Canon of Faith from John the longest liver of the Apostles but submits to the Western custome and so subjects us to Rome which he so fears and warned me to be ware of I leave these to his resolution and come to consider what he sayes to my arguments against it 1. There is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture nor ground to found it on p. 244. n. 12 I said there was no ground in Scripture to found it on To which he says nouothing To this he hath three answers 1. There is small virtue in this from Scripture negative As little virtue as there is in this negative argument for me it seemes to be great for himself against me For here n. 17. he pleads thus against the institution of the Lords-day Sure the New Testament hath no where any Law-giving concerning it And again against the use of the fourth Commandment Where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment p. 263. n. 8. And once more p. 281. n. 19. Christ never reprehended the observation of the Feast of Dedication that we read of therefore he approved it But in the case in hand ad hominem I have argued strongly from Scripture negative Will worship is not commanded in Scripture therefore it is unlawful But this Festival with that of the Nativity is made a Will-worship by Papists and the Doctor ergo they are unlawfull and as such have no ground in Scripture 2. Answer The Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the Feast is some be it acknowledged a less weighty ground in Scripture for the observation This word of the Apostle in the judgement of all Interpreters hath nothing to do with his Festival The text and context are also against his gloss which makes it so light that it is not so much as some weight for the observation of it And I having said so much against this gloss in my 31 Section of Fest I wonder he should so confidently produce it here and say nothing to purpose to it in its own place All I shall say now is this that if this be the sense of it which the Doctor begs it hath not onely some but an exceeding weighty ground for the observation of his Festival a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law-giving an institution Divine which he will deny to the Lords-day and proves more then he intended not onely the observation and practice but also institution Apostolical But more of this below 3. Answ The mention of the Lords-day Rev. 1. is some farther ground if it be the annuall then there is a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days The Doctor is happy if all his suppositions might be granted him he knows the place is generally understood of the Weekly-day and what is then become of his clear evidence But hear again If it should be the weekly day yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day It is observable that in all this discourse of Festivals the Doctors great designe is to vilifie if not to nullifie the authority of the Lords day so to exalt above or equal with it his Festivals which if there were no other crime is sufficient to stir the indignation of any truly Religious man Here he does it and again presently n. 17. and afterwards often as I shall note as I pass on But this he here asserts is most incongruous Rather the weekly-day was the foundation of the annual day For first it s said Christ rose on the first day of the week often and thereupon It was designed to be the Christian Sabbath or day of Assemblies but never is it said he rose upon such a day of the moneth or year 2. If the Lords weekly day was not first instituted how came the contest between the Churches whether Easter day should be observed on the Lords-day or on the Jewish day which might and did fall on any other day of the week Tradition sayes that Peter and Paul observed the Festival on the Lords day at Rome does not this suppose the Lords-day to be instituted before the Festival of Easter Saint John and Philip it s said kept it on the Jewish day how then could that be the foundation of the weekly day And let the Doctor remember that his Mother the Church of England as she includes Easter day among the Sundayes making it no otherwise an Holy-day so she founds the Lords-day not upon the annual day but upon the fourth Commandment When she commands this prayer to be said after it Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keep this Law But the Doctor will either prove or illustrate what he said As it is evident that the weekly Friday fasts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great fast on the day of Christs death in the Paschal week As if the fast on Good-friday were of equal antiquity or authority with the Lords-day or humane constitutions were to be a foundation for a Divine institution That the Apostles did expresly repeal those Feasts n. 14. p. 244 hath not he says the least degree of truth in it as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4.10 Let the Reader turn to the place p. 3. n. 2. and see what he saith to that text all is but this It is peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Feasts but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly Feast of Christs birth then to the weekly of the Resurrection Even from the beginning to the end of this account his designe is to slur the lustre of the Lords-day levelling it to his Festivals But first the Apostle speaks indefinitely against observation of days as religious Paulus praecepit sayes Hierom. all beside the Lords day which he had there also established as the day of collection and first of Assemblies for that collection supposes the day before designed instead of the old Sabbath as well at Galatia as among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 16.1 Now concerning the collection for the Saints as I have given order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordered ordained to the Churches of Galatia even so do ye upon the first day c. Here 's an Apostolical institution for collections on the Lords day and presupposes the day before appointed in both those Churches 2. It is no wayes probable that the Apostle would cry down Jewish Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost and set up the very same again at the same time as Christian Feasts as I said above If they were abolished as parts of Ceremonial-worship how scandalous might it have been to change onely the name nay the name was not changed in other Churches and set up other Feasts in their stead as parts of Christian Worship for so they would be esteemed if the Apostle had set them up or brought them in The sestimony of Socrates the Historian he eludes by a distinction
