as hath formerly been said and from thence the Esseni had their title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chasidim or Asidaei and they were supposed to have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their over-measure performances more then the Law exacted from them and so that is an example of what I now speak of the free-will performances of mercy The Second shall be from S. Pauls language 2 Cor. 8. 2. where speaking of the Corinthians equalling the Macedonians in liberality to the poor Jewes he gives them no command to do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I speak not by way of precept v. 8. but only his advice or opinion his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just as in the case of single life 1 Cor. 7. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have no commandment of the Lord but I give my advice And if the Corinthians did observe and practise according to this advice if they did give in proportion to the Macedonians or in case they did not yet still the Macedonians themselves which certainly were thus exemplarily liberal and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their own accord v. 3. without any obligation of precept lying upon them and yet farther 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above what they were well able to do are again an instance of doing more in this kind then either all men at all times or they at this were obliged to have done and so this was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in them Now to this instance of works of mercy he first resolves that it may be answered in part that it belongs not to the question which is of worship not of actions of civil life But to this I reply 1. that an answer in part is no satisfactory answer and so this professing to be no more needs not be considered 2. that the parity of reason holds from one act of Christian performance to another that if in duties of charity between fellow Christians there may be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somewhat above the commands of the law of Christ there may also by analogy be the same in matters of Christian worship there being neither reason nor revelation of Christs will not yet of his allowance to one more then to the other But then 3dly This of works of mercy is generally defined to be in a Christian performance of it an act of worship set in the front of such by Christ Mat 6. 1. appointed to be exercised on the Lords day as a work of the day 1 Cor. 16. 2. and accordingly interpreted by Christ to be done to himself Mat. 25. 40. and so by S. Paul styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacrifice an acceptable sacrifice Phil. 4. 18. Heb. 13. 16. And yet 4. to remove all scruple I wish that after the custome of the Primitive Apostolick Church this almes be presented to God in the offertory at the Sacrament and then as it will certainly be a branch of Christian worship so my instance shall be set particularly to that sort of almes and it will certainly hold in that as exactly as in any other But this imperfect answer being not confided in he is pleased to adde more 1. That the question is not of a degree of an act of obedience commanded as Almes-giving is but of the act it self if not commanded nor allowed in the speciall nor in the generall But this answer cannot be of any manner of use to the Diatribist For 1. The question being certainly this Whether Ceremonies and Festivals in a Church are criminous if they be not commanded by God and ceremonies and Festivals being gestures and times and so circumstances not acts of worship 't is visible that the question is not onely of the act it self 2. The reason being the same of circumstances and of degrees of one accessorie and of another it follows that if uncommanded degrees may be lawfull uncommanded circumstances must be lawfull also 3. Though almes-giving in general be commanded yet as long as the degrees be uncommanded the argument from the lawfulness of those degrees will hold to the justifying of Ceremonies or Festivals because as almes-giving is commanded so praying to and praising of God is commanded also and these ceremonies and Festivals are as visibly circumstances of prayer and praising as these degrees are of almes-giving Nay 4. To take away all possibility that this answer should be usefull to him the instance which I set of almesgiving is of an uncommanded act for supposing the utmost degree of the uncommanded mercy to be once defined and determined and suppose me to exceed that proportion in giving 't is evident that that exceeding is an act first and then an uncommanded act an act for so is every exercise or work of mercy and this giving is such an exercise and an uncommanded act for so is all which is not under precept and so this is supposed to be and herein it is perfectly answerable to the free-will offering among the Jews Sacrifice or offering was a determined and commanded duty and every exercise of that above what was commanded was a freewill oblation and as such accepted by God and so it is here As for his cautious restriction added in the close of that answer which pretends that the question is of such acts which as they are not commanded so neither are they allowed in special or in general he must needs know that this is an imposing on the reader For 1. The question being of the lawfulness of uncommanded acts and allowance whether general or special being yet no command for no man is bound to do all that he is allowed to do t is evident that the acknowledging the lawfulness of allowed acts as they must needs be lawfull if they be allowed is the acknowledging the lawfulness of some uncommanded acts for such are they which are no more then allowed 2. For the clearing of this I shall offer the Diatribist this Dilemma Are these high but uncommanded degrees of mercy allowed either in general or special now under the Gospel or are they not If they are not then this cautionary clause was very impertinently added and my instance though it proceeded of degrees which are not thus allowed yet proceedings of degrees which are not commanded was a valid instance But if they are allowed as I suppose by his caution he will affirme why then it seems there is either general or special allowance still under the Gospel for uncommanded acts and then there is as much for them under Christ as there was under Moses for freewill offerings and so the Leviticalness of the freewill offerings consisted not in this that they were thus allowed and then this was no part of that Levitical Law nor consequently of that which was abolished as before he had affirmed and so the Diatribist's whole scheme is demolished or rather fallen asunder of its own accord as all infirme fabricks are apt to do What followes in
