Doctor HAMMOND his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or A greater Ardency in Christ 〈◊〉 love of God at one time, than another PROVED TO BE UTTERLY IRRECONCILABLE With 1. His fullness of habitual grace. 2. The perpetual happiness, and 3. The impeccability of his soul. By HENRY JEANES, Minister of God's Word at Chedzoy in . OXFORD, Printed by HENRY HALL., Printer to the UNIVERSITY, for THOMAS ROBINSON. 1657. Doctor HAMMOND, 1. I Was very willing to hearken to the seasonable advice of many, and to wholly withdraw myself à foro contentioso, to some more pleasing, and profitable employment; but discerning it to be the desire of the Author of the Book, entitled, A mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity, that I should reply to his examination of one passage of mine against Mr Cawdrey, I shall make no scruple immediately to obey him; not only because it may be done in very few words, but especially because the doctrine which he affixeth to me, seems (and not without some reason) to be contrary to the truth of Scripture, which I am to look on with all reverend submission, & acquiesce in, with captivation of understanding, and so not assert any thing from mine own conceptions, which is but seemingly contrary to it. 2. The proposition which he affixes to me, is this; That Christ's Love of God was capable of further degrees, and that he refutes as a thing contrary to that point (a truth of Scripture) which he had in hand, viz. The dwelling of fullness of all habitual Grace in Christ. 3. By this I suppose I may conclude his meaning to be, that I have affirmed Christ's Love of God (meaning thereby that habitual grace of divine Charity) to have been capable of further degrees, so as that capacity of further degrees, is the denial of all-fulness of that habitual grace already in him. 4. And truly, had I thus expressed myself, or let fall any words, which might have been thus interpretable, I acknowledge I had been very injurious not only to the verity of God, but also to my own conceptions, and even to the cause which I had in hand, which had not been supported, but betrayed by any such apprehensions of the imperfection of Christ's habitual graces. 5. This I could easily show, and withal how cautiously and expressly it was forestalled by me; But to the matter in hand, it is sufficient, that I profess I never thought it; but deem it a contrariety to express words of Scripture in any man who shall think it, and in short, that I never gave occasion to any man to believe it my opinion, having never said it in those words which he sets up to refute in me, never in any other that may be reasonably interpretable to that sense. JEANES. Whereas you term your compliance with my desire, that you should reply unto me, Obedience; I look upon it as a very high Compliment; (for what am I, that my desire should have with you the authority of a Command?) and shall not be so uncharitable, as to think it a scoff, though some of my friends have represented it to me under that notion: but suppose it were meant in way of derision, yet this shall abate nothing of my gratitude for your reply, which is a favour, and honour, of which I willingly confess myself to be unworthy. The best testimony I can give you of my thankfulness is, to assure you, that if in the exceptions, which you shall condescend to return unto this paper, you can prove that I have done you any injury, you shall find me very ready to make you satisfaction. But if on the contrary you shall fail in such proof, I hope you will be so much a friend unto the truth, as to retract your mistake. You acknowledge, that to affirm, that Christ's habitual love of God was capable of farther degrees, is a contrariety to express words of Scripture. Now this proposition, which you thus disclaim, is the natural, and unavoidable sequel of that which you in this your reply §. 21 confess to be your opinion; to wit, that the inward acts of Christ's love were more intense at one time than another: and this I shall make good by an argument, which I shall submit unto your severest examination. Intention & remission are primarily, & per se, only of qualities; so that an action is not capable of degrees of intention and remission, but secondarily, and mediante qualitate; in regard of that quality, which it produceth, or from which it proceedeth ratione a Collegium Compl. De generat. & corrupt. disp. 4. qu. 5. §. 11. n. 4●. Scheib. Metaph. l. 2. c. 12. num. 35.36 termini,. or ratione principii. The intention and remission of actions therefore must be proportioned unto that of those qualities, which they regard, either as their terms, or principles; now you acknowledge in terminis, that the inward acts of Christ's love were more intense at one time than at another; and hereupon it undeniably, and unavoidably followeth, that either the terminus, some quality that was the product of these inward acts of love, or else the principium, some quality that was the principle of them was more intense at one time, than at another. If you say, that the terminus, some quality, that was the product of these inward acts, was more intense at one time, than another; why then, first, you must tell us what this quality is, and in what Species of quality it is placed; it cannot with any colour of probability be ranked under any other of the four species of quality than the first; and if it be put there, it must be either dispositio or habitus; now dispositio is such an imperfect and inchoate a thing, as that I am very loath to think so dishonourably of my Saviour, as to ascribe it to him. If you make it an habit, than you will run upon that opinion which you disowne; for it can be no other than a moral habit, and therefore in Christ it must be a virtuous & gracious habit. To affirm therefore that this quality was more intense at one time than at another, will be by just consequence to affirm, that a gracious habit in Christ was more intense at one time than another. 2 Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate: and therefore I shall reject this quality è numero entium, unless you can by convincing arguments prove a necessity of asserting it. I am not ignorant, that it is a common opinion, that omnis actio habet terminum; but how it fails in immanent actions, you may see (if you will vouchsafe to stoop so low) in Schieblers' Metaphysics l. 2. c. 10. t. 3. ar. 3. pun. 1. If you take the other way, and say that the principle, the quality producing these inward acts of Christ's love of God, was more intense at one time than at another; why then you grant that which you seem to deny; for the principle of them is nothing else but the habitual grace, or habit of divine love; and therefore if you aver that to have been capable of farther intention, you aver that the habitual grace of Christ was capable of farther intention, and thus you see what the reason was that induced me to charge you with this opinion. Doctor HAMMOND. 6. First, I said it not in those words, which he undertakes to refute; These are p. 258. of his Book thus set down by him. This point may serve for confutation of a passage in Dr. H. against Mr. C. to wit, That Christ's love of God was capable of farther 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, saith he, is this: Dr. H. p. 222. In the next place he passeth to the enforcement of my argument, from what we read concerning Christ himself, that he was more intense in Prayer at one time than another, when yet the lower degree was sure no sin, and prepares to make answer to 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 now in hand, for the evidencing of which, that example of Christ was brought by me, viz. That sincere Love is capable of degrees. This was first showed 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 [Christ's 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 'tis but this, That the example of Christ will never prove D. H. his conclusion, unless it infer, that Christ's 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 is 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 [Christ's love of God was capable of further degrees] is readily interpretable to this dangerous sense, that Christ's love of God was not full, but so fare 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 proposeth 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 those other words, which though he finds not in my papers, he yet not illogically infers from them [that Christ's 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. See magis & minus, all of them comprehended in that all-full perfect love of God, which was always 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 Christ's love of God is capable; are by me thus expressed, 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 Christ's 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 expressly 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) and so that they were wanting in him, and the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured, as prejudicial to Christ's fullness. Here then was one misadventure in his proceeding. JEANES. 