true onely of things in the second Table but not of worship in the first for there All worship is unlawful that is not commanded He blames the practice of Casuists in reducing all sins to some of the ten Commandments of the Decalogue here and all not commanded is forbidden And his reason added to that proposition Else there were no universal truth in that Maxime that sin is the transgression of the Law will twice rebound upon himself 1. That he himself hath shaken the universal truth of that Maxime in this very Section pag. 35. n. 11. I leave it to prudent consideration what necessity there is that all Lawes natural and positive Divine should be reduced to one or more of the ten Commandments If no necessity of this certainly there may be some sins which are no transgressions of the Law of the Decalogue for of that the Apostle spake but of that by and by 2. The next concernment is his He sayes uncommanded worship is forbidden and so a transgression of some Law by what Law of the Decalogue is the question which will come presently into consideration p. 34. n. 8. But as for those sayings of some of the Ancients That some men do exceed commands It unseasonably comes in here and we shall meet with it hereafter All I say at present is this 1. That they must be understood to mean it of particular not the general command of loving God with all the heart and strength or 2. Of commands of the second Table not commands of the first or 3. Of some Circumstances of worship not worship it self worship not commanded for then the Doctor himself would oppose them as Adders of New worship And therefore this Instance is far from conviction of what he was to prove My first proof of his contradiction in adjecto n. 10. was this It 's expresly against the 2. Commandment which forbids all worship not expresly commanded by God I must to use the Doctors words here not complain of my eyes because they are the best that God hath given me but I am sure the second repetition of expresly is not to be seen in my words But let him put it in if it may give him any advantage For I think he will not deny the latter part that God forbids all worship not expresly commanded by himself It is the former that he quarrels That uncommanded worship is expresly forbidden in the second Commandment The word expresly was added with respect to the Judgement of our most and best reformed Divines who understand the second Commandment in the Affirmative part thus God must be worshipped with his own prescribed worship the Negative whereof is All unprescribed uncommanded worship is forbidden Little did I dream of the Doctors Gloss of the second Commandment which is purely his own for ought I ever read or heard of which by and by For he sayes What is expresly against the second Commandment should oppose some express words in it If it oppose the express or truely expressed sense of it methinks it should be sufficient Let 's try that his words are these My Optick glass will not afford me any such prospect in the second Commandment What prospect does it afford him All sorts of graven Images and such like but for all kindes and Circumstances of worship nothing First kindes and Circumstances of worship are ill coupled together for Circumstances are no where forbidden in any Commandment but kindes are surely forbidden in some Commandment 2. When he sayes All sort of Images and such like He might have seen all kindes of worship like unto Images the imaginations of men there forbidden had his Optick glass been made of the same Christal that other Divines are And I wonder how at first view he espied such like there when as at his second review See p. 43. n. 4. Append. on 2. Commandment he saw no more but a prohibition of Idol-worship p. 44. n. 8. Yet in a former view saw cleerly this truth That God must be worshipped in a manner peculiar to him and appointed by him And yet more The very use of any other thing in the service of God which is by others worshipped and by which we are in any eminent danger to be corrupted as we are by any new devised worship is to be conceived to be forbidden to all Christians by the force of that second Commandment And yet hear how he concludes this Number As for any general comprehensive phrase that can rationally contain a prohibition of all worship Sir which is not commanded I can say no more but that the first verse of Genesis or any other in the Bible hath as much of this to my eye as the second Commandment What a vast difference there is between an eye calm and clear and the same eye overdrawn with a cataract of prejudice What other men see in the second Commandment we shall hear anon We now go on The Doctor hath spied by his Optick glass something more then other men do or can see the cause of my mistake in this matter It is p. 35. n. 11. the solemn practise of some Casuists to reduce all sins in the world to some or other of the Commandments of the Decalogue wherin I am not sure that they have aim'd aright c. Truly I must profess that I have believed since I knew the Commandments and what sin is that all sins are reducible to some or other of the Commandments of the Decalogue Sin sayes Saint John is the transgression of the Law which the Doctor calls an universal Maxime above and if it be not some way a transgression of that law it is no sin So here 's another contradiction in adjecto to say a thing is a sin and no transgression of the Law Herein the Doctor is singular again and runs gross to all Divines that I know of but not without a shew of reason For separate gluttony and drunkenness as they may and yet be sins from some accidentall consequences of them and you will hardly tell whether to reduce the Intemperate use of the Creature This is pretry untempered mortar for first those sins of gluttony and drunkenness cannot be separated from some accidental ill consequences or other wasting of health is but one of them Yet he sayes they may 2. It is an old Rule in interpreting the Commandments That where any sin is forbidden all the causes effects degrees c. are forbidden with it But the Doctor regards no such old Rules 3. Though it be hard to which Commandment directly to reduce some sins yet it 's possible and easie upon the former Rule to reduce some sins to many Commandments As ergo drunkenness and gluttony as they are means to self-murther and murther of others sometimes are reducible to the sixth Commandment As Incentives of lust to the seventh As wasters of a mans estate to the eighth And some say The Intemperate use of the Creatures is reducible
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
this we have the Doctors own concession Whatsoever degree of perfection either by doing or suffering we can aspire to it is still the work of Gods good grace and strength in us for what hast thou which thou hast not received and then what place for glorying p. 224. n. 3. Let him consider how he will reconcile himself to himself who above allowed of boasting ad p. 185. n. 5. 6. Quest 3. Whether any perfection at all in this life This is also taken for granted by the Doctor but never proved but our Divines generally deny it and oppose Papists who affirm it They say There is no perfection in this life but onely in that to come when God shall be all in all It may be said in this our peregrination some are more perfect then others or rather more truly and properly more or less imperfect as there is a progression in the love of God and our neighbour under which heads is contained what ever perfection can be propounded to any man to which all Christians are to aspire but cannot attain it here And this the Doctor dare not deny or if he should may easily be refuted first by Scripture Who liveth and sinneth not If we say we have no sin we sin by lying And secondly by reason from Scripture If in many things we sin all then we reach not to the Rule of perfection the Law 3. The reason of it is we know but in part and believe but in part and so practice but in part 4. Saint Paul as high toward perfection as any man denies it of himself Phil. 3 12. Not as though I were already perfect If the Doctor shall say as he will anon he means it not of unfinning perfection of the Law he must be told again he varies and deserts the question which is of perfection above command which is above the Law Quest 4. Whether any degrees of perfection A man would think this were reasonably denied there are degrees toward perfection but perfection it self knows no degrees yea degrees to perfection and progress in grace to which the best are exhorted argues Imperfection but here the Doctor will fly to his Latitude and degrees of vertues to which enough hath been said already Quest 5. Whether Virginity voluntary Martyrdome c. be vertues or states of perfection The Doctor speaking of uncommanded degrees of vertues expresses it in four particulars p. 210. n. 27. Virginity Austerities abundant Laborings and Martyrdom it self For the first of those the Doctor should have told us what he intends by it whether he mean chastity for so Papists do as if there were no Chastity in Marriage or Caelibate and single life If he take Virginity for Chastity that 's an improper instance for it 's under command and he is speaking of uncommanded vertues He must then understand it of single