Hence the Apostle Rom. 12.2 laies it on all as a command Be ye transform'd in the renewing of your mind that you may prove what that perfect will of God is And Eph. 4.23 24. Be renewed in the spirit of your minde and put on that new man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which after God was created in righteousness and true holiness Which in Col. 3.10 he expresses thus Which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him that created him Implying that what is short of that Image that knowledge is short of that which the Gospel calls us to and consequently a sin contrary to the Doctor who says Though he arrive not at the highest degree The Law is satisfied with the lowest n. 6. n. 3. he is free from sin His latitude gives his disciples elbow-room enough in Religion and takes off their care of aspiring to higher degrees when the lowest is without sin But hear more in the second part of his distinction No man is bound now to be as prudent as Adam in his Integrity any more then to be as healthy any more then to be born in the state of innocency and perfection c. Strange confidence this 1. Is there no difference between a meer punishment and that which may be a sin as well as a punishment Does not he that sins did not Adam so deface the Image of God whereof prudence was a part as he that defiles himself defaces the Image of God that consisted in true Holiness and is not that a sin and is not that man bound to make reparation of that wrong in defacing the Image of God But sickness and diseases are meer punishments and so no man is bound to be as healthy as Adam was created And for innocence and perfection as well as prudence a man is bound to be as innocent and perfect as Adam though he cannot be born so being begotten of impure and defiled parents and for want thereof is born by nature the childe of wrath which supposes him sinful But this and the like assertions of mine p. 204. n. 4. he says Are nothing but an heap of paralogismes no one of the proofs belonging to the highest degree of mercy which should be inferred from them I had thought that perfection which Law and Gospel call for had intended the highest degree of piety and mercy but the Doctor hath found out a new kinde of perfection which hath a large latitude of degrees n. 5. of which more ere long Hear what he says here 1. The perfection of Holiness which the Law required was but either sincere and upright or at most but unsinning obedience and neither of these includes the highest degree of Piety which is possible The first part of this answer confounds Law Gospel The Law required not only sincerity and uprightness but also exact perfection of of parts and degrees Do this all this and do it well or die The Gospel is satisfied indeed with sincerity and uprightness pardoning what is not exactly done and accepting through Christ what is done but the Law knows no such Indulgence This he misdoubting helps it with another or at most but unfinning obedience But unfinning obedience includes both a conformity of nature to the Holiness of the Law and also the highest degree of piety possible He that comes short in a degree of Holiness which the Law requireth his Holiness is sinful and without mercy damnable Cursed is he that continueth not in all things c. Yea the highest degree of Piety if possible in a nature corrupted and inconformable to the Law is finning obedience and needs pardon This answer afore satisfies him not therefore he addes n. 6. If by the Law be meant the Covenant made with Adam in innocency then it 's true that the perfection which that required was unfinning obedience and if Adam had performed that yet he had been capable of higher degrees of Piety then that law required there being in unfinning obedience a latitude c. The Doctor is much beholden to his latitude and degrees of perfection c. But it 's proved already that unsinning obedience reaches to the least title of the Law and to the highest degree of Piety and then the cause is mine And as for Adams being capable of higher degrees of Piety upon his unfinning obedience that is that his state was a state of proficiency it comes presently to be considered in the next But I pray was not the sum of that Law To love and to serve the Lord with all his heart soul minde strength that is to the utmost of his possibility and then must he not needs sin if he came short or remitted his love in any of those circumstances Yet he says upon his former mistake That to those highest degrees the Law cannot be thought to binde when it is satisfied with the lowest all the superiour degrees being additions Which is certainly false For if Adam might have satisfied the Law with the lowest degrees of Piety he might have remitted of his love in the service of God contrary to that Law and besides might have merited as Papists say by going to those highest degrees beyond unfinning obedience and above what the Law did binde him to But this suits well with the Doctors uncommanded Worship and works of perfection above all commands Yet this the Doctor must gain or he loses his cause he therefore instances in frequency of prayer Adam says he might have exceeded any proportion which Gods Law required of him p. 7. p. 204. But what if I should say Adam needed not to pray at all as wanting nothing unless he would pray for perseverance but the Angels in Heaven need perseverance yet we read not that they pray for it But this may seem a paradox but not so unlikely as some of the Doctors I shall therefore wave it and desire to know of him what proportion of frequency in Prayer the Law required of him How many times a day c. this must be resolved before he could exceed that proportion I leave it with him and proceed 2. If Adam had never finned yet might his state he a state of proficiency and then the perfection required was not the highest degree of Piety c. The Antecedent is very uncertain that his state was a state of proficiency he was as perfect and complete in his kinde as his nature could hold as the Angels were it's probable as full of holiness at their creation as they are now and so the Saints after the day of Judgement as perfectly holy as to eternity no proficiency in grace that 's for viatores not for comprehensores And hence it 's evident that the highest degree of Piety was required of him and he had sinned by any lower contrary to the Doctors consequence 3. That Adam and his posterity should have been rewarded according to their works the Doctors third argument is true but that they should have had