1. He that saith that Christ's love of God was more intense in his agony than before, affirmeth, that his love of God before his agony was capable of farther degrees, than yet it had; but you affirm the former, and therefore I do you no wrong to impute the latter unto you: The premises virtually contain the conclusion, and therefore he that holds the premises, maintaineth the conclusion. I shall readily hearken to your seasonable advertisement, that he, which undertakes to refute any saying of another's, 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 consequences of your words, and if I cannot make good my charge, the shame will light on me. 2. If there were any mistake in supplying the word [farther] it was a mistake of charity, for I was so charitable, as to think that you spoke pertinently to the matter you had in hand: I conceived that your scope in your treatise of will-worship was to prove, that there be uncommanded degrees of the love of God, that those large inclusive words thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul etc. do not command the highest and most intense degree of the love of God; so that a man may fulfil this command, and yet there may be room or place for farther and higher degrees of the love of God. Now this proposition, Christ's love of God was capable of degrees, which you confess to be not illogically inferred from your papers will never reach this point, unless you understand the word farther, and therefore your censure of my supplying the word farther as a misadventure in my proceeding is groundless. Dr 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 virtues, or graces; and that love, the Genus, y 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 degreess of that grace discernible in the several acts of it. JEANES. The distinction between the habits and acts of virtues 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 Mr Aristotle, for he hath misguided me herein. He tells me lib. 1. top. c. 15. n. 11. that if a word be predicated of things put in several predicaments, that then it is homonymous in regard of them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now the habit of love is in the predicament of Quality, the act of love in the predicament of Action, and hereupon I cannot but conclude that the predication of love, concerning the habit, and the act, is only equivocal, and consequently love no genus to them. No genus can equally comprehend those things which do differ toto genere, and are therefore termed primo diversa, rather than differentia; but now such are the habits and the acts of the love of God, and therefore love as à genus doth not equally comprehend them as its species. Dr HAMMOND. 15. This distinction I thought legible enough before, both in the Tract of Will-worship and in the Answer to Mr Caw. 16. In the former the Refuter confesseth to find it, pag. 259. reciting these words of mine, It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all, and yet to have higher expressions of that love at one one time than another. Where the expressions at one time, and at another, must needs refer to the several acts of the same, all-full habitual love. JEANES. The distinction, which you thought legible enough before in your tract of will-worship, in which you say that I confess to find it, is such a distinction between the habits and acts o● love, as that love equally comprehends them both as species. Now I utterly deny, that there is any such distinction in those words of yours, which I recite: It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all, and yet to have higher expressions of that love at one time than another: and the reason of this my denial is, because love, as a genus, doth not comprehend the expressions of love equally with the habit. (1) Nothing can as a genus be equally predicated of things put in several predicaments, but the habit of love, and expressions of love are put in several predicaments; therefore love, as a genus, doth not equally comprehend them both. (2) The habit of love is formally and intrinsically love; the expressions of love (that is, as you expound yourself §. 21, the outward expressions of the inward acts of love) are termed love only by extrinsecall denomination from the inward acts of love; and therefore love doth not as a genus equally comprehend the habit, and the expressions of love. Raynandus in Mor: discip. dist. 3. N. 144. make smention out of Gab. Biel of a distinction of love into affective, and effective: and what is this effective love but the effects and expressions of love? but now, that he doth not take this to be a proper distribution of a genus into its species, appeareth by what he saith out of the same Author concerning the division. Effectivum dicit ipsum illius àmoris eliciti effectum. Translato quippe causae nomine ad effectum, is dicitur amare effectiuè, qui non ostentat in fertilem ac sterilem amorem; sed cum se dat occasio, erumpit in fructus dignos amoris. Quam esse admodùm impropriam amoris divisionem fatetur Gabriel, quia amare propriè est in solâ voluntate tanquam in subjecto: ea autem productio effectuum amoris in aliis facultatibus cernitur, estque actus transiens, non immanents volunt at is. (3) No one word can as a genus equally comprehend the efficient and the effect; the habit of love is the efficient cause, and the sincere and cordial expressions of love are the effect; therefore love is not predicated of them equally as a genus. (4) That which is predicated properly of one thing, and tropically of another cannot equally comprehend them both as a genus; but love is predicated properly of the habit of love, tropically, viz. Metonymically of the expressions of love, by a metonymy of the efficient for the effect; therefore love as a genus cannot equally comprehend them both. D. HAMMOND. Only I guess not what temptation he had to choose that expression, which he there makes use of, viz. [That there D. H. minceth the matter, and speaketh more cautelously] adding [that what he there saith is nothing to the matter now in hand.] Whereas 1. those of Will-worship being the First papers written on that subject, are sure very pertinent to ascertain him of the meaning of the latter, written in defence of them. JEANES. That your first papers written on this subject are very impertinent to ascertain me of the meaning of your latter is easily discernible unto any man, that will compare both together; however I shall offer unto your consideration two reasons, to prove the impertinency of them for that purpose. (1) In your first papers you speak only of the expressions of love (i.e.) as you interpret yourself, the outward expressions of the inward acts of love: in your latter papers you speak of love itself: now the outward expressions of love are termed love only extrinsecè, denominatiuè, & participatiuè, from the inward act of love, as some say the imperate acts of the will, are said to be in this sense only free or voluntary. 2ly, That your first papers are very short, in explaining the meaning of your latter, is apparent by this your reply, wherein you extend the love of God, which you affirm to be capable of degrees, beyond the outward expressions, unto the very inward acts of love. Dr. HAMMOND. And 2ly, the early cautelous speaking there, might have made further latter caution unnecessary. JEANES. I had thought that in polemical writings, it had still been needful for a man to continue on his caution, for otherwise he may expose himself unto blows, and knocks, which he never dreamt off. Early cautelous speaking is no salvo unto after unwariness. Dr. HAMMOND. And 3ly, I could not be said to mince, (which to vulgar ears signifies to retract in some degrees, what I had said before,) and again speak more cautiously, when that was the first time of my speaking of it. JEANES. I am very loath to enter into a Contest with so great a Critic, touching the meaning of a word, however I shall adventure to say thus much, that a man may be said to mince a matter, and speak more cautiously at the first time of speaking of it, than afterwards at a second time of speaking of it: neither shall I be beaten from this mine assertion, by your bare and naked affirmation, that to mince, to vulgar ears, signifieth to retract in some degrees what hath been said before: for I appeal to both vulgar and learned ears, whether or no we may not say truly of divers erroneous persons, that in the first broaching of their errors they mince the matter, and speak more cautelously than afterwards, when they are fleshed and encouraged with success. Dr. HAMMOND. 