naturâ suâ immutabilis Deinde quia si Christus in primo instanti liberè dilexerit proximos illo actu ergo potuit non diligere demus ergo sustinuisse pro aliquo tempore illum actum seu extensionem ejus nonne peterat postea in ipâ—re diligere proximos illo actu certe non videtur id probabiliter posse negari quia si in principio id potuit cur non postea cum ille actus capax sit illius augmenti ipsa potentia semper retineat vim libertatem ad efficiendum illum Quod si potuit Christus pâ—st aliquod tempus incipere proximos diligere per illum actum ergo ille actus de se mutabilis est secundum illud augmentum ergo pari ratione mutari posset per cessationem ab actuali proximorum dilectione Denique ille actus prout terminatur ad proximos non pertinet ad essentialem beatitudinem neque habet necessariam connexionem cum actuali amore Dei potest n. perfecte amari Déus quamvis proximus non semper actu ametur sed interdum tantum in habitu non est ergo inconveniens admittere hujusmodi mutationem possibilem in illo actu And when it had been objected quod iste actus non sit meritorius quia non est actus Viatoris ut Viator est cum fundetur in scientia beata He answers Dico igitur ut actus sit meritorius satis esse ut sit bonus liber in persona grata in via existente unde supposito eandem personam simul
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel expressius plenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocant c. And therefore how shall we unfold this difficulty § 19. For the solution of it therefore he proposes diverse things and this onely tendandi gratià to draw S. Ierome to give him his opinion § 20. As first whether S. Iames refer not to the sins mentioned in the context vers 2 3. c. ut qui dixerit diviti sede hic pauperi sta illic huic non honorem quem illi deferens idololatra blasphemus adulter homicida ne quod longum est cuncta commemorem reus omnium criminum Ibid. p. 43. col 1. B. C. D. judicandus est offendens quippe in uno factus est omnium reus This he seeming to doubt of as appears by this Parent hesis nisi alio modo intelligendum ostendatur he proceeds to a second which is this § 21. Whether secondly the doubt may not be solved upon the opinion of the Peripateticks who maintained virtutes esse inter se connexas and consequently that he that wanted Ibid p. 43. col 1. D. col 2. A B C D. pag. 44. Col. 1. A B. the habit of any one virtue suppose of Iustice or Temperance had onely the vizor and shape of the rest and not the substance for no man will call Catiline virtuous because he was a traitour to his Countrey though frigus sitim famem ferre poterat eratque patiens inediae algoris vigiliae supra quam cuiquam credibile est ac per hoc sibi suis magnâ praeditus fortitudine videbatur This he positively resolves against Ibid. p. 44. col 1. B. Non enim ista divina sententia est quâ dicitur qui unam virtutem habuerit omnes habet eique nulla inest cui una defuerit sed hominibus hoc visum esi multum quidem ingeniosis studiosis sed tamen hominibus c. And therefore he goes on to another and enquires § 22. Whether thirdly it may not be solved upon the Ibid p 44. col 2. A B C. Opinion of the Stoicks that maintained all sins to be equall because as they instanced it was all one if a man were drowned whether he had a hundred fathome of water above his head or onely three inches since he could be but drowned and therefore it must be so in respect of sin which whosoever commits does but transilire lineas quas ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum and he that has gone beyond the line was as much out of the right way as he that wandred a thousand miles from it But this also he resolves against from Scripture Itaque non justificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis vivens Ibid. col 2. C. Psal 142. 2. Hab. 2. 4. tamen justus ex fide vivit Et induti sunt sancti justitiâ alius magis alius minus Et nemo hic vivit sine peccato hoc alius magis alius minus optimus autem est qui minimum And now here he takes occasion to proceed to give his own Judgement but modestly warily and rather by way of enquiry then determination for he well knew the temper of S. Ierome to whom he writes sed quid ego tanquam oblitus cui loquor Doctori similis factus sum cum proposuerim quid abs te discere velim sed quia de peccatorum parilitate unde in id quod agebam incidit quaestio examinandam tibi sententiam meam promere statueram jam eam tandem aliquando concludam § 23. And now having prepared the way and casually as it were and onely to confront the opinion of the Peripateticks and Stoicks proved from the Scripture that there was Ibid. p. 44. col 1. C. D. col 2. A. C. D. a twofold