Mark 12.31 mark that there is none greater then these If there had here was a fit time for Christ to have declared it Then it follows that Christ added no new Commandments to the old and so nor did nor could perfect the Law 3. The Law of Moses commanded perfect obedience ergo it self was perfect the antecedent is thus proved if the Law required not perfect obedience then there was some degree of disobedience which was no sin for where no Law no transgression but no degree of disobedience but it is a sin 2. The Law set God for the pattern of holiness Levit. 11.44 So and no more does the Gospel Matth. 5. last 1 Pet. 1.15 16. This was cited by me but waved by the Doctor 4. If Christ in that Sermon require nothing which was not required by * Gloss Nisi abundaverit referendum est ad intellectum Pharisaeorum non ad continentiam veteris Testamenti Aug. contr Faust poenem enim omnia quae monuit vel praecepit Dominus inveniuntur in illis veteribus libris Aquin. in locum Moses and the Prophets but the very same then he came not to perfect the Law but confirm it by a true exposition of it The consequence is clear the Antecedent is proved by the particulars in every Commandment which they call additions but are but explanations of the true extent of the Law As rash anger reproachful terms of Racha fool c. spoken by way of contmpt and revenge to vex and fret a brother as the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in loc If the Law cut off the branch much more the root root or degrees to murther tending to death c. are forbidden in the Old Testament and blamed as â—…s So the lustings of the eyes or heart are often forbidden to say nothing to the third Commandment So love of enemies doing good to them c. are required by Moses and the Prophets and practised by holy men in those times as a degree to that perfection which the Law called for So those virtues of Spiritual Poverty Mourning Meekness and the rest are commanded and commended in the Old Testament as conformities to the Law ergo no new Laws nor higher perfections in the Gospel These and many other arguments are used by our Divines against Papists and Socinians in this point I leave them to the Doctors consideration and proceed to what now follows And that is another heterodox assertion p 2â—7 n. 47 Acquireable perfection may be and some degrees of it is under precept but unacquireable perfection is not Christs easie yoke is not now made up to us of impossible precepts Now he knows 1. That our Divines maintain there is no perfection acquireable in this life against Papists c. 2. That I have said and proved there are no degrees in but towards perfection 3. That it 's also proved the highest perfection is under precept and none above it 4. Then it follows that unacquireable perfection is under precept 5. Christs yoke is not therefore said to be easie because it is not made up of impossible precepts or made up of possible precepts for so it is not absolutely true even Christs precepts some of them are in themselves impossible with respect to our present weakness But it 's said to be easie because what is not or cannot be done is pardoned and what is done in sincerity is kindly accepted Now that unacquireable perfection is under precept and that Christs yoke is made up of impossible precepts to us I prove by this one argument To love the Lord our God with all our heart soul minde strength is a precept of Christs as well as of Moses but this perfection is to us impossible in this life and unacquireable say all Orthodox Divines ergo Yet here the Doctor goes on to assert That * Universal charity was granted not acquireable in this life n. 34 35. But Universal purity is the same with that and confessed under precept here n. 48. p. 217 universal purity is now more severely required of all Christians in an higher degree then it had been under the Jewish oeconomy Though I am not of his mind in this the same universal purity being always required by the Law though Christians have more grace and stronger motives to endevour it yet I shall make some use of it and tell him that there is no higher perfection to be found then an universal purity which is onely to be had in heaven and this being as he sayes under evangelical precept I cannot but wonder where he will finde higher degrees of those and other Christian virtues which are above universal purity which is under precept why thus he says Christ came to perfect the Law so he might do and yet leave some degrees of mercy c. free and not under precept See but the progress of this discourse the Law required perfect obedience but yet left some degrees free The Gospel that requires higher perfection then the Law even the highest acquireable universal purity Is not this enough No then come the Papists and the learned Doctor and tell us of many degrees of perfection above all Law and Gospel commands Oh proud nature whither wilt thou clime these men think it below them to aspire to do their duty onely to arrive at commanded perfection * Because they would not have their piety restrained within those narrower bounds c. Fest sect 28. unless they may clime above the very Angels Seraphims and Cherubims who content themselves with commanded obedience and perfection and do much more then is commanded and make God himself to be in their debt for greater acceptance and reward But if Christ hath perfected the the Law p. 218. n. 49 See p. 177. n. 13. and given new precepts of higher perfection how can it be said that Christs is an * The liberty consists in taking off not imposing weights easier yoke then that of the Law and not rather heavier Those three wayes noted by him will not serve the turn first The taking off the burthen of Ceremonies 2. The taking away the damning power of the least sin 3. In giving greater strength for the second the taking of the damning power of the least sin was common to the believing Jews with Christians and to unbelieving Christians the least fin is now as damning as then and so the yoke is as heavy as it was to them For the first the taking of the burthen of Ceremonies is no great ease for if Christ hath set the moral Law to an higher pitch of perfection and Universal purity is more severely required of all Christians in an higher degree then under the Jewish oeconomy as the Doctor newly asserted n. 47. And if Christ hath put some things under precept which were not under precept by Moses Law I shall add his own words p. 218. n. 49 In this one respect there lies more weight on a Christian then
addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above their power as if they gave more then they were able to spare this is a strain of the text yet three times used by the Doctor Once here exemplarily liberal above what they were well able to do And again n. 8. Willingly liberal above their power And once more p. 206. n. 12. Liberall of their own accord above their power But the words in the Original import no such thing that they were liberal much less liberal above their power but thus they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which Beza and we in English translate thus For to their power I bear record yea and beyond their power they were willing of themselves praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift c. They were willing to their power yea and beyond their power that is their will was greater then their power and beyond their power But the Dr. would have us believe they were liberal above their power and gave more then they were able which as it is a kind of contradiction so it is against the rule of Charity which all say begins at home Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self not above thy self that 's an excess in Charity But this gloss fits the Doctors opinion well that Free-will-offerings are under no command and so under no Rule But come to his answers to me I said it was answered in part by what was said afore It is not the question which is of Worship not of actions of civil life He sayes first p. 192. n. â—… An answer in part is no satisfactory answer and so this needs not to be considered But if I had listed to stand upon it this was a full answer when it was quite beside the question 2. He sayes There is a parity of reason from one act of Christian performance to another Mark how he waves the question by putting in performance instead of Worship There is no parity of reason from an act of Charity a civil performance to an act of Worship a Religious performance What ever there may be in Alms there may be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somewhat of Worship above the Law yet the Doctor sayes There may by Analogy be the same in matters of Christian Worship as in matter of charity which is one principal ground of his so many mistakes 3. But then another evasion This of works of mercy is generally defined to be in a Christian performance how warily an act of Worship set in the front of such Matt. 6.1 * See infr p. 195. n. 11 That rule seems to have a propriety to that particular time and is not a rule for all other times appointed to be exercised on the Lords day as a work of the day 1 Cor. 16.2 stiled by Paul a Sacrifice Phil. 4.18 c. But first why in a Christian performance is not an act of mercy by an Heathen an act of Worship as well as by a Christian 2. A good man a Christian is merciful to his beast is that also an act of Worship 3. Is the work of mercy Matth. 6.7 an act of Worship because it is set in the front of such why he knows that Protestants deny Fasting which is one of them to be a part of Worship but an help or circumstance of worship yet that is nearer to worship then works of mercy 4. Appointed to be exercised on the Lords day but is it not a work of any day as well 5. Stiled a Sacrifice but sure not properly but allusively as an imperate act of Piety not elicite as was said above what 's this but a Chaos of confusion to jumble the two Tables together Worship and Charity 6. But to remove all scruple he wishes that after the custome of the primitive Apostolick Church this Alms be presented to God in the Sacrament and then as certainly it will be a branch of Christian Worship and his instance shall be set to that c. But this is as weak as the former no act of Charity when ever or how ever done can properly be a branch of Worship unless he will confound the two Tables of the Law He said before it was a work of the Lords day why may not the Day as well as the Sacrament make it a branch or an act of Worship I hope all acts of mercy on the Sabbath watering a beast or pulling him out of a pit yea or visiting the sick is not thereby made an act or branch of Worship especially when that Time it self is by the Doctor made but a circumstance of Worship And now we proceed to the next To my further answers he replies first p. 193. n. 5. The question is certainly this whether ceremonies and festivals in a Church are criminous if they be not commanded by God No his conscience can tell him this is his grand and gross mistake the question is of Will-worship like to the Free-will-offerings which were parts or degrees of commanded Worship which his Ceremonies and Festivals are here again denied to be and called circumstances not acts of Worship But his alms were in the last number made certainly branches of Worship sacrifices acts of Worship What interfeering is here 2. The reason is the same of circumstances and degrees if then uncommanded degrees may be lawful uncommanded circumstances must be lawful also Still the former mistake that there is the same reason of circumstances and degrees of Worship when as degrees of Worship such were those Free-will-offerings were Worship acts and branches of Worship but so are not circumstances 3. The next is founded on the same mistakes that either alms is a branch of Worship or that there is the same reason for Worship and for Charity both which are denied and disproved 4. The same answer may serve to this Worship and Charity are ill compared But I adde the degrees of alms are generally commanded with respect to mens abilities and opportunities but so are not his Will-worship The utmost degree of mercy in those cases is not uncommanded though it cannot easily be defined for it must be resolved by abilities and necessities which is not easie to determine either how much I am bound to give without defect without excess or what is the necessity of the receiver of it as I must give according to my ability wherein we are apt to deceive our selves so I must not give to the prejudice of my self or family or others that need which yet is sometime done for vain-glory and hope to merit by Papists and others The horns of his Dilemma are easily broken n. 7. p. 194. or turn'd against the wall I say 1. His Will-worships for which he pleads uncommanded Worship are under no command to be done but under prohibition not to be done 2. I think there is no high degree of mercy not the highest that he will pitch on but it is commanded in cases aforesaid the mercy it self is under a special
command the degree under a general As God hath prospered a man as opportunity is offered by necessities of the poor c. But the Doctor is still dreaming of acts of Piety and Charity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above any command of which more ere long 3. I said by the Doctors grant a man may offend in his Charity in excess in defect then there is a middle rule which binds men from both the extremes which resolv'd on makes it a debt and so no Free-will-offering p. 194. n. 8. He replies He prevented that by setting the instance of a proportion exceeding that which is defined a duty But this begs the question that it may easily be determined what is the utmost that we are bound to do the maximum or the minimum quod sic which must be determined by circumstances as afore and that very hardly Let himself tell us his mind in this The truth is such a middle rule cannot be produced n. 9. Then say I he cannot set a proportion exceeding that which cannot be defined a duty It cannot be done but by particular circumstances which require great wisdom and judgement But sayes he If that which is done be more then that which we