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
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
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-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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be here taken in an ill sense by Festus It seemes to me and many others to be taken in an ill sense if the Doctor will needs think otherwise let him enjoy his own opinion The very Heathens and such was Festus branded Religion which they did not like by the Name of Superstition surely that was in opposition to Religion their own at least which they thought to be the truest 2. p. 63. n. 5 The next is of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be taken two wayes either his or theirs Pauls onely or the Jews also The Doctor is for the former and renders the words his Superstition and something being said to it in this Section he takes no notice of it unless it be to say I give no reason of what I say I shall therefore produce my reason there and adde another strength to it I said from a parallel Scripture Acts 23.29 Paul was accused of questions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their Law not of Pauls own Religion To which I now adde a second Acts 18 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a question of your Law said Gallio one of Festus his rank Let 's see if his reason be better then these two Scriptures joyn'd with that c. 25 19. Thus he gives it The Jewes accusation against Paul is plainly mentioned in this place Well so it is p. 63. n. 6. in the other two places what then How then could their own Superstition be the matter of their charge against him I could blush or pitty such argumentation Apply it to the other Texts afore Acts 18.15 If it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is as the Doctor laboured to prove numb 5. An accusation or question of your Law Ask now how could their own Law See Acts 21.28 Teaches against the people and against the Law be the matter of their charge against him I forbear the other place And I adde if it were worth the while the context carries it to my sense Those words were spoken to Agrippa concerning Pauls case Against whom when the Accusers stood up they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed but had certain questions against him of their own Superstition their own Law the words afore immediately being spoken of them not of him And if he should say but one part of the accusation was about one Jesus which was dead c. and so of Pauls Religion the answer will be that this is a distinct accusation from the former and so will conclude it was of theirs as well as his The former may include his but his will not imply theirs But too much of this n. 7. The 3. is Whether Festus put Jesus under the notion of a Daemon or dead Heros My exception to it was That Paul affirmed him to be alive not in part as those departed Daemons were supposed but in the whole man as raised from the dead The Doctor makes a little retreat as if he would yield to my reason I shall not because I need not make it a matter of controversie with any But it was but to come on again with more force Yet I had this consideration to incline me to it the immediate subjoyning of One Jesus whom Paul contended to live to be Superstes c. But in citing these words he should have looked to the other words 1. One Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was or had been dead so the word signifies sayes he numb 8. Whom Paul affirmed to be alive or live again as the words together do import As for his other additions they are not to the purpose but conjectures of his own and I list not to follow him But if he yield in the least to have mistaken he will recriminate and throw dirt in his Adversaries face p. 64 n. 8. That in this one proof I have strained more then he in his Criticisme Wherein will that appear 1. When I read the text they had many questions when the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some But sure that 's no strain For verse 7. I found they laid many complaints against Paul and in the text there were three at least two concerning their own Superstition the word is plural and another concerning one Jesus c. Et tria sunt omnia we may say many of three 2. That I read both and also when no such thing in the Greek or English But I pray if those be distinct questions of their Superstition and of one Jesus as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning twice repeated He leaves out the second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 8. Is this fair does fairly suggest may not an Interpreter so was I there say questions both concerning their own Superstition and also concerning one Jesus c. 3. The third is long and I know not well how to contract it I said Paul was accused of Sedition seducement profanation of the Temple c. he returns Paul had cleared himself from those and so in Festus Judgement Paul was not guilty of any thing but onely of his own Religion and one Jesus by way of explication and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being exegetical c. But 1. what though Paul had answered some of those charges being innocent in all yet might not Festus tell Agrippa they had many questions against him as verse 7. it is said 2. That Paul was not charged with any thing but his own Superstition and one Jesus is a meer begging the question 3. So is the next that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And is here exegetical which is proved false by the double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning noted before which would have been but once had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 been exegetical And which is worse the accusation had not been in the plural not some questions but a question concerning one Jesus I wish the Doctor did not here strain his wits against the light having said at first he would not make it a controversie with any At last he comes of with a Charientismus If all were granted p. 65. n. 10. that I desire that the Superstition spoken of was not Saint Pauls but the Jewes then be will say it shall signisie the Jewes Religion simply without any Character of ill or good laid upon it And why did he not save all this long vitiligation by saying so much at first and himself and me all this trouble Yet I hope it may do good one way or other and then no cause to repent Section 21. What Epicurus doctrine was or what Heathens thought of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are not much solicitous c. THat the Doctors intention was in his large discourse out of Heathens concerning the word p. 66. n. 1. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To lead us away in a mist from the true and proper sense of the word amongst Christans may probably be