Righteousness one Legall the other Evangelicall and that believers though we all sin did truely worship God which they could not do without Charity and that in respect of this he was most perfect most holy and righteous that most mortified the deeds of the flesh and came nighest to a legall sinless perfection he comes to give his own Judgement but still by way of enquiry And it is this whether Ibid p. 45. col 2. part tot since the Scriptures mention a twofold righteousnese Legall and Evangelicall a justification by the works of the Law and another by Faith and the Grace and Righteousness of the Gospel this difficulty may not be solved and it may not be true according to the Covenant of works that he that offends in one as S. Iames speaks offends in all and as certainly by that Covenant of works does incur the curse annexed to the least transgression as well as if he had broken all and yet it may be true that the just shall live by Faith though the same S. Iames sayes in many things we offend all Ac per hoc qui totam legem servaverit si in uno offenderit fit omnium reus quia contra charitatem that universall virtue of goodness like the †Arist infracitat Philosophers universall justice that consists in an absolute sinless perfection that consists in keeping all Gods commandments briefly summed up by our Saviour in these two Thou shalt love the Lord c. and thy neighbour c. facit unde tota lex pendet § 24. From hence he proceeds to shew that in respect of Evangelicall righteousness and sanctification there might be a difference of holiness and a difference also of sins in opposition to the Peripatetick and Stoick according as they approached to the absolute sinless Perfection or compleat and Perfect Charity Quae si vera sint eo modo illud absolvitur quod ait homo etiam Apostolicae gratiae in multis offendimus omnes Omnes enim offendimus sed unus gravius alius Jac. 3. 2. levius Quanto quisque gravius leviusque peccaverit tanto in peccato committendo major quanto in diligendo Deo proximo minor Et rursus tanto minor in peccati perpetratione quanto major in Dei proximi dilectione Tanto itaque plenior iniquitatis quanto inanior charitatis Et tunc perfecti sumus in charitate quando nihil restat ex infirmitate c. This opinion he amplifies and prosecutes and labours to prove by diverse passages in S. James to be the true meaning of that difficult place and then concludes his Epistle § 25. And now from this Analysis and Scope of the Author in this Epistle it will be no hard matter to understand S. Austins mind in this text so often insisted on by us in our controversies with the Papists and to shew how much besides the purpose of Saint Austin and other Protestants both Master Cawdrey and our Refuter have urged it against the Doctor § 26. I shall with the Readers patience give the place a little larger then either our
and I have already given my Reason for it Certainly that which iâ— less than it ought to be viz by the rule of Perfect Righteousness and Charity the Law is caused or arises from our inbred Corruption Ex vitio est it is By reason of which inbred corruption it is that there is not a just man upon earth which doth good and sinneth not Fro. which inbred corruption it is that in thy Gods sight shall no man living be justified By reason of which inbred Corruption it is that if we say we have no sin me deceive our selves c. § 35. By this view of the place it is evident that the virtue which on occasion of the Place in S. James he speaks being an universall impartiall observation of the whole Law and consequently every fayling in that a vice for to that all the proofs belong that there is no man but sinneth sometimes there is no reason to extend his speech any further then to this and then it will be no more applicable to our business which is onely of the degrees of this or that Particular virtue which it is certain a man may have who yet is guilty of some other sin in other particulars § 36. This therefore I willingly acknowledge that he that fails of any part of his duty is therein faulty or this is Ex vitio in him proceeds I understand it from his naturall inbred Corruption and if of that onely S. Hieromes read S. Austins words quamdiu augeri potest be understood as it is most reasonable it should whether we judge by the occasion or the Proofs of his speech or by the express words quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est that which is less then he is bound to do is faulty read proceeds from his own corruption ex infirmitate est as he elsewhere in the same Epistle then as I fully consent to the truth of them so when that is granted no man can hence infer therefore every