from blood long continued in the Church The Saterday Sabbath Negative wholesomness not sufficient to recommend ceremonies All folly in worship is not Superstition The opinion of the antient Church worth considering No duties appointed for the circumstances sake Time or place instituted by God is a circumstance as well as when by man Apostolical Divine THat which follows § 25. c. is for the most part but revolving the same things again that have hitherto been spoken to or the hiding himself in those obscurities which have now been explained sometimes granting all that I assert sometimes denying it in ambiguous phrases as that all excess in worship not prescribed is a nimiety and culpable § 25. that rites be they never so few if introduced as parts of worship are Superstitious v. 28. and the like And the Reader must not be condemned to the penance of having all that hath been said on these heads repeated again and therefore I am both in justice and charity obliged to omit particular replies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the remaining Sections yet shall read them over as carefully as I can and observe whatever I discern may be thought pertinent to his cause which hath not hitherto been spoken to As 1. When he saith § 26. that all Divines generally condemne it I answer they condemne Superstition but mean not by it every excess in worship not prescribed as that phrase comprehends all ceremonies and festivals not commanded by God and those Divines that condemne this under the name of Superstition are the men of whom onely my words are to be understood that they are so few and so modern and of so smal authority that they were scarce worth producing no antient writer having ever condemned all ceremonies and festivals which are not commanded by God under the title of Superstition and that Aquinas's words are no way appliable to it hath been already shewed As for St Augustines place produced by me § 33. from whence he collects that an institution of worship by men may be Superstitious I answer that that Father speaks there of those qui instituerunt Deorum simulachra who instituted images of Gods which the Diatribist could not but see if he had pleased and of such institutions I grant that they not onely may be but are Superstitious but our ceremonies and Festivals are no Deorum Simulachra images of the Gods and so sure not lyable to his censure 2dly When § 29. he affirmes of usages in themselves lawfull and allowable that if they were taught or practised as necessary or as making the observers more Religious then others or more acceptable to God then they would be parts of worship and then I must suppose by his tenure of doctrine Superstitious I answer 1. That decency or uniformity or obedience to Superiors may be a competent ground to turn lawfull ceremonies into necessary and on those grounds joyned together I may kneel and teach kneeling at the taking of the Eucharist to be necessary viz. not by any necessity of divine precept terminated immediately in this gesture but by such necessity as Humane Laws by force of the fift Commandment and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obey those that are placed over you lay upon me and this is far from making this kneeling a part of worship when we know it is but a gesture and circumstance of it 2. That they which pray reverently and decently observe uniformity obey the lawfull commands of the Church are in so doing more Religious and more acceptable to God then others who caeteris paribus do it not pray irreverently act undecently observe not uniformity disobey the lawfull commands of their Ecclesiastical Superiors or then they which perform the same things upon their own choices So saith Leo de jejun 7. mens Serm 3. Divinarum namque reverentia Sanctionum inter quaelibit spontaneae observantiae studia habet semper privilegium suum ut sacratius sit quod publica lege celebratur quà m quod privatâ institutione dependitur The reverence of the Divine i. e. Ecclesiastical sanctions have always this privilege among spontaneous observances that whatsoever is performed by publick law is more sacred then what is done upon private institution This I hope I shall not need farther to prove and if not then sure the teaching this or acting on these grounds will not make my allowable action criminous or Superstitious 3dly When § 31. he finds fault with men for saying that the sole reason why old Jewish ceremonies are interdicted us Christians is because the observing those which foreshewed Christ and teaching the necessity of them would be the denying Christ to be come paralleling this with an answer of Bellarmine's and rendring an account from Chamier that there was another reason of their abrogation because they did load the conscience with a yoke of a multitude of ceremonies and that this is common to those and to the traditions of men I answer 1. That it is one thing for Jewish ceremonies to be interdicted Christians another for them not to be imposed the weight of the yoke was the reason why they were not