are bound to it cannot transgress in the defect So if we give less then we are bound to it cannot transgress in the excess yet both defect and excess in vertues are faulty And I pray If a man give more then he ought is it not an excess if less then he ought is it not a defect Did he not say It 's possible in Charity to offend both wayes But that cannot be if it be impossible there should be any excess as he expresly says in giving more then we are bound to Is not Charity a Virtue standing in the midst between two extreams Then any deviction on either side is strictly considered sinful Peccare est tanquam transilere lineam said he Yet sayes he There is an allowance in the New Testament of selling all and giving to the poor Acts 4. He might as well have said there is a command of Christ himself to the young man To sell all and give it to the poor and a promise annexed But then it had been a duty and no Free-will-offering which would not have fitted the Doctors design Sure there was something extraordinary in that Acts 4. Either some special motion of the Spirit or some present exigences of the Church or honour of the Gospel that caused that Charity for we read of none that after that time or the like ever did follow them till the Papists and such like took it up whom whether the Doctor will justifie or no I know not if he would undertake it I believe he cannot prove it If then they had a special call it was a duty and no Free-will-offering But supposing the middle rule cannot be produced as he said n. 9. he will make a double use of it 1. If it cannot then is this an evident proof that there are no such middle points the variation from which is alwayes criminous This is some of the Doctors new Divinity and Morality do not his Ethicks tell him that Virtue is the middle betwixt two extreams How can he know when he exercises a vertue if there be no such middle point And in Divinitie does our ignorance that cannot easily settle the middle excuse us from crime if we miss it But worse still 2. If it cannot easily be done by every man for himself or by the teacher for all then still it is evident that this obligation is not Universally revealed and so no duty Universally obligatory This is right the Doctor How gentle a Confessor and easie a Casuist would the Doctor be If it be not easily known when we sin who can understand his errors we are exempted from duty in obeying such commands such as are ignorant are not obliged by them Because we cannot do an act of vertue without defect or excess does not the command of God bind us to avoid both If ignorance would excuse men would affect it to free themselves from duty But though it be hard it 's possible to find that middle point Adam in innocencie could finde it if he could as well have kept it and our blessed Saviour did both finde and keep it and hath revealed enough for us to finde it if we had but will or grace to seek it And the truth is it 's easier for us to finde it then to keep it when we have found it Strange it is to me that the Doctor should say p. 195. n. 10 There is no ground in the Gospel for defining or to determine the middle rule which constitutes a debt The Gospel and law both presuppose that middle rule when they say Turn not to the right hand nor the left let thine eyes look strait forward make strait steps to your feet walke exactly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go to the pitch of the rule c. But then he will evade by another loop-hole The truth is that this middle rule consists not in an indivisible point but in a latitude wherein there are many degrees but all within the rule of allowance though not of precept c. This cannot be true in the rigor of the Law of which we speak for we speak of things under or not under command The Law requires exact obedience to the middle point of perfection and knows of no latitude of degrees or of any allowance but do this and live or not and die Cursed is he that continueth not in all things c. Allowance is a priviledge of the Gospel which gives a latitude of acceptance of what we can do and pardons what we cannot do but that very pardon and allowance argues inconformity to the Law and so a duty or debt not performed or payed which argues again it was within the rule of precept as well as under the rule of allowance And if as here again it 's said a man may be too parsimonious on the one side or prodigal on the other and go to far both these are breaches of the rule But if neither the Doctor nor his Scholler can finde this middle rule this strait line let not their ignorance hope to escape and make sins no sins because they cannot tell when they are beside the line True it is n. 11. that every degree doth not binde every man so as to make that degree a debt or duty in that man But the reason is not because there is a latitude of vertue in the Law but because every man hath not the same abilities or opportunities to shew mercy He knows there are laws that bind some men that bind not others the rich charge them that are rich to be rich in good works c. not the poor c. but those abilities and opportunities supposed the highest degree pro hic nunc is to them under precept and so a duty And he knows also
evident the Papists and the Doctor with them do not esteem them opera non mala but bona good yea better then works commanded and also make them virtues highest virtues and most acceptable and rewardable Now that there are no such Counsels or Vertues above the command of God I thus shall prove 1. Every proper vertue acted is an act of obedience But vertues above command acted are no acts of obedience ergo The Minor is evident thus Every act of obedience presupposes a command for obedience and a command are relata therefore without a command there can be no obedience The Major is proved thus every vertue acted presupposes a Rule to which it holds conformity but conformity to a Rule is an act of obedience and consequently not above command 2. There is no vertue but hath it's opposite vices It 's the nature of vertue to stand in the midst between two extremes But Counsels or Vertues above command have no opposite vices in the excess or defect Not an excess for they are the highest perfections not a defect because there is no prohibition of neglect or omission of it and so the neglect or transgression of them is no sin and then no vice in the defect See p. 93. n. 4. So the say neglect of a Counsel is no sin 3. If there be any virtue above command then there is some vice under no prohibition of the Law The consequence is good for there is parratio of vice and vertue But there is no vice or sin below and not under a prohibition of the Law This is clear from the definition of sin which is a transgression or inconformity to the Law Yet I remember the Doctor above quarrell'd with them that reduced all sins