regular Act of Obedience which comes short of the highest degree of Perfection is a sin for besides many other inconveniences formerly noted this fresh one will be observable from S. Hieroms read S. Austins own words that then every Act of virtue in this life is a sin for as for that fullest perfection which cannot be increased the beginning of this Testimony acknowledgeth that it is not to be found in any man in this life § 37. In a word the word Perfection is capable of two Notions either it may signifie the perfect obedience of never sinning and of this onely S. Hierome read S. Austin speaks both when he saith it is not attained in this life and when he adds that whatsoever is less then this is sinfull read proceeds from our Naturall corruption or else it may signifie any higher degree of exercise of any Particular virtue Chastity Mercy fortitude c. And of this onely it is that I speak and S. Hierome Arist Eth l. 5. c. 1. §. 9 10. read S. Austin in the words cited from him appears never to have thought of it for he indeed as we have already demonstrated speaks onely of the habit of Charity or obedience to the whole Law like that of the Philosophers * Vniversalis Justitia est obedientia erga omnes leges ideo dicitur universalis quia complectitur sub se omnes virtutes de quibus leges universaliter praecipiunt Magâ—r Com. in loc Universall Justice not at all of the graduall intension of any single Act of any Particular Virtue or Grace and to this onely my affirmation belongs that there are degrees in that Perfection and that he that hath attained to any of these degrees sins not against Christs precept of Perfection though he has not arrived to the highest degree Thus far the learned Doctor § 54. And now I shall make bold to desire our Refuter to answer me these Dilemma's Either he read this Account to M. Cawdreys Triplex Diatribe or he read it not If he read it not how comes he then so confidently in the next sentence but one to this to say I cannot but extreamly wonder that you affirm this to be the utmost you undertook to demonstrate to M. Cawdrey or to justifie now against me If he read it how comes it then to pass that he takes no notice of this answer of the Doctors to this very passage of S. Austin but crudely thrusts it upon the world and obtrudes it upon the Doctor as if it were unanswerable If he read not this whole Account in defence of the Treatise of will-worship how then is he fit to oppose that Treatise as he does which the Doctor had so largely defended And if he read it how comes it so to pass that he is so ignorant every where of the Doctors meaning and still talks of another Love and other Acts then those the Doctor had fully and expresly declared himself to speak If he both read and well weighed and considered the Treatise and Defence and understood the Doctors meaning where then was his Judgement to impose another sense upon the words than the Doctor ever dreamed of Why was he so discourteous to his Reader to trouble him with Arguments that had already been answered without affording the least Reply to demonstrate their weakness Let him chuse which part he please and he will either betray his own weakness and Ignorance or his Partiality and double dealing and consequently manifest how unfit he is to manage a Controversie in Publick especially against so able so learned so acute and modest an adversary as the Doctor § 55. But yet all this notwithstanding our Refuter is now with this single sentence of S. Austin so proud and secure of his victory and Acquests against the Doctor as ever Tamerlane was when he rode in his Triumphall Chariot drawn by Bajazet and the Asian Kings And therefore he goes on and thus magnificently bespeaks the Doctor JEANES And I am very confident that besides this Replyer no learned man either Protestant or Papist hath ascribed any such growth unto the Ardency of Christs actuall Love of God As for the second sentence c. § 56. Not to speak of your prevaricating again with the ambiguity of this Phrase Christs actuall love of God I shall for the present suppose but not grant that the Doctor had so said and in the very words and sense you impose upon him and your Reader What then will be the issue why very great For swelled with success and scorn he sayes I am very confident that besides this Replyer no learned man whether Protestant or Papist sayes so § 57. Well Sir you may be very Confident I confess but never a whit the more knowing For by experience I find in my little observation both of my self and others that Confidence is most commonly the Bastard of Ignorance and very rarely the genuine and legitimate Issue of true knowledge Admiration and