to be imposed and to that the Diatribists reasons in the conclusion of § 31. do all belong but my speech was evidenly of their being interdicted and that meant not onely of the multitude of them but of every or each of them and the sole reason of that was this which I assigned for if the weight of the multitude were at all considered in that then any one of them which sure was not a multitude would have been lawful by name circumcision or sacrificing or the like against which yet the Christian interdict lyes as well as against the whole number 2dly T is certain that in the application of this instance to ceremonies not prescribed by God in a Christian Church there is great difference betwixt the Church of which Bellarmine was an advocate and that which I undertook to defend In the Church of Rome there is a great multitude of ceremonies and festivals which may be capable of the title of weight and yoke but the Church of England is far more sparing and I had fully consented to the rule of paucae salubres few and salubrious and was now disputing for the lawfulness of some ceremonies uncommanded by God not for the expedience of neer so many as other Christians both of the Western and Eastern Churches have received into their Canons and proportionable to that was any one or never so few old Jewish ceremonies for the abrogation of which I was therefore obliged to give such an account as was not founded in the multitude of them and consequently could not take either Chamier's or the Diatribist's advise to render any other then what I rendred as I thought from such like plain words of the Apostle We have an altar of which they have not power to eat that serve the tabernacle Heb. 13. In this matter the Diatribist asks a subtle question
be many acts of worship many circumstances of worship yea and many heights of Christian heroical virtue which may bear proportion with worship that are not under obligation from any particular command of Gods and so remain to be acts of the will or choise of man which are perfectly lawfull acceptable yea some highly rewardable by God and so far from the guilt which Mr. C. affixes of high indignity or affront to the divine Majestie What he addes of the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they are but twice apiece used in the Book of Wisdome and alway in an ill notion which saith he is but little to the credit of the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might sure have been spared it being as certain and visible to him that the same word is used by St James c. 1. 27. in as good a sense as could be wisht with the epithets of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pure and undefiled before God added to it and v. 26. for the profession of Christianity though for want of actions bridling the tongue and the like that becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vain And as plain that the word is in it self equally applicable to the true as to the false indifferently to any religion to St Pauls religion among the Jews Act. 26. 5. the strictest sect of our religion to the worship of Angels Col. 2. 18. and so to the worship of Idols in the Book of Wisdome which yet can no more tend to the disadvantage of the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when that is not terminated on any prohibited object then the use of the Latine cultus sometimes for the worship of false Gods can prejudge voluntarius cultus voluntary worship when either the object is not specified or the mention of the one true God is added to it It being confest and supposed by both parties in this contest that the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship it self is not culpable save onely when the other part of the composition the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the interposition of the will or as he will style it the devise or appointment of man hath an influence upon it Sect. 3. His entrance on the view of Col. 2. answered The difference betwixt Commands of Magistrates and imposition of dogmatizers What t is which is said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS 3d § is his entrance on the view of Col. 2. where onely the word Will-worship is to be found and in setting down his grounds of interpreting it 1. He citeth Beza and BP Davenant whose words are presently answered by adverting to the distinction formerly given between the essentials and circumstantials the parts and the ceremonies of worship 2dly He pretends to discover a mistake in me in that I observe from v. 22. that St Paul speaks not of commands but doctrines not of the prohibition of the Magistrate but of false teachers imposing them as the commands of God Whereas saith he the Apostle speaks expressely of these impositions that they were after the Commandments and doctrines of men v. 8. after the traditions of men to worship God by the observation of them Of which words of his if there be any shadow of force in them by way of exception against me the meaning must be that the Apostle there speaks of the commands or prohibitions of Magistrates in things of themselves perfectly indifferent and censures those commands under the style of Will-worship But then this hath no degree of truth in it for 1. The matter of the commands is no lawful matter but either the worship of Angels and that is criminous as the worshipping of a creature or the reducing of antiquated rites of Judaisme which ought not to be reduced being once cancelled and nailed to the cross of Christ 2. The commands were not commands of Magistrates but of men which had no authority to prescribe any thing especially so contrary to the doctrine which the Apostles had planted among them the Christian liberty from the Judaical yoke 3. The manner of imposing them was quite distant from that of the Magistrates giving laws Ecclesiastical or Civil those are by way of Canon as of things indifferent in order to decency and