The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 48
Sect. 48. The next objection raiſed by him, &c.
THat we may ſee how good an expoſitor of the Law of God, the Doctor is, his anſwere to the objection, from the firſt and great Commandment, [Thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God, p. 221. n. 1.with all thy heart, &c.] is very conſiderable. He affirms, That the phraſe denoteth onelyonly, two things, 1. Sincerity of his love to God, as oppoſed to partial, divided love. 2. The loving him above all other things, not admitting any other thing into competition with him, or in ſuch a degree of love.] Firſt I would ſay, that theſe two are almoſt both one; for what is partial, divided love, but admitting of ſome other thing into competition with him; and ſuch love, is inſincere. He that loves God ſincerely, loves nothing in competition with him. 2. To love God above all other things, is the ſame with, to love nothing in ſuch a degree of love. But all this may be done, and yet a man may be very ſhort of the perfection of that Commandment; To love God, with all his heart, and the reſt. And that we may know whence the Doctor learned this Divinity; we find it in Bellarm, and other Papiſts, one while diſtinguiſhing thus, [God is two wayes loved with all the heart. 1. Above all other things, ſincerely and perfectly, that nothing be ſet above or equalled with the love of God: and thus, the love of God is under command to us. 2. That no vitious cogitation, may creep in, but that the whole man be taken up with the love of God; and this (ſay they) is not commanded us in this life.] Juſt the ſame with the Doctor, …who agrees fully with them in the firſt part of the diſtinction, and ſaying thoſe onelyonly are denoted, muſt alſo agree with them in the latter. Another while they thus diſtinguiſh, [The Commandment may thus be underſtood, that God alone is to be loved, and nothing beſide him; or that nothing be loved againſt God, above God, or equally with God, &c.] The firſt part is not the ſcope or ſenſe of the Commandment, for he preſently addes, Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour, &c. The ſecond part, is the ſame with the firſt, in the other diſtinction. And it is remarkable that theſe diſtinctions are uſed by Papiſts, in the caſe of venial ſins, and perfect fulfilling the Law in this life: The former of theſe, I obſerve not the Doctor to aſſert, but the latter he does frequently; that a man may fulfill the Law to perfection, and that in the lower degrees, and attain to perfection above all command. But in this expoſition of this Great Commandment, the Doctor with Papiſts leaves many, Vide Cham. t. 3 l. 11. c. 14. ſ 2. &c. & l. 6. c. 12. ſ. 33.if not all the Ancients who generally hold, this Law not poſſible to be fulfilled in this life, and to require the higheſt degree of the love of God, to the utmost perfection. Yet who ſo great Admirers of the Ancients as they? Let us return to the Doctors anſwer, that thoſe things were required by that Law, I granted; but more then this, is alſo required, 1. Perfect love, with all the faculties and powers of the ſoul, as the Ancients gloſs it: heart, minde, ſoul, strength. But where is the man that ever did, or can do this? A man may love God ſincerely, and above all other things, (the Doctors gloſs) and yet be far ſhort of fulfilling this Commandment: Saint Auſtin gives the reaſon [So long as the fleſh luſts againſt the ſpirit, God is leſs loved, then he ought.] The Law, I ſaid, [Required perfect love: p. 221. n. 2.ſuch as was in Adam in innocency.] 1 John 4.18. He anſwers, 1. [That perfect love in Adam, p. 221. n. 2.had a latitude,] and conſequently ſeveral degrees of that perfect love.] But this is proved falſe in both, that Adams love had a latitude, to love God with a leſs or lower degree, then withall his heart, ſoul, &c. and that there are degrees of perfect love. 2. [That perfect love in Saint John, is not all one with that which Adam had in innocence; for that I confeſs (he ſays) not to be acquireable in this life, whereas the love in Saint John, that caſts out fear, is in every Confeſſor and Martyr.] It's no diſparagement to his Confeſſors and Martyrs, to ſay they had not perfect love of God; many of them were fearful a long time, even to denial of Chriſt at firſt; and the beſt of them felt many reluctations of the fleſh againſt the ſpirit; but perfect love caſts out all fear. They loved God in ſincerity, and above all other things, even their own lives; yet were not perfect in love, though God was pleaſed to pardon their defects, and accept of their love, &c. [There is no fear in love,] that is, in perfect love, ſo it follows, [perfect love caſteth out fear, and he that feareth is not made perfect in love.] But when ſhall love be made perfect? Saint John anſwers, ver. 17. [Herein, or in this, our love is perfected, that