life or an unmarried state which I gather because he speaks of undertaking those courses be it of Virginity c. and elsewhere says It is not commanded but looked on as the greatest degree of perfection I wonder he did not except Martyrdome for reasons which he knows but let it pass Take it then for single life I would make bold to ask how is single life a vertue and if it be is not Marriage a vertue too they are but differing states of life Gerson says Doctor Hall hath taught us not to call Virginity a vertue though cousin germane to a vertue But sure that must be when Virginity that is single life is attended with chastity of body and spirit else it 's far enough from vertue But by the same reason Chaste Marriage may as well be called a vertue or of kin to a vertue both improperly enough Does he then place the vertue in the undertaking or vowing of it as Papists do That seems his meaning But that is no vertue the vertue is rather in keeping of the vow then making it Then again how is his Virginity or single life perfection or the greatest degree of perfection Why marriage should not be a state and as great a state of perfection as single life I see no reason seeing God himself brought the first couple from Virginity to a Married state and hath pronounced it honourable which he said not of a single life Let him take it in what sense he please I shall prove it is neither vertue nor higher degree of perfection 1. It is no vertue that 's proved by some of the arguments to the first question first Every virtue is under some command but Virginity or single life is under no command The Minor is the Doctors main assertion The Major is proved in the first A vertue must be under some Rule that guides it's conformity c. As then every vice is under some prohibition so every vertue must be under some precept Secondly if Virginity be a vertue it hath its opposite vices as was said in general above But virginity or single life hath no opposite vices or what shall they be what the excess what the defect I hope he will not say Marriage is either of the extremes Thirdly things in themselves indifferent are neither vertues nor vices nor yet the using or not using of them vertuous or sinful But single life as also marriage are in themselves things indifferent neither commanded nor prohibited but left free to the qualifications of the persons ergo they are no vertues nor vices Fourthly No vertue can ever be a vice or sinfull but it may be sinful for some to undertake single life that is such as have not the gift of continency Lastly that which may fall under a command may not be called as uncommanded vertue But single life may fall to some to be under a command of which in the next 2. It is no high or higher perfection then Marriage This is proved 1. Because it is no vertue as hath been proved and of the perfection of vertues we are speaking 2. Marriage is an honourable Ordinance of God Virginity is but an imposition of a man Now it seemes absur'd that a voluntary institution of man should be a more perfect state then an Ordinance of God 3. The undertaking of a thing indifferent is not commendable in it self as the neglect of it is no dishonour and so no high perfection to undertake it But Virginity or single life is a thing indifferent onely commendable in the end of undertaking it the greater glory or service of God which may be and ought to be our ends in all use of indifferent things Whether eat or drink c. 4. The undertaking a thing that may be under command is no high perfection but a duty But single life may fall under a command For thus I argue A man either hath the gift of continency from God for it is a special gift and then God calls him to a single life to be freer to his service and so it will prove a duty or he hath not the gift and
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
have sinned and therefore never defined that to be the Romanists doctrine But sure it is the Romanists do say and affirm some Saints not to have sinned the Virgine Mary for one to be free not onely from actual sins but original also and he knows who was the man of whom some of them affirm Bonadventure videtur Adam in hoc homine non peccasse And then there is more reason to found Supererogation upon such as never sinned then on such as have sinned and yet pay God by satisfaction the latter have enough to do to satisfie for their own sins and cannot well expect to Supererogate for themselves or others but the former having never sinned that is done all that is commanded which might satisfie God and his Law for themselves might with more colour undertake to satisfie God for others by doing something not commanded And yet by the way I would ask a Romanist whether if Adam had not sinned as the Angels do not he or they could supererogate for themselves or others If they say they could not because they in doing all that is commanded did but their duty then would I infer much less can a sinner Supererogate by doing something not commanded If they shall say they might Supererogate as their principles and the Doctors too seem to import by doing more then is commanded I would desire to see the reason why they should not found their Supererogation rather upon that first part of the distinction That to Supererogate supposeth that the person hath paid God all that is due to him by doing all that is commanded him by way of perfect obedience that is hath never sinned seeing that is more reasonable as hath been said I leave them and the Doctor to resolve this doubt And this indeed the Doctor comes to n. 8. Supererogo p. 226. is to lay out all and more and from the opinion of pious mens doing so the Romanists have clearly raised their treasure of the Church as the bank into which their payments are made Mark that to Supererogate is to lay out all that is commanded and more that is to pay God all that is due by way of perfect obedience and to lay out more that is something not commanded Which is that which he findes fault with in me that Supererogare is as much as super quod erogavit lex or rather rogavit for that was my word however it was changed into erogavit Now upon this the Doctor makes himself and his Reader merry n. 7. About the Etymologie of supererogation which either my fancy or something else he says suggested to me as I did derive Superstition from Super statutum In both he does me manifest injury in the latter against his own profession and I fear his conscience who said I did not raise the Etymologie of Superstition from Super statutum as indeed I did not but onely said that Superstition was by our Divines well applied to signifie that which the Scripture calls addition to the word or Rule of Worship as being Super statutum which rather respected the thing then the Origination of the word Superstition as appears above In the former he does the same for I do not make the super quod rogavit lex the Etymologie but thus Supererogare is as much that is in sense as super quod rogavit lex And this I shall evidence against all contradiction 1. I turned to the word in my Dictionary and there found Supererogatio to be rendered attesting August for it a giving more then is required required by what but by the Law 2. Supererogator rendered out of the same Authour one that giveth more then he needeth that is more then he is bound to give by any Law 3. Supererogo to give moreover jam ante erogatis addo which supposes him to give all required by the Law and to adde something not required by it and is not all this as much as super quod rogavit lex Again for erogavit I finde that it hath this sense beside others rogando aliquid elicere as well as expendere to lay out And if the word erogare signifie at any time to require or procure by asking the Etymologie might pass with reasonable Criticks Supererogare is as much as super quod erogavit lex Besides all this Papists who best understand what they mean by works of Supererogation Estius in 1. ad Cor. c. 9. v. 15. call them works of Counsels that is those which are commended so that yet absolutely there are no precepts delivered concerning them That is works done more then the Law required Lastly the Doctor himself in the place newly cited from n. 8. says as much as I do in sense Supererogo is to lay out all and more and from the opinion of pious mens doing so the Romanists have raised their treasure of the Church Nay it s more then I said for I did not say it is as much as to lay out all that is to do all that is commanded by the Law and more but onely more then the Law required though he had not done all required by the Law And upon this the Dr. founded their Supererogation refusing the former part of the distinction But now I would ask how can the pious Romanists be said to Supererogate that is to lay out all and more if not first by perfect keeping of the Law wherewith they are entrusted and then doing something more laying out of their own stock in a Counsel of perfection and what is this but more then the Law required and by so doing to make satisfaction for others sins having none of their own to satisfie for He were simple that would go about to satisfie God for others sins by doing things commanded to himself or to satisfie for others who needs it for his own sins It must then suppose he hath kept the Law and that he supererogates by doing more then the Law required which needing not himself he is content it be laid out for others that need it And that the Romanists do hold many of their pious Saints can and do perfectly keep the Law the Doctor is not ignorant what he thinks he can do I know not sure I am he says Christs yoke is no made up of impossible precepts and so its possible for a pious man perfectly to keep them If he say but he does not hold the most pious man never sinned though he may attain to such perfection in time * Doing all that is commanded p. 228. n. 14. The evil which is or may be adherent to it a good work being pardoned by God c. ad pag. 220. numb 55. numb 8. as to keep the Law and so Supererogation cannot be founded upon the first part of the distinction that the person never sinned I answer if those former sins be pardoned satisfaction being made by Christ they are as if they never had been and then when he is arrived at such perfection as