the like without ever pretending them to be in themselves necessary as commanded by God these are imposed as from God when they are not so and that is the known sin of dogmatizing to which I formerly applied the place And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commands signifies no more then so being joyned with and explicated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines i. e. such things as false teachers require all men to do in obedience to God or as if they were now commanded by him when some of them as abstinencies c. having once been required by God are now abolisht by Christ and the other the worship of Angels though it pretend not ever to have been commanded but onely to be acceptable to God is clearly forbidden by him So that here is a palpable mistake in the Diatribist who observes them to be commands meaning as he must if he censureth or opposeth me commands of Magistrates and not onely doctrines of false teachers when indeed commands and doctrines are all one both joyned together to signifie these dogmatizers pretending the things which they taught to be in force by Divine command by virtue of the Law given to Moses and not onely such as would be accepted by God as of the worship of Angels I suppose was pretended by those false teachers For this is to be remembred here once for all that the seducers spoken of in that Chapter were the Gnostick hereticks who made up their Theologie of Judaical and heathenish additions to the Christian truth from the Jews they had many abstinences such as were now abolisht by Christ and those they imposed as commands of God when they were not and from the heathens the doctrine of the Aeones or Angels as creators of this inferior world and so such as might with Gods good liking be worshipt by us Lastly Those commands of theirs are not censured by the Apostle as acts of Will-worship or blamed or put under any ill character for being such any more then for being acts of humility which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with Will-worship in that place v. 22. but as intrenchments on that liberty purchased for them by the death of Christ v. 20. which had cancelled these Judaical ordinances to all that were dead with him i. e. to Christians and had turned all Daemon worship out of their hearts but had no way bound up the hands of his Apostles or their successors the Governors of the Church from instituting ceremonies or festivals among Christians When the Diatribist addes of Will-worship that it had a shew of wisdome but no more t is but a begging the question or if it pretend to be concluded from that text it is without
the two former affirmations voluntarie worship is an addition to the rule of worship and eo nomine Superstition and that is sinfull But I have already shewed that all additions to that rule are not Superstition and that all that is by any called Superstition is not eo nomine sinfull and so I am safe from that proof also So in like manner from the 3d which is but another repetition put in form of question Why is the worship of Angels and Saints criminal but because it was invented and added by the will of man This question was answered long since that the worship of all creatures is criminal because the command is positive and exclusive that God and none but the one God is to be worshipped and though the doing what is not commanded is not a sin yet the doing what is forbidden must needs be sinfull and such is the worshipping of Angels c. What he here addes in the close of this 3d proof that they I suppose who worship Angels do not urge it as a commandment of God was sure very unnecessarily inserted For I never doubted but there are other sins besides dogmatizing and can now promptly suggest to him competent store of instances sure the murtherer is a sinner though he teach it for a doctrine from heaven that it is lawfull to kill his brother c. And then why should not the worshipper of Angels against expresse precept Thou shalt have no other Gods before me Thou shalt not bow down nor worship be a transgresser of that Commandment though he oblige not as from God any other man to do the like His last proof is ab incommodo If wilworship saith he be innocent I cannot see how all that rabble of Superstitious worship at Rome can be condemned for they are not held out as Commandments of God but traditions of men The answer last given to the appendage of the 3d proof is sufficient to this also Other faults there may be in worship beside holding it out as the Commandment of God It may for the object of worship take in somewhat beside God or for the ceremonies it may multiply them unprofitably ridiculously or it may be pretend more virtue in them then really belongs to them and many the like But these I mention because if it be true what is here suggested that the worship at Rome is really superstitious and that there is a rabble of that worship there as is supposed in the question the answer is already given by the very proposal of it and hath without any violence to my hypothesis which undertook not to justifie all or any other Churches in their worship but onely that of England which is known to be free where Rome I adde where the Greek Church in as high a degree as Rome is guilty And this may serve for the 3d grand discovery of causes Sect. 6. The Lawfulness of instituting the Christmass Festival Of Church Laws THe last ground of mistake assigned by the Diatribist is that the Dr. takes for granted That a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe worship not commanded by God which remains upon him to prove before he can vindicate his Festival as he and others maintain it from the double crime of Superstition and Wil-worship If this differ from the third as in reason it ought else why should it be added to it then the mistake is not onely or so much that I affirme as that I take for granted when I ought to prove that