I have in the Gospel i. e. the power of receiving maintenance from others c. This indeed is the gloss of some Greek Fathers and onely two Papists follow them Gagnaeus and Cajetane as Estius tells me In locum who throwes off this Interpretation as too violent and distorted for very good reasons But take the sum from him more concisely By one willing they understand him that doth it having no command but doth it spontè of his own proper motion whom they say to have a reward not any one due to one that Preacheth the Gospel but much and great above others that took their hire the unwilling they interprets to be him that doth it upon command and enjoyned dispensation although he do it willingly and from his heart Now take the absurdities that follow upon this Interpretation which the Doctor follows 1. It supposes that Paul or any man might have taken upon himself the office of Apostleship or to Preach the Gospel without a commission contrary to Scripture Rom. 10. and the Doctors own principles If I had not been Commissionated to Preach but done it of my self 2. It makes Paul or any man that does so a volunteer in Worship to set upon uncommanded Worship such is the Office of Preaching an act of Worship n. 2. afore which also the Doctor denies to set up a new kinde of Worship without command 3. It must then be said which is Estius observation that Paul and all the Apostles Preached the Gospel invitos unwillingly Yea the Angels and Men what ever they do by command of God to do it unwillingly nay Christ himself as man to have Preached the Gospel and done what ever he did in the flesh for our salvation unwillingly because he did all upon his Fathers Commandment which how absurd it is who sees not 4. He makes the rest of the Apostles labour in the Gospel though willingly and with all their hearts worthy of no reward because they took their hire of their Auditors or at least no great reward as they may expect that Preach freely This says the Doctor would be rewardable in me the other will bring me no reward What is then my reward that is says the Dr. what in this whole matter shall bring me in any reward the answer is that Preaching the Gospel I do it freely without charge to the people But Estius answers otherwise How did Paul deny himself a reward if he took hire of them Thus he that without care of the success of the Gospel scandal of the weak burthens his hearers with charge he surely Preaches the Gospel unwillingly so loses his reward For he as he had said afore Preaches unwillingly who Preaches it out of fear and he who doth it not loving the Gospel but his own profit by the Gospel c. Yea Chrysost the first that hinted this Interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Theophylact follows him at heels Yet says that he that preacheth the Gospel upon command shall have a reward which the Doctor denies though not so great as he that does it without command In locum 5. It makes Paul to teach works of Supererogation which Papists plead from this text thus understood which merit greater reward for an uncommanded performance as the Doctor phrases it oft then for an act done upon command and this we shall hear the Doctor confidently assert hereafter p. 229. n. 14. 6. Adde this absurdity to the rest that the Doctor here jumpes with the Jesuites in expounding those words ver 5. of this Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of some Christian woman that attended and ministred to the Apostles a sister a woman not as Protestants a sister a wife Vide Chamier T. 3. l. 16. c. 12. s 19. c. which as it overthrows the Apostles scope which was to shew his liberty to be chargable to them whereas if he had led about a woman to bear his charges this plea were impertinent so this Interpretation of the Jesuite is wittily and sharply chastised by a learned hand Doctor Hall Hon. of Marr. Clerg l. 1. s 26. to whom I refer him But I attend him further p. 185. n. 5. Although this was not observed by Cephas and other Apostles ver 5. Yet sure Cephas is not conceived to have sinned thereby but 't is positively said It was lawful for all v. 7 11 14. All this is true but was it not lawful for Paul as well as for them did not he take wages of other Churches and perhaps of this Church at other times yet did he not sin but this would abate of his boasting and rejoycing over these that did take hire Had he never taken hire of any Churches this had made him differ from the rest and this had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysost speaks a virtuous action of his own choice and matter of great excellence in the Doctors language and had been a place for boasting as he speaks Paul counts and calls this matter of rejoycing or boasting in respect to the reward which he was allowed to expect from God for it But let 's here Estius his gloss of those former words that the other Apostles sinned not c. All of them had not the same causes to do as Paul did but there 's no doubt but they also did abstain from the use of that power where the spirit and reason dictated abstinence to them As Paul when those causes ceased did not refuse hire no more then they as among the Macedonians and others Judge Reader which is the Papist which the Protestant and which is the better Interpreter And as for Pauls boasting and rejoycing in it as more vertuous and rewardable it savours not of Pauls spirit For first It 's clear against our Saviours rule When you have done all say you are unprofitable servants we have done but what we were commanded to do nothing to boast of If the Doctor shall say as in effect he does say When we have done all that 's commanded there is no cause to boast but if do more then is commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome and Theophylact speak then a man may boast and for that reason expect a greater reward Surely our Saviour did not think however some Fathers speak that a man may do more then is commanded above the command of God or that he could do all that is commanded but suppose you could yet say but unprofitable servants 2. It 's contrary to Pauls own Doctrine who every where makes the reward of eternal life to be designed to Faith and Grace not to Works purposely to exclude boasting Rom. 3.27 Where is boasting then it is excluded by what Law Of Works No but by the Law of Faith And again Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were justified by works he hath wherein to glory but not with God Contra what place for glorying upon this reason It is a work of