to keep the Law that is to sin no more then he may do more then the Law required and so bâ—gin to Supererogate Upon this all the Doctors Grammatical notions vanish into nothing and I go on A Supererogating work then is certainly a work done which is more then the Law required or which in my sense is all one the doing something which the Law doth not require which said I Is a derogation from the perfection of the Law of God and layes imperfection upon it as the Doctor plainly hath done The Doctor is angry at this and answers â— 11. p. 227 1. If such works be derogatory to the Law they are not Supererogatory works but the contrary As if they might not be Supererogatory in the opinion of a Romanist and yet really derogatory to the perfection of the Law charging it with imperfection 2. His treatise he says defends not the thinking a mans self to do more then the Law requires but to do somewhat which the Law doth not require And I say again is not the doing of somewhat which the Law doth not require the doing of more then the Law requires whether the person have ever sinned or not is another thing nay is not Supererogo to lay out all and more in the Doctors gloss then it may include both as was said above But for charging the Law with imperfection the Doctor hath said it and will defend it but by no new arguments but the old repeated and before confuted And as confidently he again affirms n. 12. its possible for a Christian to do something which is not commanded him If I listed to be merry I might say its possible for him to do something not commanded him for it s too possible and frequent to do something forbidden him Or 2. its possible for him to do some yea many things not commanded nor forbidden him many things indifferent But more seriously the Doctor means it of voluntary oblations that is voluntary worship Will-worship that 's the subject of his discourse its possible herein for a Christian to do something not commanded him yea many things as Papists do but how lawfully is the question Yes lawfully enough in the Doctors Divinity For as in the Law so in the Gospel the Law of Christ some things are left free and uncommanded What things are so left free and uncommanded in the Law or Gospel Some civil things All indifferent things Or some Worship Of that we speak not of circumstances of Worship as hath oft been said If he assert this of Worship I shall desire no other Adversary to confute him but himself As for his Latitude and higher degrees of that Latitude not under precept enough hath been said afore The conclusion is this his doctrine of Will-worship is founded upon this Popish principle Thou a man may do not something onely but some Worship to God which he never commanded Will worship he says is voluntary Worship uncommanded Worship this is not onely lawful but commendable acceptable and more rewardable then commanded Worship and therein he and Papists do sweetly agree and why he may not agree with them in their Supererogation I yet see no reason I said again that he that does something not commanded may be said to Supererogate in respect of him who doth nothing but what is commanded as the Pharisees did p. 227. n. 13 He answers This belongs not to my notion of Supererogating Take it then in his notion Supererogo is to lay out all and more He that layes out but all intrusted with him does but erogare he then that layes out more then all is said supererogare with respect to the other and may not at least will not such a man insult over other men that do nothing but what is commanded Lord I thank thee I am not as other men c. Yea and expostulate with God himself Why have we fasted and thou regardst it not c. Isa 58. But he that thus scorns and exalts himself above other men is far from doing more herein then is commanded c. True but yet he may truly in the Doctors sense do something not commanded though not more that is all that is commanded and something more And this is enough to puff up a carnal heart partly to compensate for something done amiss and to quit scores with God as she Prov. 7.14 and partly to insult over other men of lower performances as experience tells us The Apostle indeed allowes n. 13. a glorying and rejoycing in the conscience of having done well but he never allowed or practised a glorying in doing any thing which the Law commanded not as appeared above in the instance of preaching without wages The Doctor cannot but know That a man without grace an Heathen or hypocritical Christian may do many of his works of highest perfection as give liberally to good uses keep himself single and unmarried c. But this man uses not to compare himself with others virtues but with their defects and he is so far from charity to wish or think other men better then himself that he thinkes himself better then others and thankes God there is not an honest man but himself as that proud hypocrite did I fear that all Will-worshippers that think they do more then is commanded are guilty of some pride and scorn as humble soever as they seem to be But I said further They that think they can do something not commanded do expect to finde more acceptance from God and a greater reward then they or others do for doing onely what is commanded and this is a kind of Supererogation an over-pleasing of God This first he sayes p. 228. n. 14. I willingly and expresly grant it to be my doctrine that voluntary oblations are more acceptable and wardable with God p. 229. n. 17. is nothing to the notion of the word I have professed to look more at the nature of the thing then the notion of the word and this I am sure they that do things not commanded do expect as I have said and the Doctor will confess it presently But secondly he will put in a caution to make it passable That uncommanded works can never satisfie for disobediences and that it is perfect impiety and folly to neglect duty and then to compensate by doing more then is commanded First I observe how the Doctor confounds the terms of his former distinction doing more then is commanded is here put for doing somewhat that is not commanded which is found also so used numb 13. The first of them for it is twice the crime the Doctor found in mine at the beginning But secondly the caution will not do the work For Papists some at least do not think their uncommanded works do satisfie for their own disobediences but when their own sins are pardoned as they think at least and they enabled to keep the Law then they think by uncommanded works to satisfie God for others sins
is the Judgement of Scripture and the best Divines That said I which the Scriptures of the Old Testament call Additions the New calls Superstition Will-worship c. But I must not scape so n. 9. In those few words named last there are many infirm parts 1. That additions to the word are in the New Testament called Doctrines He cuts of my words I said Doctrines Traditions of men and so they are Matth. 15.6.9 By your Tradition opposed to the Commandment of God and In vain do they worship me teaching Doctrines the Commandments of men He flies to his old Muse Their teaching their own Traditions for Doctrines is adding them to the Scripture c. But then is it not evident 1. that their Doctrines and Traditions were Additions to the word 2. That these Doctrines concerned the worship of God and so Additions to the Rule of worship in vain do they worship me and are not these Additons excesses what sense then is there in his new coin'd gloss Doctrines thore simply signifying not that addition but that to which the addition was made What means he that Doctrines signifies the Scripture for to that the Addition was made so he sayes Adding them to the Scriptures what their own Traditions Then their Doctrines were added to the Scripture but were not Scripture and if not Scripture Additions to the Scripture 2. But my next infirmity is that I say Those Additions are called Will-worship The contrary whereof he sayes is proved in the Treatise of Will-worship I shall not anticipate the place All I say now is but this If it be Will-worship to devise new sorts of worship and to offer them to God for worship as the Doctor confesses it is pag. See p. 10. n. 11. p. 15. n. 24. 