Part 1 › Chapter 3 › Appendix: APPENDIX., A Christian Directory by Richard Baxter (1673) | AskReformation

Skip to content

:1588p. 187

73. This is much of the sense of the Controversy between the Epicureans and the sober Philosophers (as is to be seen in Cicero, &c.) The sober Philosophers said that Virtue was to be loved for it self, more than for Pleasure: Because if Pleasure as such, be better than virtue as such, than all sensual Pleasure would be better than Virtue as such. The Epicureans said, that not all pleasure but the pleasure of Virtue, was the chief good (as Torquatus his words in Cicero show). And if it had been first proved, that a mans self is his just ultimate end, as the finis cui, or the personal end, than it would be a hard question whether the Epicureans were not in the right as to the finis cujus, or the Real end, (which indeed is but a medium to the personal, cui.) But when it is most certain that no mans person is to be his own ultimate end, as cui, but God, and then the Universe, and societies of the world as beforesaid, it is then easy to prove that the sober Philosophers were in the right, and that no mans Pleasure is his ultimate end, finis cujus: Because no mans Pleasure is either such a demonstration of the Divine perfection as Virtue is as such; nor yet doth it so much conduce to the common good of societies or mankind, and so to the pleasing and glorifying of God. And this way Cicero might easily have made good his cause against the Epicureans.

73. This is much of the sense of the Controversie between the Epicureans and the sober Philosophers (as is to be seen in Cicero, &c.) The sober Philosophers said that Virtue was to be loved for it self, more than for Pleasure: Because if Pleasure as such, be better than vertue as such, than all sensual Pleasure would be better than Vertue as such. The Epicureans said, that not all pleasure but the pleasure of Vertue, was the chief good (as Torquatus his words in Cicero shew). And if it had been first proved, that a mans self is his just ultimate end, as the finis cui, or the personal end, than it would be a hard question whether the Epicureans were not in the right as to the finis cujus, or the Real end, (which indeed is but a medium to the personal, cui.) But when it is most certain that no mans person is to be his own ultimate end, as cui, but God, and then the Universe, and societies of the world as beforesaid, it is then easie to prove that the sober Philosophers were in the right, and that no mans Pleasure is his ultimate end, finis cujus: Because no mans Pleasure is either such a demonstration of the Divine perfection as Vertue is as such; nor yet doth it so much conduce to the common good of societies or mankind, and so to the pleasing and glorifying of God. And this way Cicero might easily have made good his cause against the Epicureans.

:1589p. 187

74. Though no man indeed Love God as God, who Loveth him not as Better than himself, and therefore Loveth him not better, and as his absolutely ultimate end, and though no man desire Holiness indeed, who desireth not to be devoted absolutely to God, before and above himself; yet is it very common to have a false imperfect notion of God and Holiness, as being the felicity of man, and though not to deny, yet to leave out the essential superlative notion of the Deity; And it is more common to confess all this of God and Holiness notionally (as was aforesaid) and practically to take in no more of God and Holiness, but that they are better for us than temporary pleasures; And some go further, and take them as better for them, than any (though perpetual) mere sensual delights: And so make the perfection of mans highest faculties (practically) to be their ultimate end; And desire or Love God and Holiness (defectively and falsely apprehended) for themselves, or their own felicity, and not Themselves and their felicity and Holiness, ultimately for God. Which showeth that though these men have somewhat overcome the sensual concupiscence or flesh, yet have they not sufficiently overcome the SELFISH disposition, nor yet known and Loved God as God, nor Good as Good.

74. Though no man indeed Love God as God, who Loveth him not as Better than himself, and therefore Loveth him not better, and as his absolutely ultimate end, and though no man desire Holiness indeed, who desireth not to be devoted absolutely to God, before and above himself; yet is it very common to have a false imperfect notion of God and Holiness, as being the felicity of man, and though not to deny, yet to leave out the essential superlative notion of the Deity; And it is more common to confess all this of God and Holiness notionally (as was aforesaid) and practically to take in no more of God and Holiness, but that they are better for us than temporary pleasures; And some go further, and take them as better for them, than any (though perpetual) meer sensual delights: And so make the perfection of mans highest faculties (practically) to be their ultimate end; And desire or Love God and Holiness (defectively and falsly apprehended) for themselves, or their own felicity, and not Themselves and their felicity and Holiness, ultimately for God. Which sheweth that though these men have somewhat overcome the sensual concupiscence or flesh, yet have they not sufficiently overcome the SELFISH disposition, nor yet known and Loved God as God, nor Good as Good.