17. Mean. while it is manifest, and his own confession, that there these were my words, and those so cautious, that this sense of the words which he undertakes to refute, could not be affixed on them. And this I should have thought sufficient to have preserved my innocence, and forstalled his Use of Confutation. JEANES. Suppose that in your tract of will-worship, these were your words, and withal that they were so cautious that this sense of the words, which I undertake to refute, could not be affixed on them, yet this is nothing at all unto the purpose, and contributes nothing to the clearing of your innocence, and forestall my use of confutation; and the reason hereof is very evident, because that which I undertook to refute, was affixed by me, not on these your so cautelous words in your tract of will-worship, but on a passage in your answer to Mr. Cawdrey. Indeed I censured those your words in themselves impertinent unto your matter in hand, and withal proved them to be so. But if you had gone no farther than these words, you should not have heard from me touching this subject; for time is more precious with me, than to waste it, in meddling merely with the impertinencies of any man's discourse. Dr. HAMMOND. 18. But the answer to M. C. which occasioned it was, I think, as cautious also, 1. In the words recited by the Refuter, viz. that Christ himself was more ardent in one act of prayer than in another. 2. In the words following in that answer, but not recited by him, viz. that the sincerity of this or that virtue expressed in this or that performance, is it we speak of, when we say it consists in a latitude, and hath degrees; where the [this or that performance] are certainly Acts of the virtue, consisting in a latitude, and the having degrees (viz. in that latitude) no way implies him that hath virtue in that latitude (viz. Christ) to want at present, and in that sense to be capable of farther degrees. 19 I am willing to look as jealously as I can on any passage of my own, which falls under any man's censure; and therefore finding nothing in the words (set down by him as the ground of the Refutation) which is any way capable of it, I have reviewed the whole section, and weighed every period, as suspicioously as I could; to observe whether I could draw or wrest that consequence from any other passage, not recited by him. 20. And I find none in any degree liable, except it should be this in the beginning of the Sect. Where setting down the argument, as it lay in the Tr. of Will▪ wor. I say 'tis possible for the same person which so loves God (i. e. with all the heart) to love him, and express that love more intensely at one time than another, as appeared by the example of Christ. 21. And if this be thought capable of misapprehension, by reason of the [and] disjoining love from the expressions of it, and so the expressions belonging to the acts, the love be deemed to denote the habitual love; I must only say, that is a misapprehension, 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 o● those acts only I speak, and of those expressions, when I say they are more intense at one time than another. JEANES. I shall here briefly represent unto you that which made me think you guilty of detracting from the all-fulness of Christ's habitual grace, and refer you for confirmation here of unto what I have said in the beginning of this my discourse. The undeniable consequence of what you say in answer unto Mr. Cawdrey is, as I have proved, that Christ's love of God was capable of farther degrees. Now hereupon I thus reasoned in my mind, you were to be understood either of the habit, or of the inward act of love, for as for the outward expressions of love, it is without dispute, that they cannot be said to be love properly, but only by a trope; if you should have said that you spoke of the habit of love, than you would have expressly impugned the all-fulness of Christ's habitual grace; and if you should say, as you now do, that you meant the inward acts of love; why then I concluded that you would even hereby implyedly and by consequence have opposed the perfection of Christ's habitual grace, because the intention of the inward acts of love proceedeth from the intention of the habit of love, and is therefore proportioned unto it: but of this more fully in the place above mentioned. Thus having shown you what invited me unto my use of confutation, I shall pass over the three other sections, which you yourself I presume would have spared, if you had been privy unto that which I now acquaint you with. Dr. HAMMOND. 22. The word love, as I said, is a genus, equally comprehending the two species, habitual and actual love, and equally applicable to either of the species, to the acts as well as the habit of love. And so when 〈◊〉 say love is capable of degrees, the meaning is clear, The generical word ●ove restrained to the latter species, is considered in respect of the acts of love, gradually differenced one from the other, is in that respect, capable of degrees, both inwardly and in outward expressions: that ●ct of love, that poured out and expressed itself in the more ardent prayer, was a more intense act of love, than another act of ●he same habitual love, which did not so ardently express it ●elfe. JEANES. That love is not a genus equally comprehending habituall ●nd actual love, as its two species, I have already proved by ●his argument, because they are in several predicaments; habitual love in the predicament of quality, and actual in the predicament of action. There are, I know, divers great Philosopher's and Schoolmen that make all immanent acts, and consequently all inward acts of love to be qualities; they are, say ●hey, only grammatical actions, not metaphysical actions in ●he predicament of action; but this opinion is untrue in 〈◊〉 self, and no ways advantageous unto your cause in ●and. 1. It is untrue in itself; and to confirm this, I shall offer 〈◊〉 your consideration two arguments out of Scheibler, which ●earely prove immanent acts to be true, proper, and predicamental actions, in the predicament of Action. 〈◊〉 universum id sine incommodo potest dici actio, quod sufficit 〈◊〉 constituendam causalitatem efficientis: Atqui dantnr causae ●ficientes, quibus non convenit alia causalitas, quam que 〈◊〉 actio immanens: Ergo actio immanens vere est actio. ●ropositio patet, quia praedicamentum actionis ponitur ad ●candam causalitem efficientis causae in genere entium, ut ●ipra disputatum, explicando divisionem praedicamentorum. ●t confirmatur quod actio sit adaequata causalitas effi●entis ut supra visum est, lib. 1. c. 12. Assumptiopatet. Nam ●mo absolutè est causa efficiens in quantum denominatnr ●dere aut intelligere. Et tamen isti sunt actus immanen●●. That which is the causality of an efficient cause is that a true and predicamental action in the predicament of actions but immanent acts are the causalities of efficient causes, and therefore proper and predicamental actions. Deinde ad actus immanentes sunt potentiae activae, sed potentiae activae sunt per ordinem ad veras actiones, ergo actus immanentes sunt verè actiones. Et si high solum titulotenus sunt actiones Ergo etiam potentiae illae activae titulotenus sunt potentiae activae. That which terminates and actuates an active power is a prope● and predicamental action: but every immanent act terminates and actuates an active power; and therefore every immanent act is a proper and predicamental action, Met. lib. 2. cap 10. n. 27. You may perhaps slight Scheibler, as a trivial author, but I urge his reasons, not his authority, & if you can answer his reasons, you may speak your pleasure of him and o● me for alleging of him. But I can press you with the authority of an author far greater than Scheibler, our great Master Aristotle, of whom you make somewhere in your writings honourable mention; he l. 10. Ethic. c. 3. tells us roundly, that the operations of virtues, & even happiness itself, are not qualities▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but these are immanent acts, & therefore in his opinion immanent acts a●● not qualities. But, secondly, suppose this opinion were true i● itself, yet will it no ways advantage your cause, for the patrons of it rang immavent acts under the first species of quality and then they are either dispositions or habits. If you say the● are dispositions, as most of the above mentioned schoolmen hold them to be; against this I object, that however the● may be so in other men, yet they cannot be so in Christ for a disposition carrieth in its notion inchoation, and imperfection, and therefore to attribute it unto Christ 〈◊〉 to throw an apparent dishonour upon him. If you sa● they are habits, why then, you cannot deny them to be gracio● habits, and so you will fall upon that opinion, of which in th● reply, you so studiously endeavour to acquit yourself, vi● that the same habits of grace in Christ may be more intensely at one time than another, and consequently that his habitual grace was not always full and perfect. Dr. HAMMOND. 