96. n. 6. Then those Additions may well be called Will-worship and such Will-worship may very well be called an Addition to the Rule of worship 3. This is yet another of my mistakes That additions to the rule of worship are any where in the New Testament called Superstition I desire he would shew me one such place for my concordance will not afford it me Let him not evade by those words Called Superstition That is in so many words and I will shew many places where the thing is apparant that Superstition is an Addition to the word and Additions to the word are Superstition But in stead of all I shall produce his own words Sect. 46. of Superst To affirm God to command when he doth not is Superstition under the notion of nimiety or excess because that man addes to the commands of Christ Which place will shortly come to be considered He sayes Those Athenians Act. 17.22 sure p. 23. n. 10. never medled with and so added not to the true rule of worship any otherwise then as all that abandon it adde to it live by some other false rule and minde not that and if they are for so doing to be stiled adders to the rule of worship adulterers are so in like manner and so every sin in the world is Superstition This is a strange gloss 1. Do not Idolatres Polytheists such as these Athenians were meddle with and adde to the rule of worship surely then none in the world do Is it not a moral Law written in the hearts of all men though blotted much that God alone is to be worshipped do not they that worship other Gods with or without him meddle with and adde to this rule of worship 2. Does it become the Doctors Learning and Divinity to make adulterers and so every sinner in the second Table to be with them afore stilled Superstitious when worship and so Superstition is onely in the first Table let the Reader judge Against my second proof exception is taken p. 23. n. 12. 1. Because I use the same medium as in the former proposition An heavy charge as if the Doctor did not know that one medium may prove several propositions The question is whether it proves the present proposition or no 2. Then he undertakes to put my argument into form but that I refuse and renounce his whole Syllogisme as none of mine upon this ground because he hath changed the question from uncommanded worship to uncommanded ceremonies and then playes his feats onely I shall remind him what he grants in his proposition 1. That worshipping of the Daemons is an excess opposite to Religion ergo Superstition is an excess 2. So also is the worshipping the true God after an undue and unlawful manner an excess ergo Superstition is of larger extent then the worshipping of Daemons which both the Doctor seems to deny Now I shall put my argument into form If profaneness the one extreme of Religion he a defect of Religion then Superstition the other extreme is an excess of Religion but the first is true and cannot be denied ergo If the Doctor did not intend to decline the force of this proof and to make a diversion to his Reader he would not have started a new Hare that himself might escape My next proof was from the Doctors own concessions p. 24. n 13. See p. 227. c. the numb 13. twice where he first espies a Numeral fault a figure of 4. twice Whether this was mine or the Printers fault he hath no cause to complain having 6. for 5. But that 's a trivial excursion yet ordinary enough First the Doctor grants Superstitiosus may denote such an excess an excess of Religion n. 16. What excess in Religion the super statutum every addition 1. Every uncommanded circumstance or ceremony in the worship of God thus he must mean if constant c. No such matter but every Addition of worship supra statutum above the command of God The question was of worship it self from the beginning not of Circumstances of worship If Superstitious signifie such an excess will it any thing help the Doctor to say so did Religiosus sometime signifie too Yes 1. Superstitio and Religio were among Heathens the * They were not the same see ad p. 70 n. 1. But one a vice the other a vertue same and 2. All such excesses are not culpable in their opinion If they once did signifie excesses in Religion and culpable it matters not what their opinions after were who were ill Judges of Superstition and Religion And what ever Religiosus may signifie let the Doctor shew us any Protestant Divine that ever took Superstitio or Superstitiosus in a good sense But what is the meaning of those words n. 17. My pretensions in that place were onely this that Superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess Does he mean that Superstition never in any Authors signifies a criminous excess That he cannot say or that all Authors do not take it for a criminous excess the words may bear both senses that 's too dilate for the Doctor to affirm It 's enough for us if in
to the third Commandment a taking of Gods Name in vain which is much manifested by every creature But I believe the Doctor will laugh at such old Divinity and were it not for the ill consequences thereof would easily make them no sins excluding them out of the Decalogue which would be a brave doctrine to gratifie the Ranters If the Doctor cannot or but hardly tell to what Commandment of the Decalogue to reduce those Intemperances they will easily believe and plead they are no sins But the Doctor shall be no Catechist no Casuist or Confessor of mine that holds any thing a sin not forbidden by the Law and so is unable to resolve me against which Commandment the Intemperate use of the Creature offends I have heard some of no mean pretence to Piety excuse some of their party that have been drunk They have but taken a little too much of the Creature I wonder not the Doctor is so favorable to the Riotous part of his Festival when thus he glosses of sins and Commandments But he gives another instance That sort of lying or false speaking which is no way hurtful or no way intended to be hurtful to the neighbor He means the jeasting lye to which he might have added the officious lye which is helpful to the neighbor without hurting any man If no body be hurt by these the truth it self is hurt and that will be hurtful to the speaker what ever it be to the neighbor There are many more of these instances belike and by Papists are called but Venial sins with whom how near he complies in these cases let him consider Here again p. 36. n. 12. the Doctor speaks of the unlawfulness of Ceremonies and uncommanded worship together as if they were both equally by us judged unlawful But in stead of rectifying a mistake he makes one He hath not considered this one thing that whatsoever is not forbidden is lawful not whatsoever is not commanded is unlawful These words if referred to Circumstances are both wayes true but referred to worship both wayes false whatsoever Circumstance of worship is not forbidden is lawful but whatsoever worship is not commanded is unlawful as was said above ad p. 33. n. 7. And then uncommanded worship if it be a sin and unlawful being forbidden by some Commandment and all the other nine renouncing it it must but without crowding be reduced to the second Commandment or to none My answer therefore is ready to his questions 1. That many n. 13. yea most of our Divines have said as fully as I have done that voluntary uncommanded worship is expresly against the second Commandment meaning against the sense of that Commandment 2. They that have referred it thither have given as cogent reasons for it as the Doctor himself hath done when he glossed the sense of the second Commandment to be this That God must be worshipped in a manner peculiar to him and appointed by him Whence it may be argued and concluded that worship not appointed that is not commanded by him is forbidden by the second Commandment In his answer to my second proof he is very brief and very obscure and deceives us by a general n. 14. p. 37. That all Additions to the Rule of worship are not Superstition But I say all uncommanded worship is an Addition to the Rule of worship and so Superstition and sinful He is as short to the third n. 15. Worship of Angels is forbidden by a positive command and so must needs be sinful but the doing of what is not commanded is not a sin This last is a meer delusion for if he speak of Circumstances or Ceremonies as he calls them the doing of them is not a sin but if he speak of worship the doing of what is not commanded is a sin as himself hath often confessed And when I added in the close of the third proof That they that worship Angels p. 37. n. 16. do not urge it as a Commandment of God I intended it as a prevention to his objection or assertion That the Dogmatizers did pretend a Commandment of God and that indeed was Superstition and allowed scarce any other possible to a Protestant He answers He never doubted but there were other sins beside Dogmatizing c. But he should have said Other kindes of Superstition beside that of Dogmatizing As he sayes The murtherer is a sinner though he teach it for a Doctrine that it is lawful to kill his brother So he is Superstitious that places more vertue in things then God or nature hath put in them And he is Superstitious that addes new worship to the Rule of worship though neither of then be Dogmatizers to teach it for Doctrine or a Commandment of God c. And though he oblige not as from God any other man to do