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
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
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
Gods good grace and strength in us and then what place for gloryings p. 224. n. 3. But these men give Paul and themselves leave and liberty to boast for a work done without or above a command To preach the Gospel for hire is a precept and so a debt no great matter of excellence or boasting in it but to Preach it freely is the honour of my will and hath a greater reward and in that respect there is matter of boasting VVhat Papist could say more 3. Nay some Papists say less Nec verò convenit Paulinae modestiae c. It beseemes not Pauls modesty to promise himself a greater reward and glory with God than the rest should receive who preached the Gospel sincerely though they took hire especially seeing that concerned them also which he said above ver 12. To give no offence or hinderance to the Gospel of God Estius in locum 4. But yet further Paul himself makes it a duty to Preach freely when just occasion is offered for so he speaks to the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20.34 35. You your selves know that these hands have ministred to my necessities and to them that were with me I have shewed you all things how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak So labouring ye ought which implies a duty See 1 Thes 2.9 2 Thes 3.7 6 9. p. 186. n. 6. where the people are poor and weak unable to supply their Minister with his hire he may not exact it And this will bring me to the next thing enlarged by the Doctor And that is that the Fathers seem to call it a voluntary act of Piety and the highest degree of munificence above command c. But this must be candidly understood as I said above the general command That they that Preach the Gospel shall live of the Gospel but not above a special call by circumstances hapning Things that are restrained by circumstances says learned Chamier are not therefore said to be unlawful nay Tom. 3. l. 21. c. 21. p. 818. s 75. are therefore said to be lawful because they are not restrain'd but by certain circumstances It is the Apostles own Rule All things are lawful but all things are not expedient And it is another maxime of Divines Quicquid non expedit quatenus non expedit non licet Whatever is not expedient at this time or place to be done is unlawful to be done but then it cannot be above all command This will not down with the Doctor They that received hire were not faulty sayes Chrysost which they must be if bound by any special call as the Diatribist from Chamier but against the whole contexture of the place to do what they did n. 8. There is no great sense in these words should he not rather have said They were faulty if they were bound by any special call not to do as they did that is not to receive hire which they did receive However the reason is not beseeming the Doctors strength might they not be faultless in receiving hire where the people were able and yet faulty when they were poor which is the special call if they did claim it But the Apostle himself clears it to be faulty for him in that case to have taken hire of them That I abuse not my power in the Gospel So most Interpreters render it But the Doctor loves to swim against the stream and renders the words that I use not my power c. make no use of it He knows the word signifies sometime and often to abuse as well as to use why must it needs be taken here in the latter sense because it will better fit the Doctors designe of uncommanded performances or highest acts of Piety above command I could refer him to Chamier Ubi supr s 78. to take his answers to Bellarmine urging this very sense of the word and vindicating the authorities by him brought for it with this proem Audiat Bellarminus Jesuita suorū Jesuitarū judicium Where he reckons up Salmeron Justinian and and others not Jesuites Cajetane Thomas Lyranus and the Lovanienses who all render it by abutar abuse and give reasons for it take one Fuisset enim illud abuti potestate c. For that was to abuse his power if he had required his hire and in that thing had derogated from the authority of the Gospel So Salmeron so the rest to the same purpose But the Doctor cites Scripture for his sense of the word 1 Cor. 7.31 Vsing the world as if they used it not So he reads it but ours and others as not abusing it And if the Apostle had intended his sense he would have kept the same word as he did before in the other instances and have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that 's but a conjecture let 's try if from the scope and context of the Apostles words it may not appear that it must be rendred that I abuse not my power If it was a sin for the Apostle in that case to have taken hire then he had abused his power to take it and consequently he intended to say If he had made the Gospel chargeable to them he had abused his power But the Antecedent is true the consequence undeniable ergo The Antecedent I prove thus If his taking hire of them in that case had been to the hinderance of the success of the Gospel then he bad sinned in taking of it But so it had been This I prove from verse 12. We have not used this power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the simple verb but suffer all things the loss of our hire lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ Implying that if he had used that power he had hindered the Gospel of Christ which certainly had been a sin I know not what the Doctor can say to this Chamier ubi supra s 80 81. c. unless with Bellarm. he tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there signifies Interruption not a Scandal and so not to be a sin to take hire though some Retardation of the Gospel had followed which if he say let him there see his answer and more with it But see the luck of it his own phrase he that differs from Estius in his true Interpretation of this text yet agrees with him in the false consequence and abuse of it to prove works of Supererogation onely the Doctor dare not speak out as the other doth Estius asks this question In locum How Paul by not taking wages did a work of supererogation if he was bound by charity not to take his hire lest he should scandalize the weak or leave an occasion to the false Apostles of glorying against him Hear his answer A work of supererogation is so called not that when it is done hath none or the least obligation by the Law of Charity but that which simply and nakedly considered is not under precept but a counsel although