23. I shall explain this by the Refuters own Confession. The death of Christ, saith he, was an higher expression of Christ's love of us, than his poverty, hunger or thirst. To this I subjoin, that such as the expression was, such was the act of inward love, of which that was an expression: it being certain that each of these expressions had an act of internal love, of which they were so many proportionably different expressions; And from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent, that that act of internal love, expressed by his dying for us, was superior to those former acts, which only expressed themselves in his poverty, and so the same person that loved sincerely, did also love, and express that love more intensely at one time than at another, which was the very thing I had said in another instance. But this I have added ex abundanti more than the Refuters discourse required of me. JEANES. If you had repeated that which you call my confession full and entire, as it lay in my book, the impartial and unprejudiced reader would soon have discerned that there was in it nothing that made for your advantage: my words at large are these, There may be a gradual difference in the expressions of the same love for degree. Christ's death for us was an higher expression of his love of us, than his poverty, hunger, thirst etc. and yet they might proceed from a love equally intense. Now Sir have you said any thing to prove, that they could not proceed from a love equally intense? you seem indeed, most vehemently and affectionately to affirm that they could not; but you must pardon me, if I entertain not your vehement asseverations, as solid arguments, as if they were propositiones per se notae. Pray Sir, review this section, and put your argument into some form; if you can make good that it containeth any disproof of what I have said, unless begging of the question be argumentative, you shall have my hearty leave to triumph over me as you please; however until then, I shall take your words asunder, and examine every passage in them. D. HAMMOND. To this I subjoin that such as the expression was, such was the act of inward love, of which that was an expression, yet being certain that each of these expressions had an act of internal love, of which they were so many proportionably different expressions. JEANES. That each of these expressions had an act of inward love, of which they were so many different expressions, is an obvious truth, but impertinent unto the matter in hand, unless you can prove that they were of necessity equal in point of intention; and the proof of this you have not hitherto so much as attempted. Dr. HAMMOND. And from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent, that that act of internal love, expressed by his dying for us, was superior to those former acts, which only expressed themselves in his poverty, and so the same person that loved sincerely, did also love, and express that love more intensely at one time than at another, which was the very thing I had said in another instance. But this I have added ex abundanti more than the Refuters discourse required of me. JEANES. From hence: whence I pray? if from the words immediately foregoing, than your argument stands thus. Every of these expressions had an act of internal love, of which they were so many proportionably different expressions: therefore that act of internal love expressed by his dying for us, was superior to these former acts, which only expressed themselves in his poverty. And here I must profess that the reason of your consequence is to me invisible, and I shall never acknowledge your inference legitimate until you drive me hereunto, by reducing your Enthymeme unto a Syllogism; but perhaps there may be some mystery in the word proportionably, and your meaning may be, that these different expressions in regard of intention must be proportioned exactly unto their inward respective acts of love equal or parallel unto them; and if this by your meaning, than your argument is guilty of that fallacy, which is called petitio principii. It is my desire and purpose to have fair wars with you, and my pen shall not drop a disrespective syllable of you; but yet I am resolved to swallow none of your proofelesse dictates: seeing you have entered the lists with me, you must not think me irreverent and saucy, if (as the soldiers speak) I dispute every inch of ground with you, and be so bold as to call upon you for the proof of whatsoever you assert touching that which is in controversy betwixt us. Dr. HAMMOND. 24. It now only remains, that I consider whether this Refuter have in the process of his discourse added any thing, wherein I may be any whit concerned. 25. And 1. saith he, the falsehood of such an assertion is evident from the point there handled and confirmed, the absolute fullness of Christ's grace, which by the general consent of the Fathers and Schoolmen was such, as that it excluded all intensive growth. 26. But to this the reply will be easily foreseen, from the premises, that as the point by him handled and confirmed was distinctly the all-fulness of habitual grace in Christ, so his proofs of it by the consent of Fathers and Schoolmen belong still to that fullness of habitual grace. 27. Witness one for all, Aquinas ●●r. 3. qu. 7. art. 12. ad secundum. Licet virtus divina possit facere aliquid majus & melius quàm sit habitualis gratia Christi, non tamen— though the divine power may make somewhat greater and better than is the habitual grace of Christ, yet— so 'tis plain he speaks of the fullness of the habitual grace. And ad tertium. In sapientia & gratia aliquis proficere potest dupliciter; uno modo secundùm ipsos habitus sapientiae & gratiae augmentatoes, & sic Christus in eyes non proficiebat. Alio modo secundùm effectus, in quantum aliquis sapientiora & virtuosiora opera facit, & sic Christus proficiebat sapientiâ & gratiâ; sicut & aetate, quia secundùm processum aetatis perfectiora opera faciebat,— & in his quae sunt ad Deum, & in his quae sunt ad homines. One may increase in wisdom and grace two ways, one way according to the habits of them increased, and so Christ increased not; another way, according to the effects; when any doth more wise and virtuous works; and so Christ increased in Wisdom and Grace, as he did in age, because according to the process of his age, he did more perfect works, and that both in things belonging to God, and men also. 28. And thus are the Schoolmen understood by the Refuter himself, in his producing their testimonies, as appears by the express words [habitual grace p. 260. lin. penult and holiness, and the Image of God in him] p. 261. lin. 13. And so 'tis most clear, their consent belongs not, even in his own opinion, to the matter I had, and have in hand, no way denying but, asserting a capacity of degrees among the acts of Christ's love of God, and the expressions of it. JEANES. 1. They that can so easily foresee this your reply, may with as little difficulty foreknow the objection against it, to wit, that the intention of Christ's actual grace is exactly proportioned unto that of his habitual grace; and therefore your denial of the perpetual all-fulness of Christ's actual grace, is a virtual and implied denial of the all-fulness of Christ's habitual grace: and how you are provided of an answer hereunto, the event will show. It is not then so clear as you pretend, that the testimony of the Schoolmen belongs not, even in mine own opinion, to the matter you had and have in hand. 2. As for that place you quote out of Aquinas, it is plain that therein by the effects of wisdom and grace are meant such as are outward, for these are most properly termed works. And besides, an intensive increase in the inward acts of wisdom and grace would argue and presuppose an intensive increase in the very habits themselves. 3. Whereas you say, in the close of Section the 28, that the consent of the Schoolmen is no ways denying, but asserting a capacity of degrees amongst the acts of Christ's love of God, i. e. of the inward acts thereof. There will be little sense in your words in themselves, and less pertinency unto the matter in hand, unless your meaning be, as you elsewhere express yourself, that the inward acts of Christ's love of God were more intense at one time, than at another: and if this be your meaning, I must needs assume the boldness to tell you, that no such matter is visible unto me in any of the Schoolmen. But perhaps you may mean such Schoolmen, as such a Puny, as I, never saw or heard of; however you cannot expect belief, until you produce their testimonies: And I shall entreat you to allege such, as may be had in Pauls-church-yard, or at least in the Library at Oxford. Dr HAMMOND. 