the like As he speaks because he goes against express precept Thou shalt not adde to the word or Rule of worship Lastly I said if Will-worship be innocent Rome is justified in her rabble of Superstitious worship n. 17. c. He answers to this effect If it be true that the worship at Rome is really Superstitious he undertook not to justifie Rome or any other Churches in their worship c. But the Church of England c. This is like the rest a meer diversion for the question is whether Will-worship of any Church Rome or England be justifiable and he sayes if it be true that the worship at Rome is really Superstitious doubtingly he undertook not to justifie it and yet justifies Will-worship to be as innocent as the Free-will-offerings without any distinction And this may serve for the third discovery of causes of his mistakes The last was That he takes for granted p. 38. n. 1. that a Church or person hath power to institute and observe worship not commanded of God For which he offers this probation n. 3. Whatsoever is in it self perfectly free or lawful by the Law of God that a Church or particular person hath power to institute and observe But so is the Christmas Festival ergo I answer first to the proposition it offends in leaving out the chief term in the question viz. Worship and should run thus whatsoever worship is sure or lawful c. And then that it begs the very question that a Church hath power to Institute worship which is denied by me and the Doctor himself Then to the Assumption it should thus be propounded But Christmas Festival is a worship free and lawful But this again is acknowledged by the Doctor to be false who denies to make it a new worship but a Circumstance of worship Is not this a probation unbeseeming the Doctors learning n. 4. which his three considerations will no way support For first the Church hath no power to Institute nor the Christian to Observe any worship not commanded of God 2. The Christian may freely do what is prescribed by the Church in
in all his Ordinances c. I spare to produce any more of our Divines and return to the Doctor He says 1. Thou shalt not take the Name c. is undoubtedly no more then thou shalt not forswear thy self 2. Swearing simply is not reduced to this Commandment I demand then to what Commandment was common rash ordinary swearing reduced or were the Jewes indulged swearing as some of the Fathers seem to hold and to swear by the creatures also The Law Deut. 6.13 c. Thou shalt swear by his Name imports two things 1. That swearing there was not meant of Ordinary swearing in common discourse but upon just occasions before a Magistrate c. 2. That when they did swear they must swear by the Name of God that is by God himself and no other creature or thing That Law of Moses was not a permission as the Doctor calls it but a precept What then does the Doctor mean by swearing simply taken c. That it was sometimes lawful to swear upon just occasions That 's allowed also in the Gospel our Saviour came not to void that Law or that * See p. 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all is forbidden by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 3. Com. As if it were allowed by the Law before simple swearing either without perjury or ordinarily by the Name of God was permitted the * Seep 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all is forbidden by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 3. Com. As if it were allowed by the Law before Jewes by Moses This I suppose he will not say Yet faintly sayes the contrary Perhaps foolish wanton sure prophane blasphemous using of Gods Name may be resolved to be there forbidden by reduction Is it but perhaps foolish and wanton using of Gods Name may be resolved to be there forbidden It 's well he will yield that profane and blasphemous using of Gods Name is there forbidden Yet I would be bold to ask my Catechist one question more How can I say not foolish and wanton profane and blasphemous using of Gods Name be forbidden in that Commandment so much as by reduction if the taking Gods Name in vain be undoubtedly no more then thou shalt not forswear thy self Cannot men profane and blaspheme Gods Name but onely when they forswear themselves or have foolish and wanton using Gods Name by common swearing any thing to do with perjury I would but propound this argument To use the Name of God unreverently was ever a Sin against some moral Law but to use the Name of God foolishly wantonly much more profanely blasphemously is to use the Name of God unreverently and vainly ergo If against a Moral-law I ask again Against which Commandment if not against the third To shut up this the Doctor sayes Pract. Cat. p. 121. Swearing by other inferior things are now utterly unlawful What now onely were they not so in the Old-law It seemes not by the Doctor for he sayes this is something that Christ hath added to perfect the Law A Christian must not use any of those Oaths Belike a Jew might But why not a Christian now Hear his reason Because every of these are Creatures of God whose whole being consists in reference to him not to be subjected to their lust to be tost defamed by their unnecessary oaths Will not the same reason serve against the Jewes swearing by inferior Creatures were they not then the Creatures of God and the rest Why might not the Doctor have given this reason because it is a taking of Gods Name in vain which is much made known by the Creatures and against the Commandment which requires that when men do swear they swear onely by his Name But these would have marred his new gloss I leave it to him And now we are come to consider the subject of the fourth Commandment the right time his own appointed day Which he does not cannot deny for he hath granted it elsewhere but yet hath somewhat to say p. 44. n. 6. 1. Sure not so as to prohibit all others there were other Fast and Feasts appointed besides the weekly rest c. 'T is true but then they were of Gods own appointment who may dispense with his own Lawes and if appointed by men they were but Circumstances not parts of Worship as the Doctor confesses But I was speaking of Worship he knows In Religion or Worship of God four things are considerable the last whereof is a right Time his own appointed Day viz. as a part of Worship and so all other Days are forbidden But then secondly he hath another elusion Under the New Testament the first day of the week certainly was not the last which the Decalogue prescribed c. This will prove the Doctors mistake common to him with others That the fourth Commandment prescribed nothing but the seventh or last day of the week Which if it be true the fourth Commandment is as fully void as that Commandment which prescribed the seventh year Sabbath or any other particular Holy-day The Doctor himself hath granted that the fourth commandment requires that we give God not less then one day in seven which if it be true the principal matter of the fourth Commandment was not that seventh day for that is void sayes he say all but one day in seven but still of Divine appointment as being a part of Worship The Lords day then being one of seven and confessedly of Divine Institution by the Apostles whose appointments were Divine There is no asking why the Apostles should not either they or their successors institute other dayes as parts of Worship that must be minded the reason is because the Apostles had Divine Authority to institute the Lords day according to the fourth Commandment one day of seven but neither they much less their successors can produce any Commission to institute other dayes I say still as parts of Worship if as Circumstances onely of Worship it is nothing to the purpose as I have often said And now for all that is said the Subjects of the four first Commandments are distinct and clear as I have propounded them and will be a ground sufficient to build that on which is intended p. 44. n. 7. That Superstition may extend to the whole first Table when there is a nimiety or excess in any one of them To the further confirming whereof I now proceed But first the Doctor is willing to expose me to the scorn of all Readers for want of Ingenuity or Charity to make the best construction of my words He sayes n. 8. to perswade that assertion afore he commends one observation to us but such as I think never slipt from any man before him Surely the Doctor hath met with some Errata's in some Authors Printed which are as unreasonable or as much non-sense as these of mine are He might have said either it may be the Printers fault or some Inadvertency in the