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
any eminent virtues not under some command for which there is no promise 5. The Doctor puts us a case suppose two men equal in obediences one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection this shall have the richer reward Just the Popish dream of Aurea and Aureola But let me put him a case Suppose two men unequal in obediences no doubt but such there are and he that hath the least of obedience whether by frailty or otherwise hath exceeded the other in acts of uncommanded virtues which now shall have the greater acceptance and reward If the latter then it will follow that he that hath most sins such is he that hath the least of obediences shall have more glory for uncommanded virtues then he that hath lesser and fewer sins such is he that hath more obediences for want of uncommanded virtues Nay it will follow that he that hath less and fewer obediences but more uncommanded virtues shall have both less and more glory then the other less because the other having more obediences should in reason the Doctors own phrase expect a greater reward then he that hath less and yet more because he hath more uncommanded virtues which is a Qâ—odlibet fitter for the Romish Schools to determine If this be not the intruding into those things which he hath not seen vainly puft up by his fleshly mind Col. 2.18 I leave it to consideration Yet the Doctor sayes p. 229. n. 15 Its most evident the latter shall have the richer reward whether by considering the degrees of glory in heaven or the rule by which God distributes them still under the Gospel to every man according to his work As for the degrees of glory of Saints in Heaven he knows it s a disputable probleme how ever very uncertain how they shall be proportioned being a work of pure grace and favour which may give as much to him that comes in to work at the last houre as to him that came in at the first and do him no wrong And as for the Rule of distribution of rewards according to mens works that may have a double sense either according to the quality or kinde of mens works good to the good and evil to the evil as oft it is applied Rom. 2.6 Gal. 6.7 8. Or according to the quantity more reward for greater good and lesser for lesser and so greater torments to greater and more sins contra and so it is sometimes used And for greater punishments for greater sins its clear by Scripture which speaks of greater damnation and easier for Tyre and Sidon c. the reason is because that 's an act of justice but whether more or greater good works shall have greater reward may reasonably be scrupled because that 's a work of pure mercy which may do what it will with its own However God will reward men according to their works of obedience to his commands according to his promise but not according to mens own devised good works of higher perfection and uncommanded unless they can shew us such a promise In the next place my Charity is slighted and rejected with some scorn that I said n. 16. Ours are not yet come so far as to think they can merit by such works as Papists do and the Dr. concludes from my confession We are not Papists yet nor yet do I maintain works of Supererogation c. It was both my Charity and Modesty thus to speak of some for he knows some of ours who were as zealous as himself for Will-worship are turned absolute Papists even in this point of merit by commanded and uncommanded works Let him that yet standeth take heed lest he fall And the rather because he stands upon slippery ground which may easily cast him into the same precipice I did not directly charge the Doctor with the opinion or heresie of works of Supererogation but sure he is very near it and seeing that I spake in Charity but he takes it by the wrong handle to prevent his falling into the pit I shall onely shew him how near he is to it if he will have the patience to hear me As in other points he is gone far towards Rome as very learned men think so in this particular now before us They agree in these things 1. In the Principle of Supererogation which is That a man may do uncommanded works or that there are uncommanded virtues of eminent perfection above commanded virtues So they so he asserts 2. They agree also in the success of such uncommanded perfections that they are more commendable more acceptable to and more rewardable by God this he and they do confidently affirm alike 3. In the ground of them in regard of satisfaction to God by them that is merit for so Papists do expresly make them meritorious of more glory for themselves and for pardon and glory for others that need them But this the Doctor disclaimes and abhors p. 224. n. 3. It is an infinite mercy that they are rewardable the most excellent of them True in words he denies all meriting of glory by his most eminent perfections but see the consequences of his doctrine for thus I would argue If uncommanded works be more rewardable it must be either by way of merit or of grace I know no third way Rom. 4.4 Of grace or of debt But his uncommanded works are not more rewardable by way of grace for then they have some promise for that greater reward in Scripture but they are all made to obediences upon commands What remains then but by way of debt or merit and then indeed he may not onely confidently expect a greater reward but peremptorily challenge it * The Doctrine of Supererogation is founded in their opinion that a man may by uncommanded performances make satisfaction for his own and other men sins which I no way believe or acknowledge p. 224. n. 1. by way of justice as Papists do It may be said wherein then does the Doctor differ from them In point of satisfaction onely either for their own or others sins But Papists make their works of Supererogation or uncommanded virtues to merit greater glory for themselves if not for others also And herein in the first at least they both agree Let us review a little the 53. Sect. of Will-worship and we shall see what he asserts to free his doctrine from Supererogation 1. It supposeth no perfect obedience Nor do Papist do so but does not the Doctor so both in his particular acts of some virtues which he makes to be sinless and also in universal obedience to the Law to be possible at least for Christs yoke is not made up of impossible precepts Nor do Papists hold that all men can or do keep the Law but onely some eminent Saints and consequently they do or should hold if they speak reason that none but such can Supererogate But if such as have sinned and do sin may Supererogate the Doctors denial of perfect obedience