we may have boldneſs at the day of Judgement.] Then love will be perfect, and not till then; how proves he this? [There is no fear in love, he that feareth is not made perfect in love.] But the beſt Saint, is here troubled with fear; ergo. And I again wonder, that the Doctor ſhould hold perfection of love in this life, acquireable, without all fear, when he holds, the beſt and higheſt degree of love and grace in his life, may fail and be utterly loſt: Muſt not he that believes this, be full of fear ſometimes, even tormenting fear? How can he love God with all his heart, minde, ſoul, ſtrength, that fears (by reaſon of his own frailty, and mutability of his will) that fears God may be his enemy hereafter? Nec hominem amicum poſſit quiſquam amare, cui noverit ſe aliquando fore inimicum. Auguſt. [That one Martyr may be more zealous, and expreſs more intenſe and fervant love, then another.] Proves, what I ſay, that neither of them are perfect in love; the Commandment requiring perfect love in all. Sincere love to be capable of degrees, was never denied by me, but affirmed; yet not perfect love: perfection is not capable of degrees; but includes all degrees, and what is ſhort of that, is faulty, in vitio, as Hierome ſaid. p. 222. n. 3.[Sure (ſays he) if both obey the precept, then they do not offend againſt it: if not offend, then is not this faulty.] Doth this beſeem the Doctors learning, a learned Catechist? We know but in part, and therefore believe but in part, and obey but in part: So far as we believe, and obey, ſo far we obey the precept; but as we believe but in part, and obey but in part, ſo far we offend againſt it, and ſo far in vitio, and faulty. Did not himſelf ſay, p. 220. n. 54. [Good works, are not evill, but good, though not prefect from all poſſible mixture of ſin.] If in our beſt works there be a mixture of ſin, do they not, as far as they are good, obey the precept; and as there is a mixture of ſin, offend againſt it, and ſo are faulty? and ſure, [every fault or vice muſt be a tranſgreſſion of the Law,] as he ſays here. The evaſion is, p. 222. n. 5.[That it is not the ſinleſs perfection we ſpeak of, when we ſay, it conſiſts in a latitude, and hath degrees: but ſincerity of this or that virtue, in this or that performance, &c.] But, firſt, what ever he does, he knows, I ſpake of ſinleſs perfection, even in perfect love; [Otherwiſe it were not strictly anſwerable to the Law, and ſo far faulty;] they are my words there. And I know not how to ſay, there is, a ſinful perfection, without a contradiction. 2. What does he leſs here, then ſpeak of a ſinleſs perfection, [In this or that virtue, in this or that performance; and as this, though it excludes not all mixture of ſin in the man, in whom it is, yet may exclude it, in this or that act; for it is certain, that I may in an act of mercy give as much as any Law obligeth me to give, and ſo not ſin, in giving too little.] Ad p. 214. n. 39.This was ſpoken to before, but here is more plainly expreſſed, and I ſhall adde a little to it. 1. If it may exclude a mixture of ſin, in this or that act, by the grace of God in Chriſt, (for ſo he cautions it) why may it not exclude (by the ſame grace) a mixture of ſin, in another act of virtue; and ſo in a third, and in all, and ſo exclude it altogether in the man; and then there is an univerſal ſinleſs perfection in this life, which he hath oft denied. 2. But what needs any ſuch grace of God, to do that, which may be done by an Heathen without grace? He may, in an act of mercy, give as much as any Law obligeth him to give, and ſo not ſin, in giving too little. 3. Neither he nor the Doctor can determine aforehand, how much the Law obliges him to give, (as was ſaid above) but it's determinable onelyonly by circumſtances, which then, bring it under a command. 4 Neither of them, giving as much as the Law obligeth to, do ſin in giving too little: but may they not ſin, in giving, in the act of mercy, ſome other wayes? For want of Charity, 1 Cor. 13.3. out of vain-glory, in hope of meriting, Matth. 6.1, 2.&c. The Phariſees (it's like) gave more then the Law obliged to, (their abundant righteouſneſs, as they called it) yet here was a mixture of ſin, not onelyonly in the men, but in the very act of Mercy. 5. But what needed the Doctor to limit this ſinleſneſs, to this or that act of virtue, when here he plainly aſſerts, n. 5.[The loweſt of them (of the degrees of virtues) may be ſinleſs, and all the ſuperiour, voluntary oblations, more then the ſtrict Law required of us.] How eaſie is it for ſuch a Teacher, or Catechiſt, to infect his Diſciples with the Popiſh doctrine of Merit, or Supererogation; if not by doing ſinleſly in the loweſt degrees of commanded perfection, yet by his ſuperiour voluntary oblations, more then the ſtrict Law required of them: but that comes to be conſidered in the next Section.
