though our Love may sometimes transport us and vio∣lently rend us from our selves and from all Self-enjoy∣ment, yet the more forcible it is, by so much the more it will be apt to torment us, while it cannot centre it self in that which it so strongly endeavours to attract to it; and when it possesseth most, yet is it alwaies hungry and craving, as Plotinus hath well express'd it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it may alwaies be fil∣ling it self, but, like a leaking vessel, it will be alwaies emptying it self again. Whereas the Infinite ardour of the Divine Love arising from the unbounded per∣fection of the Divine Being, alwaies rests satisfied within it self, and so may rather be defin'd by a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is wrapt up and rests in the same Centrall Unity in which it first begins. And there∣fore I think some men of later times have much mis∣taken the nature of the Divine Love, in imagining that Love is to be attributed to God, as all other Passions are, rather secundùm effectum then affectum: whereas S. John, who was well acquainted with this noble Spi∣rit of Love, when he defin'd God by it, and calls him LOVE, meant not to signifie a bare nothing known by some Effects, but that which was infinitely such as it seems to be. And we might well spare our labour, when we so industriously endeavour to find something in God that might produce the Effects of some other Passions in us, which look rather like the Brats of Hell and Darkness then the lovely offspring of Heaven.
When we reflect upon all this which signifies some Perfect Essence, as a Mind, Wisdome, Understanding, Omnipotency, Goodness, and the like, we can find no such thing as Time or Place, or any Corporeall or Fi∣nite properties which arise indeed not ex plenitudine, but ex inopia entitatis; we may also know God to be