to the Law of the Decalogue Sure every fault or vice must be a transgression of the Law p. 222. n. 3. It may be upon design that if there be any sins not reducible to the Law he might introduce also some virtues not reducible to the Law that is above command And I adde if sin or vice be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies not so much a transgression as an inconformity to the Rule of the Law then every vertue must be a conformity to some Law which may be added to strengthen the first argument 4. That which is under no Law precept or prohibition is a thing left indifferent Now to do a thing indifferent is not capable of praise or neglect it of dispraise of reward or punishment But the doing of a Counsel say they is very commendable yea rewardable as the highest vertue or perfection therefore it is no thing indifferent and then it must be under command or prohibition which is a contradiction to their assertion that these vertues are under no command More might be added but these may suffice at present Quest 2. Whether there be any perfection above command This depends upon the former and stands or falls with it for the perfection the Doctor means is of vertues above command or in his own words uncommanded degrees of vertue And here the Doctor must hold out a new coin'd distinction of perfection of virtues under the Law and perfection of virtues above the Law for so he does in effect when he says A man may come to the perfection which the Law requires and yet come short or go beyond it to an higher degree of perfection in uncommanded degrees of virtues Nay more The latitude of vertues under command is so large like the distance between the Tropicks that a man may tumble up down arrive at the least degree of perfection required by the Law be yet more perfect if he arrive at an higher degree not commanded by the Law though which is a contradiction under the command of the Law This may be gathered from n. 10 11. by his eight degrees of perfection and the fractions in every degree Let the Reader turn back and consider if it be not so But besides this there are degrees of perfection beyond the Tropicks in uncommanded vertues above the Law I know not how many and those we now are to consider One or two Arguments may suffice to ruine this opinion 1. If there be no virtues above command then there is no perfection above command The consequence is clear because the Doctor by perfection here understands uncommanded virtues or above command The Antecedent is proved by four arguments to the former question ergo 2. If the Law be the absolute and onely Rule of perfection then there can be no perfection above command But the first is true Psal 19.7 Jam. 1.25 The consequence is evident and needs no proof The Doctor then must finde out some distinctions to evade this either first That of Papists There is a two-fold perfection first perfect according to the Law or imperfect sutable to our frailty Which seems a contradiction in adjecto an imperfect perfection yet so they speak 2. That of his own Perfection is capable of a double notion either it may signifie unsinning obedience or any higher degree of exercise of any particular vertue chastity mercy c. Of which more when we come at it p. 214. n. 37. Onely saying now that these distinctions are almost the same with that of our Divines that perfection is either legal which is properly perfection or Evangelical improperly called so by Divine indulgence and acceptance But this will stand him in no stead here the question being whether there be any perfection above command above the Law not whether there be any other perfection in the Gospel above the Law And this would have fitted the Doctor better who holds that Christ hath perfected the Law and brought in an higher degree of perfection then was required by the Law as we shall hear ere long in this sense he might say there is a perfection above the Law that is in the Gospel but this is not to the purpose for even that perfection is under the command of Christ and so not above command 3. Adde this one argument more that which is under obligation on men to do is not above but under some command the reason and proof of this is because obligation to do any thing supposes a command But the most Heroical vertues or works are under obligation to be done This is proved thus those works which are done by some special gift and strength from God are co nomine under some obligation to be done but those high works are done by some special gift and strength from God and cannot be done without it The Minor is evident and needs no proof the Major is proved by that maxime universal of our Saviour To whomsoever much is given of him much is required and to whom men have committed much of him they will ask the more Luke 12.48 But to those heroical workers much and more is given therefore much and more will be required and so they are not above command For
but repentance sincere not perfect obedience But here are many misadventures 1. The Catechist told us The Judaical law did represent to us the first covenant by requiring perfect obedience and pronouncing a curse upon him that continued not in all things c. Pract. Cat. p. 8. this is now contradicted 2. This Law Mosaical the moral Law is still in force to unbelieving and impenitent Christians they are still under the Law and under the curse though it should not be in force with faithful and penitent ones 3. But even faithful Christians and penitent are under the Law as it is a Rule of righteousness though not as the first covenant or else the Doctor must turn Antinomian 4. Nor is it Orthodox to say the covenant of grace or the Law in the hand of a Mediator required not innocence but repentance I◠requires both though it is contented with repentance and the Law as the first Covenant required sincere as well as perfect obedience and the Gospel requires no less The very Gospel requires perfect obedience the Doctor says perfecter as well as the Law 2 Cor. 7.1 but then the rigor of forfeiture in failing is by anothers perfect righteousness abated there 's mercy concerning this which the Law knew not of No repentance would serve there But he says secondly It cannot be said that the Law is the Rule of Evangelical righteousness i. e. of that righteousness whereby believers are now said to be justified Here are more mistakes for Evangelical righteousness is two-fold or hath two parts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rev. 19.8 1. The righteousness of Justification and so the Law is not the Rule of Evangelical righteousness but Faith or the Law of Faith as it 's called Rom. 3.27 2. The righteousness of Sanctification and so the Law ever was and will be the Rule of Evangelical righteousness And I cannot but wonder that the Doctor should deny the Law to be the Rule of Evangelical