a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe worship not commanded by God Now I shall at once prove my affirmation and apply it to my Festival as he calls it and shew that I have already proved it and so not taken it for granted as is here suggested For the former I offer this probation whatsoever is in it self perfectly free or lawfull by the Law of God and that libertie no way retrenched that a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe But the Christmass Festival or annual commemoration of Christ's birth is in it self perfectly free or lawful by the Law of God and that liberty no way retrenched Ergo. Of the major I suppose there can be no doubt if there be these three considerations will clear it 1. Because whatsoever is perfectly free and lawful that the Church or the Christian hath power to do unless that libertie be some way retrenched to him 2. What every particular Christian may freely do that he may still do when it is by the Church prescribed or instituted else that act of the Church prescribing shall render that which it prescribes unlawful being perfectly lawful before that prescription and if upon the most Anarchical principles that should be supposed to have any reason it then still that liberty is some way retrenched the contrary to which is supposed in the major proposition 3. Because the Church meaning by that word the Vniversal Church of God whether of the Apostles times including them chief pastors thereof or of the purer times succeeding together with the Governors of each Church succeeding the Apostles hath the power of Stewards noted by the Keyes intrusted to it by Christ and consequently may dispose order institute for her members in those things which she shall judge to tend to the honor of God and to edification though it be not immediately commanded so it be not any way prohibited by God As for the minor that the Christmass Festival is thus free and lawful doth also appear by the no prohibition of God's in force against it by the lawfulness of praising God and commemorating the gift of Christ on any day one or more in the year and consequently on the 25 of December by the analogie of other Festivals among the people of God in all ages and by the answer to all objections to the contrary and the evidence of the matter that this libertie hath no way yet been retrencht by God that gave it And all this severally cleared in the former discourses and the chief of them again vindicated here by answer to the Diatribists pretended discovery of my mistakes On which that I do not now think my self obliged farther to insist by addition of more evidences the reason will be soon discerned by taking notice of the one proof which he here subjoyns to this his last ground in these words Which I prove by this one argument If all additions to the word in matter of worship be criminous and sinful as prohibited by God Deut. 4. 2. and elsewhere then no man or Church can without sin adde any worship to that commanded by God But the first is true Ergo. Where it seems the whole matter is devolved to that one issue whether the text Deut. 4. 2. and the 2d Commandment for there is not any other elsewhere any other text by the Diatribist produced to that purpose be sufficient to prejudge the using or
satisfied with my own innocence that I cannot be farther gratified with the contemplation of others guilts And so much for his first exercitation having I hope competently secured the observance of the rites and ceremonies of our Church from being the introducing of any new worship or criminous excess against any of the Commandments of the first table and consequently from the charge of Superstition in any justifiable notion or Etymologie or acception of the word not taking that of Super Statutum to be such CHAP. V. Of Will-worship Sect. 1. The state of the Question Will-worship distinguisht from the circumstances of it The matter of mans will of three sorts The 6. several possible notions of Will-worship The application of them to the matter in hand The vanity of the Diatribists distinction The scope of the 2d Commandment IN the Diatribe of Will-worship the first complaint is that the Dr. had not as it became him distinguished the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek or Will-worship in English before he began his defence of them and to repair this unbecoming defect on the Doctors part the Diatribist is pleased to do it for him by assigning it a double notion 1. For voluntary spontaneous or willing worship i. e. willingness or freeness in worship commanded by God and then they were to blame saith he that put an ill notion upon them or 2. For worshippe devised by the wit and appointed by the will of man as contradistinguished to the will and wisdome of God and then it was not so much the ill fortune as the just punishment of them to pass under an ill notion c. For the scope of the 2d Commandment in the affirmative part being this God must be worshipped with his own prescribed worship and in the negative to forbid all devised worship of God by the wit or will of man the very name of will of man put to worship of God as opposed to the will of God the onely rule of worship is as a brand in the forehead of it to characterize it as condemnable in all This his first § I have thus fully set down as the foundation of his discourse on this subject and very fit for my direction how to proceed in the reply to it For if I shall now punctually obey his admonition and having in his opinion formerly failed of my duty speedily indevour to repair it 1. by distinguishing the Greek and English word though by giving it the exact limits in that one place where it is used in Scripture I had hoped well that I had formerly performed all that was necessary in this kind and telling him clearly in what sense I take it defending it to be no way reprovable and 2. by shewing the unfitnesse of his distinction here premised and the