29. Secondly, he will hear the Doctor's objection, and consider of what weight it is. Objection? against what? against the fullness of habitual grace in Christ? sure never any was by me urged against it. And he cannot now think there was. The degrees of intenseness observable in the several acts of Christ's love, his praying more ardently at one time than another, was all that I concluded from that text, Luk. 22.44. and that is nothing to his habitual love. JEANES. That this objection was not intended by you against the fullness of Christ's habitual grace, upon your protestation, I readily believe; but, that by consequence it reacheth it, I thus make good. That objection which is urged against the perpetual allfulnesse & perfection of Christ's actual love, the inward acts of his love of God, strikes against the perpetual allfulnesse & perfection of his habitual love; because the degrees of the inward acts of his love of God are commensurate unto the degrees of his habitual love. For they have no degrees at all, but secundariò, in regard of the habit of his love: but now this objection is urged by you against the perpetual all-fulness and perfection of his actual love, the inward acts of his love; for it is brought to prove that the inward acts of Christ's love were more intense at one time than another, and a greater intention presupposeth remission and imperfection; for intensio est eductio rei intensae de imperfecto ad perfectum, as Aquinas very often. Therefore this objection strikes against the perpetual fullness and perfection of Christ's actual love of God, and so consequently against the perpetual fullness and perfection of his habitual love. Dr HAMMOND. 30. But even to this he is pleased to frame Answers (though I hope his doctrine of the fullness of Christ's habitual grace be no way concerned in it) and to these I shall briefly attend him, as my last stage in this no very long voyage. 31. And 1. saith he, the vulgar translation renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prolixius; and if this version be good, then there is no place for the Doctor's objection. But though I seek no advantage by that vulgar reading, yet thinking it a duty of reverence to that version, to take leave civilly whensoever I depart from it (wherein I have the suffrage of Protestants as learned in both the Languages Hebrew and Greek, as any) and that I may to the utmost observe the Refuters steps, I shall not utterly reject it. 32. 'tis certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth primarily signify extension, and that properly belongs to length, and so the comparative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a greater degree of that length. And if it be granted that it so signify here, there will yet be place equally for my conclusion. 33. For in every act of Prayer, be it but the shortest ejaculation sent out by Christ, I suppose (and my Refuter must not doubt of it) there was some degree of ardency or intention; And then sure according to the multiplying of those acts lengthening that prayer, there must still in Christ, (I say not in every one of us) be a proportionable multiplication of those degrees, and so parallel to a greater length, a greater intention. JEANES. The answer here is very easy and obvious; the intention of the degrees of the inward acts of Christ's love of God may be said to be greater either in regard of the number, or in respect of the intensive perfection and excellency of those degrees; according to the lengthening of Christ's prayer there is a multiplying of inward acts of his love, and proportionably a multiplication of the degrees of his love, and consequently a greater intention of those degrees, in regard of their number, but not in respect of their intensive perfection, or excellency. For in Christ let them be never so much multiplied, they may be and still are of an equal intensive perfection, and excellency, one is not more intense than another; and so if this reading be retained, there will be no place for your conclusion; That the inward acts of Christ's love are more intense at one time than another, unless you will make intention to be a mere coacervation of hono geneous degrees (i. e) degrees altogether like: the absurdity of which you may see in Suarez Met. does. 46. & Pet. Hurtado de Mendoza. de Gener. & Corrupt. disp. 5. §. 6. Sir, here I am very confident that you presumed very much on my ignorance, otherwise you would never have gone about to have imposed upon me so poor and sorry a sophism, as is in the equivocation of the word greater, which is easily discoverable by a freshman: for that you yourself should be ignorant of such an ordinary homonymy, I am loath to harbour such dishonourable thoughts of your abilities in philosophy as to imagine. Dr HAMMOND. 34. This is clear, and I need not add, what else I might, that the very multiplication of more acts of any virtue, 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, and that argues it more excellent, than 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 answer. JEANES. 1. This is an utter impertinency unto that which is in debate between us. For suppose that the very multiplication of more inward acts of any virtue in Christ is more valuable in the sight of God, and so more excellent than the smaller number of those acts would be; yet this supposition will never bring you to this conclusion, that one inward act of Christ's love of God may be more intense than another; and my reason is, because in all these inward acts of Christ's love of God (and we may say the same of the inward acts of other virtues and graces) there may be no gradual dissimilitude. 2. A great part of the Schoolmen will tell you, that the moral value of one single act of any virtue in Christ was infinite, and in the multiplication of more acts there is but an infinite value: now one infinite cannot be greater than 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 (says Albertinus) habet totam latitudinem intensivam valoris moralis, ct si non adaequet totam latitudinem extensivam: Corol. tom. 1.150. n. 61. And of this you have a reason. p. 145. this act is à personâ divinâ, tanquam á forma intrinsecâ; quae intrinsecè denominatur operans, ab 〈◊〉 ipsâ operatione quae est in naturâ humanâ, et ut sic est illimitabilis àconditionibus actûs. Unto Albertinus I shall subjoine Suarez who speaks to the same purpose in tertiam par. Thom. Tom. 1. disput. 4. sect. 4. pag. 49. Plura opera Christi sunt quidem extensiuè plura merita; intensiuè tamen non est plus valoris in multis quam in uno; ut, si essent plures calores infinitè intensi, essene quidem plures, non tamen efficerent unum intensiorem; & par● ratione, si in uno opere Christi, quod successiuè per partes fiebat partes cum toto comparemus, intensiuè tantus valor erat in quâlibet parte, sicut in toto opere, & in uno momento, sicut in longo tempore; quia forma à quà erat valour, tota erat in toto, & tota in singulis partibus. Dr HAMMOND. 35. But then, 2. Saith he, suppose we stick unto our own transtation, yet the place may fairly be so interpreted, as that it may no ways advantage the purpose of the Doctor. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more earnestly, may be considered in reference unto either the object unto whom he prayed, God; or the matter against which he prayed, the evils with which he conflicted in his agony. 1. Then, saith he, he did not in his agony pray more earnestly than at other times, if we consider his prayer in reference unto the object, unto whom it was, God. The religion, and inward worship of his prayer, was for degrees always alike equal. His trust and dependence upon God, love of zeal and devotion towards God, from which all his prayers flowed, were not at one time more intense than at another. But now 2. He prayed more earnestly in his agony than at other times, in regard of the matter, against which he prayed. the evils which he encountered with, which if they were not greater, than those that he deprecated in the former prayer, v. 42. yet at least they made a greater impression upon his humane nature; for they put him into a bloody sweat. Being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, & his sweat was as it were drops of blood, falling down to the ground. 36. These are the words of his second answer, and they are in the second part, the very distinct confession of all that I pretend in this matter (and therefore I need not make any reflections on the first part of them) For whatsoever, or how great soever the occasion of the increase of his intention was (which I am willing to believe proportionable to the degree of the intention, a very weighty occasion that thus inflamed his ardency) yet still, 'tis confessed, that on this occasion, he now prayed more earnestly than at the other times, that which now approached made a greater impression on his humane nature; which what is it but a proof of the point by me asserted, that Christ himself was more ardent in one act of prayer (this in his agony) than in another. 