righteousness that is by which believers are justified * Not separating faithful actions or acts of faith from faith or the Condition of justification c. at least in part who makes the condition of the new Covenant to be not onely Faith but Obedience and all other graces required by the Law even to Justification Pract. Cat. p. 28. But that by the way The second thing I objected was That the Orthodox maintain the Law to be perfect or the eternal Rule of righteousness against the Church of Rome This he shakes off n. 45. by saying It is but a contention of words that the Diatribist it seems and some others have espoused against I know not what adversaries Sure the Doctor is not so little seen in our Controversies as not to know that this is one point of difference between the Romanists and us concerning the Law that they put imperfection upon it and ours maintain it to be the most perfect Rule of moral righteousness The first difference that Bellarm. puts between the Law and Gospel is this Lex operum est doctrina inchoata Evangelium perfecta But we need not go so far to finde an adversary that hath espoused this quarrel It is the learned D. H. Who was charged by me for compliance with them of Rome in charging the Law with imperfection This he made my third misadventure and he undertakes to maintain it against the Orthodox n. 46. p. 216. saying 'T is evident in that place of the Catech. p. 94. that first The words of Christ that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill up the vacuities of the Mosaical Law 2. The many express examples of his doing so in Matth. 5. his additions to the Law It was said of old but I say unto you 3. The uniform suffrage of all antiquity was the ground whereon he built his affirmation c. Here I must confess I had a strong temptation to use the Doctors language to undertake the examination of that part of his Catech. p. 92. to p. 95. but that I am loath to swell my discourse into a volume to the burthen of the Reader and trouble of the Printer for it deserves as many other passages in that book do some consideration The Doctor herein palpably concurring not only with Papists in this exposition excepting but that they make some of those additions Counsels not all precepts as he does and professing he should never disclaim the doctrine upon that account c. but with Socinians also in making Christ a Law-giver and not an expositor of the Law and prescribing a new way of salvation from that of the Law not in regard of Justification by faith in Christ for so it may be called a new way in opposition to that of the Law but this they deny but in regard of the observation of those new precepts or Laws which Christ they say makes the way to salvation And the Doctor does little less making obedience to the Gospel precepts to be in part the condition of Justification as they do as was touched above I shall at present onely speak something to the third particular grounds of his Affirmation That the Law was imperfect and had before some vacuities which now are * Christ meant to heighten that which was imperfect Qu. of Bapt. Inf. s 4. Requiring what the Law had not required and so the adding more to it p. 217. n. 48. filled up by Christ The first was the words of Christ that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill up the vacuities of the Mosaical Law But this looks like a fallacy called petitio principii which he asserts but proves not abusing his Reader with ambiguity of words For he confesses Catech. p. 93. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies two things Either to fulfil and perform or to fill up and perfect and is rendered sometimes by one sometime by another Why then does he so poorly beg the latter sense when it may as rationally be read to performe or fulfil As 1. Take the Law for the Moral Law onely Christ came not to destroy that neither by Doctrine nor Practice but to fulfil it otherwise he had not been a sinless perfect Saviour 2. If the Ceremoniall Law was also intended that also was fulfilled by Christ both in his observation of it strictly as occasion was and also in bringing in the substance of those Ceremonies 3. The * That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets frequently Prophets are also mentioned Now whether it be meant of their Doctrinal Interpretations of the Law or their prophesies of Christ both wayes Christ came to fulfill the words of the Prophets but in no good sense to perfect or fill up their vacuities But again take the word to signifie to perfect or fill up that may have a double sense 1. To * Non veni solvere sed ad implere his viz. additamentis quae vel ad expositionem pertinent antiquarum sententiarum vel
ad conversationem in eis Aquin. in loc ex Aug. cont Faust perfect or fill up the full sense of the Law and Prophets which the Pharisees had evacuated and voided by their jejune and empty glosses of the Law and Prophets and thus all Orthodox Moderne Divines understand it 2. Or to fill up the vacuities and to perfect the Imperfections of the Law and Prophets which is the gloss indeed of some Fathers the Greek especially who follow one another for the most part and of most Papists And why the Doctor should follow them having so many other senses Orthodox and refuse the senses of the Modern Protestants I know not but that he loves to run cross to our own and chuses often to follow the Ancients as the then Pharisees did their Ancestors into error rather then to speak truth with ours The second ground was the many express examples of his so doing in that fifth of Matth. his additions to the Law in so many particulars introduced with It was said of old But I say unto you But this ground is as unsound and fallacious as the former taking it for granted that those words you have heard it was said by or to them of old time signifie you have been taught and that out of the word of God or books of Moses which is the very question now in hand whether it do not rather signifie * Matt. 5.20 Imports he spake of the corrupt glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees except c. compared with the former and following verse you have heard it was said by them of old time the Pharisees and Scribes your Rabbies or said by them to your Ancestors for the Pharisees were of some long standing before our Saviours time They said thus and thus corrupting the sense of the Law but I say unto you this is the true sense of those Laws c. as the instances do make it appear Concerning the third Thou shalt not forswear thy self it is vindicated above ad p. 43. I shall clear the other two from his gloss not to be directly meant of the word of God or books of Moses but as perverted by the glosses of the Pharisees The first is evident thus it carries their gloss with it Thou shalt not kill and whosoever killeth shall be in danger of the judgement Now the first part is the Law of God by Moses there is no question of that but of the sense of it which they made onely to be actual murther as our Saviours Interpretation of it doth import and the punishment onely to be temporal death by the Judges Whereas our Saviour makes lesser degrees of murther guilty of eternal death But it 's worth the while to consider what the Doctor understands by killing in this Law 1. Pract. cat p. 99. 