The Myfterie of tl1e Low of God a1ul or1r feLws, opened. 73 • This is much of the fenfe of the Controverfie between the Epicurean! and the fober Philofo– phcrs ( as is to be Ceen in Cicero,'&c.) The fober Philofophers f1id that Virtue was to be loved for it tC:If. more than for Pleafurc ~ Becaufe ifPlcafure as fuch, be better than vcrtue as fuch, than all fcn– fual Pleafure would be better than Vcrtuc as fuch. The Epicuream faid, that not all pleafure but the plclfure of Verwe, was the chi~f ~o~d ( a~ 'forquatus his words i? Ci:ero illew ). And if it had bee!l tirfi proved, that a mans {tlf 1S h1s JU!l: ultimate end, as the finu CHt, or the perfonal end, thau 1t would be ahard qucfiion whether the Epicurca111 were not in the right as to the finH cujtu, or the Real end, (which indeed is but amedium to the perfrmal, cui. ) But when it 'is moft certain that nO mans perfon is to be his OWfl ultimate end, as cui, but God, and then the liniverfe, and focietics of the world as beforeflid, it is then cafie to prove that the fober Philofophers were in the right, and that no mans Pleafureis his ultimate end, finil cujUf: Becaufe no mans Pleafure is either fuch'a dc– tilonflration of the Divine perfection as VtrtuC is as [uc!J; no~~o yet doth it fo much conduce to the common good of focieries or mankind, and (o to the pleafing and glorifyingof God. And this way : Cicero m.ight eafily have made good his caufe again(\: the EpimreanJ. . . 7 4 . Though no man indeed Love God as God, who L~veth him not as Better than himfelf, and thc.:1tfore Lovcth himnot bmcr, and as hisabfolutely ulmnate end, and though no man dcfire Holi– ncfs indeed, who. ddircth not to be devoted abfolutdy to God , before and above himfclfi y~t is it very common to have 3. falfe imperfeCt notion of God and Holi?efs , as ?eing the tCiiciry of. man , and though nut to dwy , yet to leave out the e!fentJal Cuperlauve notion cf the Deity ; And it is more common to contefs all this ot God and Holinefs notionally ( as was aforefaid ) and practically to take in no more of God and Holimfi, but that they are better for M than temporary pleafures ; And fome go further, and takt them as better fqr them, than any ( though perpetual) mm fmji<al delight! : And fo make the perfection of mans highrjl facultie} l practically ) to be their ultimate end; And defire or Love God and Holinefs ( c\cfectively and falfly apprehended) for thcmfelves, or their own felicity, aud not Themfelvet and their felicity and Holinefs, ultimately for God. Which !heweth that though thefe men have fomewhat overcome rhe fenfual con• cupifcmce or flej/J, yet have they not fufficiently overcome the SE L F I SH difpofition , nor yet known 1nd L9ved God as God, nor Good as Good. 0 , 75· Yet isit not a fin to Love God for our felves and our own felicity, fo be it we make him not amee'r MtanJ to that felicity as our abfolutely ultimate End. for as God indeed is I· The efficient of all our Good : 2• TheDirigent Caufe that leadcth us to it : 3. The End in which our felicity truly corififitth, fo is he to be Loved on all thefeaccounts. 76. If God were not thus to beLoved for our fclvrs ( fubordinated to him ) Thankfulncfs would not be a Chrifiianduty. · 77~0ur Love to God is aLive of Friendjhip, and a defire of a kind of Union, Communion, or Ad– herence. But not fuch as is between creatures where there is fome fort of equality : But as between them that are totally unequal; the one ' infinitely below the other, and abfolutely fubjeCt and {ubor– dinatc to him. . 78.. Therefore though in Love ofFricnd!hip, a Union of both parties, and confequ>nt\y a con- · )UnCI: mterelt of both ( and not one alone ) do make up the ulumate End of Love ; yet here it !hould be wich an utter difproportion, we being obliged to know God as Infinitely Better than our felves, and therefore to Love him incomparably more (though yet it will be but according to the proportion of the faculties of the Lover.) 79· The purcll proccfs of Love therefore, is firll thlnkfully to perceive the Divine Efficiencies, and to Love God as comm4nicative ofwhat we and aU things are, and have, and Olall receive, and therein to fi:e his pcrfeCl: Goodnefs in Himfelf, and to Loyehim as God for that Goodnefs; wherein is no– thing but the finol All which is our Love, and the Final Objelhvhich is the Infinite Good: fothat the Act is mans ,( from God ) but nothing is to be joyned with God as the abfolut<ly final Objtll; For that were to joyn fomewhat with God as God. • . So. And though it be moll true, that this All may be•made the object of another Act, and (as Amefim faith, Omnium gentiuw~ confenfu dicimU4 Volo VeUe, fo J' we may and mufi fay Amo Amart, I Love toLove God, and the very exercife of my own Love is my Delight, and fo is my Felicity in the very Efiential Nature of it ( being a complacency, and being on the highrll objeCtive Good ) : And alfo this fame Love is my Holintfi, and (o It and I are Pleaji"z unto God, yet chefe are all confe– quentia1 to the true nation of the final A6t, and circularly lead tO the fame again : We mufi Love ·our Felicity and Holinefs which confiileth in our Love t~ God, but as that which fubordinately re; lateth to God, in which he is firft glorified, and then finaUy pleafid; and fo from his WiU which we delight to pleafe, we afcend to his total ptrfefl Being, to which we adhere byJcrfe[i Ltrve. In a word, our Ulumate End of Acq11ijiti01t (and Godr own, fo far as he may be lai to have an End) is the pleajing of the Divine WiU, in bit Glorification : And our ultimate End of Complacency obje• mvely, is the Infinite GoJdnefs ·of •he Divi1te WiU a1UJ Nat"re. 81o There is therefore place for the ~dtion, Whether I mufl Love God or my felf more or better ? ( as it is refolved.·) But there is no place for the Qilc!lion, Whether 1 mu![ Love God or my fl:lf > Bccaufe God alloweth me not ever to feparate them : ( Though there is a degree of ju!l lclf-lothing or fdf-hatred in deep Repentance;) Nor yet for the ~!lion, Whether 1mull feek Gods glory and pkafure,or my own felicity?for I .mull ever feek them both,though not with the fame e!leem. Yea, I may be faid to feek them both with the fame Diligcnct, becaufe by the fame Endeavour and aCl that I fcek one, I fcck the other; and I cannot poffihly do any thing for one that doth not equally promote
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=