says He that exceeds that minimum quod sic that least degree shall not offend by way of excess but is more acceptable and more highly rewardable As if the other nine degrees of ten For that 's the latitude were all above command and works of supererogation Yes so he says in the conclusion As the lowest of these degrees are under obligation so the superiour are not p. 201. n. 10 but yet such as will be accepted and rewarded by God to him that arrives to them This is very easie and pleasant Divinity Let the Reader judge Sect. 40.41 Object Prudence will require us to do that which is fittest to be done and so nothing is free be answers c. WE are now entring into a new Sea of controversie p. 203. n. 2 3. Whether man is bound to be prudent to that degree which he lost by sin The Doctor to shew us some of his new Divinity distinguishes If by sin he mean mans own actual sins whereby he hath any wayes infatuated himself then the affirmative is true but not applyable to the mattter in hand c. But if of original sin this sure will be found a mistake for this loss of Adams was a punishment of Adams sin and in his posterity must be looked on as a punishment and he that is punished cannot be obliged not to be punished It 's easily known in what School the Doctor learned this Divinity though I say nothing But to the point and to begin with the last first First What doth the Doctor mean by original sin That in Adam onely or Adams first actual sin as some Papists clearly do and so make the loss of prudence and original righteousness to be no sin but onely the punishment of sin If it were not sin in Adam himself then sure it cannot he such in his posterity n. 3. both in Adam and in his posterity This Papists say and the Doctor seems to hold so by his arguing at least in Adams posterity Yet why is it not a punishment in Adam as well as in his posterity and then no sin in him for he that is punisht cannot be obliged not to be punisht If no man now be bound to be as prudent as Adam was in his integrity as he says was not Adam himself bound after his fall to be as prudent and righteous as in his integrity No for then he should be bound not to be punisht being punisht with the loss of that prudence and original righteousness 2. Will the Doctor grant any original sin in Adams posterity then I ask what that original sin is If onely the loss or want of original righteousness as Papists make it is not the want of original righteousness a sin How then is it called orginal sin if it be no sin And sin it cannot be in the Doctors Divinity because it is a punishment of Adams sin Then again no infant is a sinner in the want of original righteousness Oh blessed harmless babes while they live and surely all saved when they die young This is the Divinity of some of the Doctors Schollers which I fear they learned from him 3. Did the Doctor never hear in the Schools That one sin is the punishment of another and in the Scripture that God in severest justice punishes sin with sin and why not Adams first sin with the loss of original righteousness which it self is a sin as being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inconformity to that Law created in him in himself and his posterity they being all in him and standing or falling with him But if original sin in Adams posterity The pollutions of our nature c. are infelicities if not sins Pract. cat p. 52. yet p. 74. called sin be more then a want of original righteousness even a pravity of nature inclining them to all evil as well as averting from any good as all Orthodox hold it is not only a punishment but also a sin And then though he that is punisht is not bound not to be punisht yet he that hath lost original righteousness is bound to be righteous as righteous and so as prudent as he was created As a decoctor or prodigal of an entrusted state who hath wastefully spent it which is to him a punishment sufficient to want that estate is yet bound to the repayment of it 4. A man that by his actual sins hath infatuated himself which is the first part of his distinction is bound to be prudent to that degree of prudence he lost by his sin there is truth in this affirmation says the Doctor But say I the very loss of that prudence is a punishment of his sin and so cannot be a sin too by the Doctors arguing That it is both a sin and punishment the Apostle is clear Rom. 1.21 22. When they knew God and glorified him not as God c. they became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkned they became fools Is it not a sin for a man by his own lusts to darken his own heart and to put out his own eyes yet is it also a punishment infflicted by God upon him ver 28. God gave them up to a reprobate minde Much more might be added But granting it true of a man infatuated by his actual sins yet the Doctor hath his evasions 'T is not appliable to the matter in hand viz. to such an high degree of prudence as now he speaks of for of that he may come short without any degree of actual sin as shall thus infatuate and deprive him of prudence Let the Doctor apply this to Adam himself when he was alive after his fall He was bound to that high degree of prudence which I speak of that he lost by his sin and of that he might not without sin come short though his following actual sins did not further infatuate him and deprive him of that little remaining prudence which he had Prudence in the highest degree was a part or degree of the Image of God that knowledge he had at his creation which by his actual sin he lost and is not loss or want of that knowledge or Image of God a sin as well as a punishment If so in Adam so also in his posterity He therefore shifts the foot of his answer He speakes of a regenerate man by the inlightning wise Spirit of God return'd to that state of prudence from which his own actual sins may have degraded him and if so he is as prudent as he is bound to be and yet capable and growing in knowledge and so free from sin in this respect though not at the highest that lapst nature is capable of Though this regenerate man appear not in the Doctors discourse yet it will do him no good if granted for we speak of any man since the fall every man is bound to aspire to that degree of prudence or knowledge which he lost not onely by his own actual sin but by the sin of Adam
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
how fain the Doctor would be a Martyr at least a Confessor p. 212. n. 30 He is well pleased to suffer this sword of the tongue till God shall please to call him to any higher trial It cannot be denied but the persecution of the tongue for righteousness sake is a lesser Martyrdome Matth. 5.11 but there hath no sword of the tongue touched the Doctor but the sword of the Spirit which hath smitten those opinions wherein he complies with Papists in their errours and if he will needs be counted a Martyr for this suffering he may go and joyn the Papists as Martyrs with him for being confuted by our Reformed Divines in the same opinions and errours And now let him glory in this his voluntary Martyrdom For a number or two the 31. and 32. there is nothing found that hath not been spoken to about * He takes for granted I allow degrees of perfection which I twice there deny degrees of perfection I said degrees to perfection acknowledging none in or of perfection to which enough afore onely I observe on passage When the precept bindes to no more then to be merciful in some degree it is evident it bindes not to be merciful in the highest degree c. This is that which I noted above if the precept binde to no more but to some degree of mercy then he that shews the least degree fullfills that commandment though he be able to give more and the party needs much more and so this man is perfect in mercy though there be not the highest degree of mercy or perfection This doctrine I am perswaded will please covetous men exceedingly well the Commandment bindes to no more then to be merciful in some degree But I leave it and proceed Sect. 46. But then thirdly says he the perfection we are commanded by Christ is capable of degrees c. IN answer to this I cited a sentence of Saint Hierome Charity which cannot be increased is in no man c. and what is lesser then it ought to be is faulty in vitio est c. Which afterwards he alters into ex vitio est n. 36. This place whether it was Hieromes or Augustines or in both It 's August ad Hierom. ep 62. p. 213. n. 35. for I finde it cited severally and it matters not which it was he endeavours first to avoid by this distinction It speaks of an universal impartial observation of the whole Law and then it it will in no wise be appliable to our business which is onely of the degrees of this or that particular vertue which it is certain that man may have who yet it guilty of some sin in other particulars Which is as if he should say a man may be perfect in this or that particular virtue as charity c. though he sins in other particulars and so be not perfect in the universal observation of the whole Law And this is the answer of some Papists that in some particular acts of virtue a man may be sinless citing for it very learnedly that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.28 36. If thou marry thou hast not sinned c. he sinneth not let them Marry True says Chamier and others Marriage it self is no sin but there may be sins committed in Marrying in them that Marry And they assert contrary to Papists and the Doctor That there is no act of vertue that we exercise but some sin cleaves to it But if a man may be perfectly without sin in one virtue why not in another and a third and at last in all and then some perfectionist may say he is perfect in all and as some friend of the Doctors is reported to say keep himself from all sins Yet the Fathers Testimony will not so easily be shaken off For they instance in charity which generally respects the whole Law Love is the fullfilling of the Law that is perfect love to God and man if