fallaciousnesse of the reason or proof annexed to it me thinks this should set me on a good way toward the end of this second Stage and so do that which is most desireable to the Reader and my self confer much to our expedition in this journey For the first then I shall distinguish as formerly betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship whether the theological virtue or some act thereof together with the gradual intension and extension the degrees and also the frequency or number of those acts on one side and the external ceremonies or circumstances of it on the other side which are not parts but accidents of worship As in any other habit that of justice particularly may be exemplified It may beside the virtue of justice signifie 1. some act of that virtue or 2. the degree thereof and frequent repetition more or lesse of the acts of it but for the circumstance of time or place attending on any act of it they will never be called justice with any propriety Secondly For will the other ingredient in the composition of the word meaning thereby the will or choice of man it may be of four sorts distinguishable by the matter which is will'd or chosen 1. when the thing thus will'd by man is forbidden by God or 2. when 't is commanded and under obligation as far as the force of affirmative precepts extends of which the rule is true that obligant semper sed non ad semper they oblige us alwayes but yet do not oblige us to be always exercising some act of the virtues so commanded and so when it is done it is done in perfect concord with and agreeablenesse to the precept but yet for that time or in that degree it lay not under particular precept but might without disobedience or sin have been omitted 3. When the thing will'd is left free and indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden by God 4. When although it be not indifferent much lesse forbidden but good in an high degree yet it is not under particular precept and so may be omitted without sin when it is done it is highly rewardable by God I shall give an example of each of these branches also Of the first when a man himself commits or teacheth others to commit adultery adultery being forbidden by God and so his action or teaching an act of his will opposed to the will of God Of the second when I give to the poor yearly or weekly such a proportion out of my estate which I am able to give and so offend against no office of justice in giving and yet am not obliged to give by any precept of Gods which laies it as a duty upon me An instance of which is set down at large in the Tract of Wil-worship § 32. which together with other exemplifications of the point in hand very necessary to cleer my sense and yet in no reason here to be repeated I must desire the Reader to fetch from that place § 30. and so forward Of the third when I walk or sit still laugh or weep the law of God leaving it perfectly free for me to do or omit either of these as I shall choose Of the last all writers Jewish Heathen and Christian give us frequent examples Maimonides among the Jewes More Nevoch par 3. c. 17. mentions it as the common saying of the Iewish Doctors that Reward is by God given to him that doth any thing uncommanded Among the Heathens one for all Plutarch who instances in acts of fortitude freeing the city from Tyrants doing any great thing which saith he are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 required or commanded by Law For saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. if the Law command such things then all must be counted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedient and breakers of Lawes which deserve not reward in warre which let the Tyrants live an houre or which do not some of those other things which are accounted excellent and by consequence all such must be punished as offenders So Nazianzen of the Christian Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of our Law some things lay necessity on them
Belllarmines using it to another purpose that of religious vowes supposing it fully answered as to that can have no influence on my using it to prove the lawfulnesse of spontaneous performances of piety It might not come home to such vowes and yet might and doth come home to resolutions or intentions And therefore if this be the truth of the matter as it lies betwixt Chamier and Bellarmine if it concern only the businesse of such religious vowes of building a Temple before Gods pleasure be known concerning it and the like then this Diatribist hath not done well to inlarge Chamiers words to this other so distant matter and to vouch his authority both here and formerly for the abolition of free-will offerings under the Gospel It cannot be a good cause which needs such aides as this His 2d answer is that God doth not absolutely deny that he had commanded but saith he had not commanded it to David or any before him not because he would not have it done but because not yet and therefore foretels that Solomon should do it To this I answer 1. that here is very nice distinguishing betwixt absolutely denying that he had commanded and saying he had not commanded Can conscience ever be satisfied of the sinfulnesse of voluntary oblations or the charitableness of judging a Church superstitious for using uncommanded rites upon such answers as these But 2. to disinvolve this intricacy and take a sunder this subtile fabrick I demand did God ever command David or any governor before him to build him a Temple or did he not If he shall say he did Then is that expressely repugnant to the plain words of Nathan 2 Sam. 7. 