37. As for the greatness of the occasion, so profestlie great as to cast him into that prodigious sweat, falling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it were drops of blood, that may testify, but it cannot prejudg the ardency which was occasioned thereby. 38. 'twas not in Christ, he will easily suppose with me) as it is oft discernible in many of us, that those which really have no sincerity of love or zeal to God, can yet, like the Mariners in the tempest, by some pressing fear or danger be awaked to, but formal, and, be they never so loud, but hypocritically zealous prayers. 39 The ardency in Christ was sincere ardency, accompanied with acts of love and trust of the same temper, and the heightening it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was an addition of degrees to that act of ardency, and so of prayer, and proportionably of love and trust in God, above either what there was, or what there was occasion for, at other times. JEANES. 1. First you pretend in Sect. 21. of this your reply that the inward acts of Christ's love of God were more intense at one time than another. Now this is not contained expressly, nor can it by any logic be inferred from the words of the second part of my second answer, that he prayed more earnestly in his agony than at other times, in regard of the matter against which he prayed, etc. and therefore this second part of my second answer is not the very distinct confession of all that you pretend in this matter; and therefore notwithstanding them, you must make reflections on the first part of my answer, or else you will never reply thereunto. 2. That the ardency in Christ was a sincere ardency, is not doubted of; all the question is, what ardency it was in Christ that was heightened: there was, as I plainly intimated in my answer, a twofold ardency in Christ's prayer, one regarding God, unto whom he prayed, and this was seated in the acts of love and trust tanquam modus in re modificatâ: Another respected the matter against which he prayed, and the res modificata of this ardency was the acts of fear of, and grief for those evils with which he encountered. I readily grant the heightening of this latter ardency, so that there was in his agony an addition of degrees unto his fear of, and grief for those evils against which he prayed, above either what there was, or what there was occasion for at other times: but as for the former ardency regarding God, and placed in the inward acts of his love of God, etc. that was uncapable of further heightening: for his actual love of God was in termino, as they say, was always at the highest, and most intense; and this I shall not barely dictate: but prove by three arguments, which I present unto you to be examined, as rigidly as you please. 1. The all-fulness and perfection of Christ's habitual grace. 2. His perpetual and uninterrupted happiness. 3. His impeccability. 1. The first argument, which hath been already so fully insisted upon, is the all-fulness and perfection of Christ's habitual grace; the habits of all graces and virtues in Christ were always full and perfect, most intense and not capable of farther or higher degrees, and therefore so were the inward acts of those graces and virtues too, and particularly the inward acts of the habitual grace of divine charity. The consequence of this Enthymeme hath been already sufficiently proved, and therefore I shall add nothing for further confirmation of it, but the testimony of some few Schoolmen. Aquinas, as Capreolus quotes him lib. 1. dist. 17. qu. 2. fol: 306. hath this passage. Nihil inquit aliud est qualitatem augeri quam subjectùm magis participare qualitatem. Non enim aliud est esse qualitatis nisi quod habet in subjecto, ex hoc autem ipso quod subjectum magis participat charitatem vehementius operatur, quia unumquodque operatur in quantum est actu. Aquinas thought (you see) that a greater vehemency in the operations of love, argued a greater participation in the subject of the habits of love. And again secundâ secundae qu. 24. art. 4. ad tertium. Similiter charitas essentialiter est virtus ordinata ad actum, unde idem est ipsam augeri secundum essentiam, & ipsam habere efficaciam ad producendum ferventioris dilectionis actum. Unto this I shall add a third place out of Aquinas quoted by Capreolus lib. 3. dis. 27, 28, 29, 30. pag. 209. Cum actus & habitus speciem habent ex objecto, oportet quod ex eodem ratio perfectionis ipsius sumatur. Objectum autem charitatis est summum bonum; igitur perfecta charitas est, quae in summum bonum fcrtur in tantum in quantum est diligibile. The habit of love is then perfect, when 'tis carried towards God as the chief, when God is loved so fare forth as he may be loved, to wit, by a creature: when God is not loved thus intensely, the habit of love (as Aquinas thought) was imperfect. With Aquinas also Scotus accords l. 3. dis. 13. q. 3. Possibile est animam Christi habere summam gratiam, ergo summam fruitionem. Consequentia probatur, quia actus naturaliter elicitus ab aliquâ formâ, aequatur in perfectione illi formae. Unto these two great Schoolmen, I shall add the testimony of a Philosopher of great subtlety and repute Pet. Hurt. de Mendoza. De An. dis. 16. sect. 8. p. 672. Intensio actus secundi supponit aequalem intensionem in actu primo, cum actus secundus supponat primum. A second argument is drawn from the perpetual and uninterrupted happiness of Christ: it is resolved both by Aquinas 3 a.q. 34. . art. 4. Scotus lib. 3. disp. 18. and their followers, that Christ in regard of his Soul was even here in this life, from the very first moment of his conception, all his life long unto his death perfectus comprehensor; and therefore he enjoyed in his soul all that was necessary unto heaven happiness: and I find learned Protestants herein consenting with them; now 'tis the unanimous opinion of the Schoolmen that a most intense actual love of God, an actual love of God for degrees as high, as ardent, as fervent, as is according to God's ordinary power possible unto the humane nature, doth necessarily belong to the heaven happiness of men. The Scotists' place the very formality of happiness solely herein, and Suarez with others think it essential unto happiness, though he supposeth the essence of happiness not to consist wholly or chief in it. And for the rest of the Thomists, who hold that the essence of happiness stands only in the beatifical vision of God, why even they make this actual most intense love of God a natural and necessary consequent of the beatifique vision. By this that hath been said it is evident, that whereas you aver that the inward acts of Christ's love of God were less intense at one time than another, (for so you affirm in saying they were more intense at one time than at another) you deny Christ to be happy and blessed at those times wherein his inward acts of love were thus less intense, and that this is propositio malè sonans, harshly sounding in the ears of Christians, that are jealous of their redeemers honour, will I hope be ingeniously confessed by yourself upon a review of it. Add hereunto that the Schoolmen generally consent, as unto a proposition that is piously credible, that the happiness of Christ's soul did even during the whole time of his abode here, fare surmount that of all the Saints, and Angels in heaven: but if the inward acts of his love of God were less intense at one time than another, the bliss of his Soul would have come fare short of that of the lowest Saint in heaven; for the actual love of the lowest Saint was not, is not more intense at one time than another, but always full and perfect; and therefore uncapable of further and higher degrees. The third and last argument, is fetched from Christ's impeccability; it was impossible for Christ to sin: but if the inward acts of his love of God had been less intense at one time than at another, he had sinned; for he had broken that first and great commandment, thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy Soul, with all thy mind, with all thy might, and strength. Deut. 6.5. Matth. 22.37. Mark. 12.30. Luk. 10.27. For this commandment enjoineth the most intense actual love of God, that is possible; an actual love of him tanto nixu & conatu quanto fieri potest (i. e.) as much as may be; what better and more probable gloss can we put on that clause, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength or might, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than thou shalt love him with thy uttermost force and endeavour: suitable hereunto is that interpretation which Aquinas giveth of those words thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart (i. e.) saith he ex toto posse tuo, with as high a degree of actual love as thou art able to reach unto. Deus est totaliter diligendus, potest intelligi ita quod totalitas referatur ad diligentem: & sic etiam Deus totaliter diligi debet; quia ex toto posse suo homo debet diligere deum, & quicquid habet, ad dei amorem ordinare; secundum illud Deuter. 