then there be no perfect love in generall to be found in any man here then there will be none found in the particulars of love to God and love to man which quite destroys the Doctors assertion That a man may be perfect in this or that particular virtue and yet be guilty of some sins in other particulars He suspecting this might be objected flies to another acknowledging that be that fails of any part of his duty is therein faulty p. 214. n. 36. yet no man can infer hence therefore every regular act and obedience which comes short of the highest degree of perfection is a sin But this is a secret calumny against his Adversaries as if they were of opinion that every regular act short of perfection were a sin Papists indeed charge Protestants with this slander but they have been refuted many times over It becomes not a Protestant to joyn with them in this forged cavillation The Doctor hath heard it often Bonum ex integris causis malum ex quolibet defectu But let him if he please charge this upon Saint Augustine who says expresly Peccatum est cum vel non est charitas vel minor est quam debet De perfect Instit ad rat 15. We say onely it is sinful not a sin That will not do n. 37. he must try another perfection is capable of two notions unsinning obedience or an higher degree of exercise of any particular virtue chastity mercy c. of the latter he intends it But now he is gone from his former glosses of a Latitude in perfection and degrees of that perfection making the lower if not the lowest degree of mercy to be perfection now perfection signifies an higher degree of exercise of mercy c. Then his lower degrees at least are imperfect and no perfections And if so why are not his higher degrees imperfections also seeing they come short of the highest which indeed is onely perfection But I shall desire to know what is the highest or higher degree of chastity one of his instances which is not under a law of Moses or Christ in the Gospel suppose a man should attain to the chastity of the Law which the Doctor made imperfect yet if he attained not to the highest degree of chastity which the Gospel requireth surely he will not be perfect in chastity And supposing a man arrived there can a man ascend to an higher degree of it then Christ requires in the Gospel I desire to know what that is or how it may be manifested Suppose a man arrived so high as not to lust in his heart no concupiscence stirring there c. this were I think the highest attainable in this life if not in the other life also yet this is none of the Doctors perfection which must be above all command to make it more acceptable and more rewardable for this highest degree of chastity is under command and so no uncommanded virtue or perfection I know not what the Doctor can instance in to make an
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
moral or rather spiritual good then the bare caring for the things of the world to please a yoke-fellow 1. This supposes a man that is Marryed cannot be holy in body and spirit and care for the things of the Lord as the unmarryed may which is a dishonour cast upon Gods ordinance of honourable Marriage 2. That a Married man does barely care for the world to please his wife 3. That it is not as morally good for a married man to care for his family and to please his wife as for the unmarried to care to please God when both please God and there need no comparison 4. If Virginity or single life were morally better then Marriage the Apostle neglected the chiefest argument to perswade it the greater reward in heaven as a greater good work for so the Doctor determines this Free-will offering is more commendable acceptable rewardable But not one word of this in all the Scriptures What ever some Ancients and many Papists presume to dictate of an higher glory for Virginity then for Marriage and use this if not as the onely yet as the chiefest perswasive Hear what some of the Ancients who extolled Virginity enough if not too much In laudem Basilii orat 22. to the disparagement of Marriage say 1. Greg. Nazianz. commending the children of Bazil the elder sayes Some of them so used their Marriage that it was no hinderance to them that they might not aspire to an equal glory of virtue with the Virgins That is were as holy in body and spirit and cared for the things of the Lord as much as they Next Saint Chrysost with respect to the reward Ad Hebr. c. 4. orat 7. hath this saying Vse Marriage with meet moderation and thou shalt be the first in the kingdom More might be added but these shall suffice much being spoken to this afore His second argument p. 220. n. 54. against my position was this The best being superlative supposes the positive to be good but if bound to the best that which were onely good were evil This consequence I proved to be naught by an instance and now I adde it follows onely that that which is not the best is less good good I say by indulgence but so far sinful as they are short of perfection All our righteousness n. 55. is as filthy rags said the Prophet and Greg. after him All humane justice if it be strictly judged is injustice He crys out of my inconstancy I said before good works were not evil and now to be injustice And are not both these true They are not evil that is sins as wrought by faith but they are sinful and injustice if strictly judged by the Law said not the Prophet both these in one sentence and Gregory the same What prevarication is this in him Does he not say the same himself in his second answer When he said such a thing is good and another best he never meant that either of them is not convincible by God to have some mixture of evil What said I other then this But he elsewhere sayes more that not onely the best but the lower degrees of good may be sinless That the evil which is or may be and so may not be adherent to it in some other respects being pardoned by God in Christ the lower degree being good an act of obedience to Christs command that which is higher and so better then that may yet be somewhat not commanded and so a Nedabah in a Christian Where he supposes first That it may be sinless in it self though evil may adhere to it in other respects this is expresly affirmed by him p. 223. n. 5. of which anon 2. He also takes for granted that the higher degrees of good are under no command which is disproved above 3. If that Nedabah or work of higher perfection be a part of that mans righteousness it 's abundant righteousness with the Pharisees and the Doctor sure the Prophets Gregories and his own concession will in Gods strict judgement affirm it to be unrighteousness But that 's little less then a contradiction that an act of highest righteousness not under any Law should be judged unrighteousness by a righteous God without a Law to judge it by Let him consider it Sect. 48. The next objection raised by him c. THat we may see how good an expositor of the Law of God the Doctor is his answere to the objection from the first and great Commandment Thou shalt love the Lord thy God p. 221. n. 1. with all thy heart c. is very considerable He affirms That the phrase denoteth onely two things 1. Sincerity of his love to God as opposed to partial divided love 2. The loving him above all other things not admitting any other thing into competition with him or in such a degree of love First I would say that these two are almost both one for what is partial divided love but admitting of some other thing into competition with him and such love is insincere He that loves God sincerely loves nothing in competition with him 2. To love God above all other things is the same with to love nothing in such a degree of love But all this may be done and yet a man may be very short of the perfection of that Commandment To love God with all his heart and the rest And that we may know whence the Doctor learned this Divinity we find it in Bellarm and other Papists one while distinguishing thus God is two wayes loved with all the heart 1. Above all other things sincerely and perfectly that nothing be set above or equalled with the love of God and thus the love of God is under command to us 2. That no vitious cogitation may creep in but that the whole man be taken up with the love of God and this say they is not commanded us in this life Just the same with the Doctor 〈…〉 who agrees fully with them in the first part of the distinction and saying those onely are denoted must also agree with them in the latter Another while they thus distinguish The Commandment may thus be understood that God alone is to be loved and nothing beside him or that nothing be loved against God above God or equally with God c. The first part is not the scope or sense of the Commandment for he presently addes Thou shalt love thy neighbour c. The second part is the same with the first in the other distinction And it is remarkable that these distinctions are used by Papists in the case of venial sins and perfect fulfilling the Law in this life The former of these I observe not the Doctor to assert but the latter he does frequently that a man may fulfill the Law to perfection and that in the lower degrees and attain to perfection above all command But in this exposition of this Great Commandment the Doctor with Papists leaves many Vide Cham. t.