But there is yet a difficulty or two, to be ſpoken to, the example of Angels, and of Chriſt himſelf; [1. In ſeveral ranks of Angels one ſort (the Seraphims) being more ardent in zeal then other Angels.] This inſtance was not proper, when we are ſpeaking of the love of God, in men, according to the Moral written Law; but we know not by what Law Angels are governed; yet ſuppoſing (which is moſt probable, though diſputable) that there are ſeveral ranks and degrees of Angels, each exceeding another in excellence and perfection of nature; then I would ſay, that each rank was bound to love God, with that height of love, (and zeal) which their nature was capable of, and to love him with a lower degree, as the inferiour ranks do, were in them faulty. That univerſal maxime, will reach them; [To whom more is given, of him more is required.] Now whether the ſame Angel love God more intenſely at one time, then another, is a queſtion, not eaſily determinable. Adam in innocency might perfectly love God, according to the perfection of his nature, yet not with that perfection of Love, wherewith the loweſt Angel loved him: now whether the Doctor will ſay, that an Angel had not ſinned, if he loved God, with that lower degree of love in Adam; I ſhall leave to him to determine.
2. The example of Chriſt, was impertinently brought to prove [that ſincere love is capable of degrees.] p. 222. n. 5.For, firſt, I granted, ſincere love in men was capable of degrees, denied it onelyonly of perfect love. 2. Love of God in Chriſt, was perfect not onelyonly in ſincerity of the virtue, but in that, which the Doctor calls ſinleſs perfection, and ſo not capable of degrees: Chriſt, (he ſays) differs from Angels and men in this, that he was perfect and never ſin'd (ſo are alſo Angels perfect and never ſin, and ſo their example was alſo impertinently brought, when we are ſpeaking of men) when men are imperfect and faulty the beſt of them, as the Doctor confeſſes; and then not perfect in love, and ſo the lower degrees, are ſinful, even when they are ſincere in their love. 3. What then is affirmed of Chriſt, is not common to Angels and men, with him. 1. If it were granted, that Chriſt was more ardent in one act of Prayer then in another, this is not applyable to the ſame Angel who is not more ardent in one act, of love or zeal, then another, ſure the Doctor cannot prove it. 2. Chriſt was far more perfect in love then Angels, being God man, not having the ſpirit by meaſure; therefore he might ſupererogate (as I ſaid) in his acts of love and expreſſions of it, though Angels cannot. 4. Nor then is it common to Chriſt with men, to love God more in one act then another, being perfect in love, with a ſinleſs perfection; the moſt that men can do, being but to love God ſincerely, which is capable of degrees, but faulty in the lower. 5. Even the ſincerity that was in Chriſts love, was ſinleſs, and perfect; but ſo it is not in men, whoſe love being leſs or more ſincere, is leſs or more imperfect. 6. His diſtinction here, of ſinleſs perfection, (which he renounces) and ſincerity of this or that virtue, which (he ſays) conſiſts in a latitude and hath degrees, and a mixture of ſin in the man, &c. Is firſt very improper; for he ſhould have diſtinguiſhed plainly, [perfection is either ſinleſs or ſinful,] (As Papiſts bluſh not to do) but this had daſht his plot of perfection in lower degrees (whereof many are with him ſinleſs) as (we ſaid elſewhere. 2. Even here the loweſt ſinleſs.If he ſpeak not of ſinleſs (but ſinful) perfection, why did he bring in the example of Chriſt, or Angels, whoſe perfection is ſinleſs, as well as ſincere? ſincerity in Chriſt was not capable of degrees (any more then his perfect love.) And yet the Doctor concludes here, [Why ſincerity may not in a pious Chriſtian be capable of degrees, as well as in Chriſt himſelf, and (mark it) the loweſt of them be ſinleſs there is no reaſon ſhewed,] when he renounced before ſinleſs perfection.