6. Diliges dominum deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, 2 da 2 dae, q. 27. art. 5. But now Christ man had in him as great abilities for the actual love of God as Adam in Paradise, as the Saints and Angels in heaven; for an all-fulness of the grace and virtue of love dwelled in him, and therefore if the inward acts of his love were less intense at one time, than another; then sometimes when he actually loved God, he did not love him as intensely, as ardently, as fervently as he could, he did not love him with all his might, and strength, ex toto posse suo, and so consequently he fulfilled not all righteousness; for his obedience unto this commandment would have been by this your opinion imperfect and sinful, which, but to imagine were blasphemy. But you will be ready to tell me, that you have prevented this charge, by that exposition of those large inclusive words, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy Soul etc. which you have given in your treatise of will-worship, which I shall transcribe and briefly examine. Once more, if it be objected that what ever is thus performed, is commanded by those large inclusive words, [thou shalt love thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy Soul etc.] nothing being of such latitude, as that the (with all) should not contain it. I answer, that that phrase denoteth two things only. 1. Sincerity of this love of God, as opposed to partial divided love, or service. 2. The loving him above all other things, and not admitting any thing into Competition with him; not loving any thing else in such a degree. Treat: wil-worsh. p. 24. Here you barely dictate, that that phrase, [Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy Soul etc.] denoteth only those two things, you mention, whereas your reader hath just reason to expect a confirmation of what you say. 1. 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. the amissione gratiae, & Statu peccati lib: 1. cap. 12. etc. And was it not fit that you should acquaint us, what those cogent reasons were, that necessitated you unto this compliance with Papists? 2. Those protestants, that have dealt in the controversies betwixt us and the Papists, have proved this your sense to be too narrow, and withal have given another exposition a Nimirùm 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 nè ultrà possimus amare: Ita enim verè totum cor erit tota anima: mens tota vires omnes, etc. Chamier. Tom. 3. lib. 11. cap. 16. sect. 22. of the words which they have confirmed and vindicated from the exceptions of the 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. But to take a sunder this answer into its parts. The phrase denoteth 1. sincerity of this love of God, as opposed to partial divided love, or service; Unto this I shall reply. 1. In the words of Aims unto Bellarmine: Bellar: Enervat: Tom. 2. p. 154. Hoc aliquid est, sed non totum quod his verbis praecipitur, tum enim illi etiam qui minimum gradum verae charitatis, quamvis tepidi fuerint, hoc preceptum perfectè implerent. This is something, but it is not all that is commanded in these words, for then those that have the least degree of true charity, although they were lukewarm should perfectly fulfil this command. 2. To Ames his words, I shall add those of the Dr. Francis White (one that was fare from Puritanisme) in his reply to the Jesuit Fishers answer: If the precept, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart etc. bind men no further than to an unfeigned or sincere love of God, and the observance of his commandments without breach of friendship, than it bindeth them not to the shunning of venial sins. But according to Austin and Bernard, it bindeth man to the avoiding of all sin, both venial and mortal. But proceed we on to the second part of your answer. That phrase denoteth Secondly, the loving him above all other things, and not admitting any thing into competition with him: not loving any thing else in such a degree. The Schoolmen tell us that God may be loved above all things three manner of ways, objectiuè, appretiatiuè, and intensiuè: now which of these ways it is that you embrace, or whether you embrace all of them I cannot determine, and therefore I shall wait until you declare yourself, and accordingly shall shape mine answer. But in the mean while, that this commandment enjoineth a most intense actual love of God, a love of God with as high a degree as is possible unto the humane nature, I shall evince by these following reasons. 1. It cannot be denied but that the intention, and de-degrees of love fall all under the commandment of love itself: for as Aquinas noteth secundâ secundae quest. 44. art. 8. Modus, qui pertinet ad rationem virtuosi actûs, cadit sub precepto, quod datur de actu virtutis. This premised I thus argue: Either the lowest degree, or some middle degree, or the highest degree of actual love, is here commanded; if the lowest, then that is a perfect fulfilling of this law, and the lukewarmness of love can be no sin; if you say some one of the middle degrees betwixt the lowestand the highest, it concerneth you to determine, and specify what degree this is, below which all degrees of love are sin full, and beyond which all degrees of love are a voluntary oblation and uncommanded worship; and if you cannot do this (as I know you cannot) I shall conclude, that the highest degree is commanded in our love of God. 2. A most intense love of God, a love of him with the utmost of our forces and endeavours is due unto God debito connaturalitatis, & debito gratitudinis, 1. debito connaturalitatis, by an obligation of congruence, for it is very fitting that we love him as much as we can, who is infinitely good in himself, and therefore the chief good, and supreme end of man. The Protestants are brought in by Bellarmine de Mon. Lib. 2. cap. 13. thus objecting against their popish evangelical counsels of perfection, that he that is unwilling to love God as much as he can, doth hereby deny, to wit virtually and interpretatively, that God is the chief good of man; and whereas he is so bold in his answer to affirm, that non requiritur ut quis summum bonumtam ardenter amet, quam fortè poss et: Ames hath hereunto a very round and acute reply, tum non requiritur (saith he) ut in bonum omni ratione summum feramur, affectu omni etiamratione summo. 2. This most intense actual love of God is due unto God by an obligation of gratitude, for hereby (as Dr Francis White against Fisher out of Bernard) we are indebted and own to the almighty, omne quod sumus, & omne quod possumus, whatsoever we are, & whatsoever we are able to do. For the further confirmation of this point, Protestants allege the testimonies of divers of the Fathers, particularly Austin and Bernard, as also of the ancient School men, who say that this command cannot be fulfilled in this life; because it commands such a perfection of love, as is impossible to be attained in this life. I shall not clog the reader's patience with transcribing the several quotations, because I believe he may have them almost in every writer of controversies betwixt us and the Papists: only I shall trouble him with what I conceive to be most remarkable in Aquinas and Scotus concerning this matter. 