5. Thus saith the Lord shalt thou build me an house to dwell in the question implies that he shall not and v. 7. Spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel saying Why build ye not me an house of Cedar and so forward to the same purpose But if he shall acknowledge that God never did thus command David or any before him to build him a Temple then it is clear his intention to build was a free-will offering under no command of Gods and yet that intention accepted and commended by God which was all I undertook to conclude in this instance 3dly What he addes that God saith this not because he would not have it done but because not yet c. is evidently nothing to his advantage for still it is confest God would not have it done by David which was all I contended and then Davids designing to do it was without command and so a freewill offering As for the prediction that Solomon should do it 1. That is no intimation in the least of any command to David and 2. It followed David's resolution of doing it and was God's answer to David v. 13. on occasion of his resolving to build God a Temple v. 1 2. and so that is onely a farther evidence that what David resolved to do was without any the least command onely that which the dignity of the matter suggested to a pious soul v. 1. 2. and accordingly was approved by Nathan v. 3. Goe doe all that is in thy heart and also by God 1 Kin. 8. 18. though he were not permitted to actuate this pious resolution His 3d answer is that the house that David would build was not to be a part of worship but by accident as the house of Obed Edom or the place where David setled the Arke and our Churches now onely a circumstance of worship I answer 1. So is a Festivall now a time as that a place and so equally a circumstance of worship And 2. It being already evident that voluntary oblations were then lawfull and that those are parts of worship 't is visible that this had equally been lawfull if it had been a part as it is now being but a circumstance of worship But then 3dly The intention of building this place was sure a pious intention an act of reverence and love to God whose house it was designed to be and so that being uncommanded must needs be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so directly parallel to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which I thought fit to compare it And so still there is no other virtue in these answers save onely to evidence his distrust in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to assure us that he could not heartily believe that voluntary oblations were now abolished under the New Testament for if really they were having rendred that for his first answer he could not have wanted or satisfied himself with such evasions as these Sect. 3. A 2d instance and that under the New Testament Paul's taking no hire from the Corinthians This no action of common life nor yet a due debt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for using 1 Cor. 7. 31. 1 Cor. 9. 17. explained The authority of Augustine Chrysostome and Theophylact. MY 2d instance was that of St Paul who might have received hire for his labour among the Corinthians but would not and counts and calls this matter of boasting This saith he is as little to the porpose if not less for it is not in an action of worship but an action of common life as himself speaks and it is also a mistake to call it a free-will offering when it was a due â—â—bt But 1. T is certain that I no where said that this was in an action of common life the Reader if he will view the place at the top of p. 17. will find that it is misreported and truely I should have been to blame to think the Apostle's preaching and officiating among the Corinthians in which this was to have been an action of common life And I shall appeale to this Diatribist himself whether he can really doubt whether an Apostle's exercising his office be not an act of worship and consequently any but circumstance thereof a circumstance of worship and this over and above an act of sacred alms and so of piety And if it be so then this instance of St Pauls not receiving hire was either an action or in an action of worship or both and so surely a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or free-will offering 2dly Then for his assertion that it was a due debt for which he cites Chamier I shall make my appeale no farther then to the text it self and the notion which the Fathers had of it The matter is set down at large 1 Cor. 9. The preaching of the Gospell saith the Apostle was committed to him and was under precept and so no free-will offering of his That is his meaning when he saith For if I do this willingly v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a volunteer so saith Theophylact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I had not been commissionated to preach but had done it of my self If I did preach the Gospell without any command and so necessity to do so if of my self spontaneously 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have the reward this would be rewardable in me i. e. the very preaching would without any other honorable circumstance to inhanse it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if involuntarily i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theophylact if I am commissionated to preach and so my preaching be an act of obedience to a plain command and so necessary v. 16. and woe to me if I do it not then all that can be said of me is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being intrusted with a Stewardship I discharge it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is manifest that I do it not spontaneously but I performe my Lords command for this is the meaning of involuntary And so there is nothing of excellence in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this will bring me in no reward Upon which it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What reward then shall be to me i. e. What in this whole matter shall bring me in any reward To which the Apostle answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that preaching the Gospell I do it freely without making it chargeable to the auditors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that I make not use of not as we render it abuse not my power or liberty that I have in the Gospell i. e. the power of receiving maintenance from others whether by hire from them to whom he preacht the labourer being worthy of that or by way of aide from other pious persons such as Phoebe and the like intimated by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some Christian women that attended and ministred to them v. 8. without putting my self to bodily labour to earn necessaries v. 6. The doing of this thus was that which would yeild him the reward And although this was not observed by Cephas and other Apostles v. 5. yet sure Cephas is not conceived to have sinned thereby but 't is positively said that t was lawfull for all v. 7. 