101. The principal thing is the shedding of mans blood 2. By way of reduction other things which are preparatory to that as 1. Mutilating 2. Wounding 3. Entring and accepting of Duels 4. Oppression of the poor 5. The beginnings of this sin in the heart malice hatred cursing c. all these reducible to this Commandment as it was given in the Law But if the Law prohibited these sure the Pharisees did not think nor teach it so And then Christ was an Expositor and not a Law giver and if malice and hatred were reducible hither as preparatories to murther why not rash anger and calling Racha or fool which are also degrees and preparatories to the main sin Yea these were expresly forbidden or condemned by Moses and the Prophets as were easie to instance and ergo Christ doth not give new precepts but expounds the old Law and vindicates it from their false glosses The like may be said of the seventh Commandment which they glossed onely of the outward act of adultery when as our Saviour shews Prov. 6.25 23.33 the Law extended to the lustings of the heart which are clearly forbidden in the Old Testament The third ground of his affirmation was the concurrence of some Greek Fathers in this gloss who in this as in other things not a few were confessedly mistaken and in other things rejected by the Doctor himself though herein embraced by him in opposition to Calvin as some Papists have acknowledged some interpretations of Scripture to be more proper and genuine but yet reject them because they hate Calvin who was of that opinion The arguments whereupon the Fathers built their Interpretation are of no strength 1. Because Christ under the Gospel gives either higher or plainer promises then he did before eternal life as those of a temporal Canaan As for plainer it may be granted but that makes no difference in the Law the Jewes being under clouds and shadows Christians in the Sun-shine And for higher there could be none higher then eternal life and glory and that was promised in the Law and Prophets onely not so cleerly and frequently as in the Gospel 2. Because he gives more grace to perform them then before he had done To this I would say 1. This makes no difference but rather seemes to imply that the precepts were the very same there was onely less grace dispensed to perform them 2. If he do give more grace yet if he lay higher precepts of greater perfection then the Law required a less strength to a lesser burthen might do as well as a greater to a greater yea no doubt some of the Saints under the old dispensation did perform them as exactly as any under the new then either grace was the same to both or the Law equally perfect to either They did I say perform those very duties which he says are required by Christs new precepts as exactly as any under the Gospel dispensation But the Doctor will perhaps evade or avoid this by saying as he does These were above that which the Law required and so were works of Counsels or supererogation more acceptable and more rewardable not necessary before Christ advanced and perfected the Law But though it concerned the Doctor rather to confirm his Affirmation which he hath not done in his Catech. or here then me to prove a Negative yet I shall propound an argument or two for my opinion That Christ did not give new Laws or perfect the old as being imperfect before but onely reduced the Law corrupted by the Pharisees to it 's true and genuine sense Or which will come all to one That the Law is in it self perfect without imperfection and consequently needed no Additions of Perfection 1. The Old Testament every where pronounces the Law to be perfect Psalm 19.7 Psalm 119.96 2. The sum of the Law and the highest degree of perfection is the same with that given by Christ in the Gospel Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart c. and thy neighbour as thy self * Ver. 33. This is more then all whole burnt-offerings sacrifices all Freewill-offerings there is none other Commandment greater then these
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 onely 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 onely 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 onely of perfect love 2. Love of God in Christ was perfect not onely 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 Sect. 50 c. And this makes way for another and the last objection c. WE are now drawing to an end of our second Diatribe of Will-worship and the matter is to consider how the Doctor will wash his doctrine from compliance with Romish Supererogation to which end he professes well in words rectifying and applauding Cyprians sentence p. 224. n. 2. That none of the most heroical workers ever thought their master beholden to them n. 3. And that it is infinite mercy that any the most excellent work of ours is rewardable with him and that for two or three very good reasons And yet there will appear but little difference between his Principles and theirs First he put a difference between doing more then is commanded and doing something which is not commanded I said he that does something not commanded does also more then is commanded and so they are in that sense both one and the Romanists do not suppose that he that hath done more then is commanded hath done all that is commanded to set their Supererogation upon Then it will follow that he and they agree in this principle That Superogation is founded upon doing something not commanded which he makes evident by a second distinction To Supererogate supposes either that the person hath paid God all that is due to him that is hath never sinned which is the same said I with the first part of the former distinction that he hath done all that is commanded which the Romanists do not own Or that having sinned and so become a debter he hath paid that debt by satisfaction by doing something else which may satisfie God for his sin That is said I by doing something not commanded In this latter he placed the Romanists opinion Now this principle is his as well as theirs A man may do something not commanded This he hath often asserted and expresly here below n. 12. I affirm it possible for a Christian to do something which is not commanded him The sense whereof we shall consider n. 5. p. 225. when we come at it But hear what he says here I yield that the Romanist is not so gross as to affirm him that Supererogates not to