1. Aquinas secunda secundae qu. 44. art. 6. intendit deus per hoc praeceptum Deut. 6. ut homo deo totaliter uniatur; quod fiet in patriâ, quando deus erit omnia in omnibus, 1 Cor. 15. & ideo plenè & perfectè in patriâ implebitur hoc praeceptum. And again. qu. 184. art. 3. Non autem dilectio dei & proximi cadit sub praecepto secundum aliquam mensuram, it a quòd id quod est plus, sub consilio remane at; ut patet ex ipsâ formâ praecepti, quae perfectionem demonstrat; ut cum dicitur, diliges dominum deum ex toto corde tuo: totum enim & perfectum idem sunt sec. Phil. 3. phys. & cum dicitur, diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum: unusquisque enim se ipsum maximè diligit. Et hoc ideo est, quia finis praecepti charitas est, ut Apostolus 1 Tim. 1. in fine autem non adhibetur aliqua mensura, sed solum in his quae sunt ad finem, ut philosophus dicit 1. polit. Sicut medicus non adhibet mensuram quantum sanet, sed quanta medicina vel diaeta utatur ad sanandum. Thus also Scotus lib. 3. dist. 27. dico igitur quod illud praeceptum, Deut. 6. non potest impleri in viâ, quantum ad omnes conditiones, quae exponuntur perillas additiones ex toto cord, & ex totâ anima, etc. quià non potest esse in viâ istâ tanta recollectio virium, ut amotis impedimentis possit voluntas tanto conatu ferri, quanto possit, si vires essent unitae, & non impeditae, & quod ad talem intensionem actus expulsis impedimentis, & recollectis viribus debet intelligi dictum Aug. et magistri, quod praeceptum illud non impletur in viâ; nam pronitas virium inferiorum pro statu isto impedit superiores ab actibus perfectis. The first that Bellarmine hath to evade these testimonies is not unknown unto me, viz. that they are to be understood of the command quatenus indicant finem, non quatenus praecipit medium; if you think fit to adventure hereupon, I must needs entreat you to remove first out of your way the replies of Chamier and Ames unto it. Thirdly you seem in the latter end of section the 39 to intimate, that in the time of Christ's agony there was more occasion for the heightening of his love of God than there was at other times. What you mean by these ocasions of heightening Christ's love of God that you intimate, I will not undertake to guess; but this I am sure of, that at all other times he had sufficient causes, grounds, and motives to induce him to love God with as heightened degrees of Actual love as the humane nature could reach unto; he enjoyed the beatifical vision, a clear, evident, and intuitive knowledge of the divine essence, that had in it all the fullness of goodness, and so was an object infinitely lovely and amiable: Now such an Object thus known, thus seen, challengeth such a measure of actual love, as that it leaveth no place for a farther and higher degree. The Thomists generally maintain that this most intense love of God is a natural, and necessary sequel of the beatifical vision, necessary quo ad exercitium, as well as quoad specificationem actûs; now that which works naturally and necessarily, works as vehemently and forcibly as it can. Omne agens de necessitate, necessariò agit usque ad ultimum potentiae suae; therefore the inward acts of Christ's love of God were always as ardent, and fervent as he could perform them, and therefore some were not more intense than others; for if we speak of a liberty of indifferency, and indetermination, he had no more liberty towards the intention of the inward acts of his love, than he had towards the acts themselves. Dr. HAMMOND. 40. Of this I shall hope it is possible to find some instances among men (of whose graces it can be no blasphemy to affirm, that they are capable of degrees) suppose we a sincerely pious man, a true lover of God, and no despiser of his poor persecuted Church, and suppose we, as it is very supposeable, that at some time the seas roar, the tempest be at its height, and the waves beat violently upon this frail brittle vessel, may it not be a season for that pious man's ardency to receive some growth? for his zeal to be emulous of those waves, and pour itself out more profusely at such, than at a calmer season? I hope there be some at this time among us, in whom this point is really exemplified; if it be not, it is an effect of want, not fullness of love. But I need not thus to enlarge, It is not by this Refuter denied of the person of Christ, and that is my entire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference either to Mr. C. or to him, the utmost that I undertook to demonstrate then, or to justify now. JEANES. This Section your poor refuter had passed over as a digression, had he not found himself named in the close of it; it is not by this refuter denied of the person of Christ. I suppose the antecedent to the relative is in these words, may it not be a season for that pious man's ardency to receive some growth? for his zeal to be emulous of those waves, and pour itself out more profusely at such than at a calmer season? And then there be two things that you affirm, that I deny not of the person of Christ. 1. That a tempestuous time (a time of affliction) was a season for Christ's ardency to receive some growth. 2. That 'twas a season for his zeal to pour itself out more profusely at such, than at a calmer season. As for the first sentence, a time of affliction was a season for Christ's ardency to receive some growth, if by ardency you understand the ardency of his love of God, I deny that it did receive any growth; for to ascribe growth unto it is to charge it with imperfection. Charitas, quamdiu augeri potest (saith Austin) profectò illud quod minus est quàm debet, ex vitio est. 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 Christ's actual love of God. As for the second sentence, that a tempestuous time, a time of Christ's affliction was a season for his zeal to pour its self out more profusely than at a calmer season, this is not (I grant) denied by me, if by this more profuse pouring out of his zeal you only understand the outward expressions of his zeal; but I cannot but extremely wonder that you affirm this to be the utmost, that you undertook to demonstrate to Mr. Cawdrey, or to justify now against me etc. For 1. in your answer to Mr. Cawdrey, you affirm by consequent, that Christ's love of God was capable of farther and higher degrees, but love is predicated of the outward expressions thereof only analogically, analogiâ attributionis extrinsecae, sicut sanitas dicitur de urina. 2. In this your reply unto me you expressly aver, that the inward acts of Christ's love of God were more intense at one time, than another Sect. 21. and I hope you have more philosophy, then to confound the inward acts, and the outward expressions of love. That which hath herein occasioned your mistake is, I believe, a supposal that the inward acts of love, and the outward expressions thereof are, if they be sincere, always exactly proportioned in point of degree; but this proposition hath no truth in it, as you will soon find, if you attempt the proof of it, who almost but may easily conceive how 'tis very ordinary for the outward expressions of love to be gradually beneath the inward acts thereof? he is no hypocrite in expressing his love, that loveth inwardly more than he expresseth outwardly; the degrees then of the inward acts of love may not only equal, but also transcend the most sincere expressions of love. It may be so in all men, and I shall allege two reasons, why in Christ the inward acts of his love were always equally intense, though the outward expressions thereof were gradually different. The first reason agreeth unto Christ in common with other men. Christ as man was always obliged unto the most intense, ardent, and fervent inward acts of love of God, but he was not always obliged unto the most intense expressions of these inward acts; the reason of the difference between his obligation unto the intention of the inward acts of his love, and his obligation unto the intention of the outward expressions thereof, you may fetch from what is said by Aquinas 2 da 2 dae, q. 27. art. 6. ad tertiam. Nec est simile de interiori actu charitatis & exterioribus actibus. Name interior actus charitatis habet rationem finis, quià ultimum bonum hominis consistit in hoc, quod anima Deo inhaereat, secundum illud Psalmi, mihi adhaerere deo bonum est. Exteriores autem actus sunt sicut ad finem, & ideo sunt commensurandi, & secundum charitatem, & secundum rationem. The second reason is peculiar unto Christ above all other men: Whilst he lived here upon earth, he enjoyed the beatifical vision; and the natural, and necessary consequent thereof is a most intense actual 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 these acts, Christ had to them a proper freedom, taking the word [freedom] for an active indifferency, in sensu diviso, and therefore they might be more intense at one time than another; but of this you may, if you please, see further in Suarez in tertiam partem Thom: dis. 37. sect. 4. where the question debated is quomodo voluntas Christi ex necessitate diligens deum, in reliquis actibus potuerit esse libera. Dr HAMMOND. 41. And so I shut up this hasty paper, hoping that he which invited and promised it a welcome, in case it were given in a fair and Scholastical way, having nothing to accuse in it ' as to the first Epithet, will abate somewhat in reference to the second, and allow it a friendly, though being unqualified, it pretend not to a more hospitable reception. JEANES. Unto this your hasty paper (as you call it) I have given a deliberate answer; and I hope it may contend with your reply for civility, and fairness in carriage of the controversy between us. As for the Scholasticallnesse of either paper, it were a vain thing for me to say any thing of it; for we must be tried by the learned readers, unto whom we both have, by thus appearing in public, appealed; and unto their judgement I shall contentedly submit myself. And thus your refuter, for the present, takes his leave of you, hoping, when your more pleasing and profitable employments shall permit, to hear further from you; in the mean time he shall rest: Your most humble servant HENRY JEANES. FINIS.