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
And the mischief is that they that think they can do things not commanded do usually the rather neglect the care of securing of duties but hope to compensate by doing things not commanded You make void the Commandment of God by your own Tradition and say it is corban c. But we have here the Doctors method and path-way to Heaven it is somewhat long but it could not well be shorter and the end will make amends for all the greater reward Thus it lies He that shall have observed this method uprightly eschewed evil in a strict mortifying of lusts c. in abstaining from sin and doing * Doing all that is commanded Mark that all that is commanded confirmed by authority of a Poet virtus est vitium fugere c. and whensoever he hath failed secured his retrait by an early humiliation confession begging of pardon in Christ and sincere reformation and then laboured industriously to superstruct doing of good works of the more eminent I mean uncommanded degrees of virtues I shall not doubt to encourage him to think confidently and expect from our great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more and greater acceptance I shall adde reward also then the same person could in reason expect for doing onely what is commanded I shall adde what he addes in the next p. 229. n. 15 and consider them together There is no reason to make question but that of two men which have been equal in obediences one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection the more perfect shall have the richest reward c. To all this I shall speak first in general and then to some particulars In general thus by considering how far an hypocrite may travel in this way to glory 1. He may abstain from some yea many sins wherewith some sincere Christian may be overtaken and the Doctor will not say his pious Christian can or doth abstain from all sins 2. He may do all that is commanded for the letter of the Law as Paul himself before his conversion says he was blameless and the Doctor does not say or does not mean though he say all his pious man may do universally all that is commanded 3. When he hath failed if at least he may fail he may in the Doctors language secure his retrait by an early humiliation and confession Pray ye to the Lord for me as Ahab and Juda did 4. He may beg pardon of God and that in Christ as its like Simon Magus did who desired others also to pray for him 5. He may make an outward Reformation of his failings in many things as Herod did and the Doctor will not say but his Pious Christian may fail still by infirmity in some things repented of 6. After all this he may use Austerities Fasting Watchings and other Penances for the mortifying of his lusts at least in pretence as Papists do and the Pharisees did 7. And then he may proceed to superstruct doing of good works of the more eminent uncommanded degrees of virtue for I observe none such named by the Doctor but an hypocrite may do them as give alms liberally as the Pharisees did above what the Law required If I give all my goods to the poor and have not charity supposes the ease possible I am nothing He may be frequent in Praying five or six times a day in Fastings twice or thrice a week and in other such Austerities as afore He may make himself an Eunuch undertake to profess a single life under pretence to please God better Nay he may offer himself to voluntary Martyrdome which two last are the Doctors highest perfections of all If I give my body to be burned for Religion for Christ and have not Charity Supposes that case also possible for an hypocrite to attain to May now the Dr. encourage this man to think and expect confidently more and greater acceptance and reward then another that onely hath done what is commanded And that with some failings Perhaps he will say he does not all these things uprightly or sincerely and so loses all Be it so yet this was more then the Doctors eye could discover for he cannot see his heart therefore he might encourage him still confidently to expect if not more yet some acceptance and reward if not for abstaining from so many sins and doing so many things commanded because he plaid but the hypocrite in all yet for his eminent uncommanded degrees of virtue a just 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not let such high perfections go altogether unrewarded But I shall come to some particulars And first with respect to what I said last it must be supposed in this distribution of rewards that uncommanded eminent degrees of virtue Else they are but as Cyphers in Arithmetick which of themselves signifie nothing but make a figure more by conjunction and highest perfection may of themselves expect some reward or acceptance from God by whomsoever they are done though he have not done all that is commanded For if they give more acceptance and reward in conjuction with commanded virtues they must give some positive reward single and alone or joyned with lower degrees of virtue and then an hypocrite may expect some acceptance and reward from God for such eminent virtues who yet is most abominable to him 2 Though obedience to commands may expect acceptance with God and reward and glory in Heaven yet uncommanded eminent perfection carries away the prize or crown of glory But I desire to know who gave this authority to these men to distribute rewards less to obedience commanded and more to uncommanded virtues 3. A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on earth distributes his rewards and prizes by an act of justice to the best deserving not of mercy and favour But I hope the Doctor will not say so of God though Papists are bold enough to say so 4. If this reward be not an act of justice upon merit then it must be by way of promise which is of grace or mercy For works commanded are rewarded of meer mercy Psal 62. last if uncommanded works may not plead merit none can yet Papists that make commanded works meritorious do also make uncommanded works more meritorious If then the Doctors eminent uncommanded virtues may expect a greater reward then works commanded the works of mens devising are exalted above the works of Gods commanding By what Rule not of merit or justice that the Doctor disclaims not of mercy for then they must have some promise the ground of that expectation but promise he can shew none or let us see the Patent where uncommanded virtues are promised I say not a greater but any reward at all All the promises in Scripture are made to the obedient and obedience imports a command as all threatnings are made to the disobedient which implies a prohibition And for ought I see there may be as well some eminent or lesser wickednss not under prohibition against which there is no threatning as