11. 14. for as for Cephas and others though onely Paul would not use it v. 12. and accordingly both there v. 15. and after 2 Cor. 11. 9 10. he distinctly counts and calls this matter of rejoycing or boasting in respect to the reward which he was allowed to expect from God for it And so nothing can be more plain then that this was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a voluntarie act of piety in that Apostle toward his Corinthians and so sure it was conceived by St Augustine Potuit Beatus Panlus ex Evangelio sibi victum quarere quòd maluit operari amplius erogabat Blossed Paul might have had his food for his preaching that he chose rather to labour for it with his hands was a greater liberality then he was bound to And St Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he said not those words Act. 20. 35. because it was ill to receive but because it was better not to receive And again that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fourth and highest degree of munificence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one that preacheth and hath power to receive yet not to receive And on the place to the Corinthians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One was a praecept the other a virtuous action of his own choice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above the Commandment and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this very respect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it hath a plentifull reward And again of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessity he saith that it pertains to the command by which it became necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opposition to the freedome in receiving i. e. the power to receive from the Corinthians v. 12. forementioned So again Theophylact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. preaching the Gospell is a precept to me and so a debt from me and if I do it there is no great matter of excellence in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to preach without charging them is the honor of my will and in that respect there is place of boasting in this I may fitly rejoyce This I have set down thus largely to clear all difficulties or doubts in this matter and to shew how punctually home it comes to the matter for which it was brought to shew not onely the lawfulness but acceptation of such uncommanded performances now under the Gospell as well as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the Law The only exception he offers against this is that from v. 18. where what he doth he saith was done that he abuse not his power in the Gospel But saith he to abuse power is to sin c. But that is already answered that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to use to his own advantage and not only to abuse Thus in Lysias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he took and used them and in Isocrates in Panegyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a seasonable use of other mens actions by way of example in Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 8. he hath not rightly used the gift And so 1 Cor. 7. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 using the world as if they used it not so it must be rendred in proportion to what goes before weep as though they wept not rejoyce as though they rejoiced not buy as though they possessed not and so the vulgar reads tauquam non utantur as if they used not And so Chrysostome on Act. 21. in the place even now cited doth thus paraphrase it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to receive what he hath power to receive and so here Theophylact expressely interprets it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word signifies simply to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing that they which received sinned not a whit which is the direct contrary to the conclusion of this Diatribist from the same premisse And so Chrysostome also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this expression he shewed that they which received are not worthy of accusations guilty of any fault which they must be if they are bound by any special call as the Diatribist cites from Chamier but against the whole contexture of the place to do what they did And so this may suffice for the second Instance so particular and that in the New Testament Sect. 13. The third of Paul 's going up to Ierusalem this under no precept No refusing to suffer no retarding of the Gospel The example of Christ and S. Paul at other times the testimony of Origen and confession of the Diatribist THe 3d instance was taken from Paul's going up to Hierusalem Act. 21. when being told by a Prophet v. 11. that bonds expected him there he might lawfully have avoided that danger and gone some other way and been justified by Mat. 10. 23. and yet in this conjuncture when he might have abstained he would yet needs go up v. 13. and so that was his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now to this saith he the like may be answered viz. that it was no free-will offering for though by the general allowance he might have fled