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
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
did formerly on a Jew Instead of lessening Christ hath made the burthen heavier one degree of moral perfection is an harder burthen then all the ceremonial Laws Those they might with some care and diligence exactly perform being but external Rites but no care or diligence of a man without grace can rise to one the least degree of moral perfection And to natural men the Law is every whit as exact and yet impossible to observe as afore and Christ hath not eas'd their burthen at all but they lie under the curse of damnation for every the least breach of the Law But what an increase of weight will Christs new moral precepts of higher perfection lay upon them For instance if the sixth Commandment forbad onely the outward act of murther and the seventh onely actual adultery as the Pharisees at least if not the Doctor supposed and Christ have added new precepts to make rash anger and reproachful language to be murther and the very lustings of the heart to be adultery a natural man hath a much heavier burthen then a Jew for it 's not impossible for him to abstain from the acts of those sins and so to fulfil the letter of those Commandments but very difficult if not impossible without great grace to prevent anger and lustings of the heart But he says That weight is abundantly recompensed by other respects That must be one way because he gives more strength by giving more grace But 1. that is not given to unbelieving Christians who yet lie under these new weights 2. Nor is this to make the yoke lighter but heavier onely giving more strength to bear it but a lesser strength to a lesser burthen might do as well as was said above 2. He speaks indeed of another way of easing the burthen The gainfulness of the new yoke will make it light though it be a yoke Pract. Cat. p. 95. But when the burthen is increased to the proportion of the gain there will be little ease in that and if love of gain onely make it easie it seems more mercenary then ingenuous This is but one of the Doctors new Philosophical Speculations Sect. 47. Whence it is apparent c. ANd now we are come to a new debate p. 219. n. 52 Whether every man be bound to do that which is best The falseness of the affirmative the Doctor undertakes to discover 1. By the words of the Apostle he that Marries doth well but he that Marrieth not doth better I said well and better there refer to worldly good in those persecuting times So the Apostle ver 26. For the present distress This he says will be soon shaken assunder 1. By considering that well belongs to moral goodness ver 28. If thou Marry thou sinnest not doing well is not sinning and that 's a moral good But I pray Sir is not doing well more then not sinning if taken of moral good and if taken of worldly good not sinning is not doing well The truth is the Doctor here equivocates with us these texts have no respect to one another in regard of good and evil moral It 's good for the present distress I say it 's good for a man so to be to be a Virgine or unmarryed This must necessarily be understood of a worldly good in respect of the present distress to prevent trouble c. But if Good be meant of moral good here then it must needs follow that it 's morally evil to Marry it 's evil for a man so to be that is to Marry moral good and moral evil are opposed not moral good and worldly evil The 28. ver is an answer to a secret objection which the Doctor makes by his sense If it be good not to Marry morally good then it 's morally evil to Marry No says the Apostle if thou Marryest thou sinnest not but take this with it such shall have trouble in the flesh that is worldly evil at this time attends upon Marriage therefore it 's worldly good not to Marry though it be no sin to Marry Hence the 38. ver alledged by the Doctor must be understood of the same kinde of good both the well and the better He that Marries does well there 's no sin but onely trouble in it but he that Marries not does better supposing the gift of continency else he does worse not to Marry because of the present distress there 's no sinning in either but in worldly respects he does better that Marries not But the Doctor hath a second answer n. 53. p. 219 Marrying is quite contrary to worldly good such shall have trouble in the flesh This sure is a great mistake how is Marriage contrary to worldly good not in a worldly respect as Marriage is a civil thing if Marriage be good as it is and necessary for some worldly troubles are not contrary to Marriage but many times coincident Not in a moral respect is Marriage quite contrary to worldly good for moral good worldly good or evil are not contrary But if worldly good as Marriage is be opposed to worldly evil they are not yet contrary but divers things in the same subject Marriage good and troubles ill A third answer is from ver 32. The advantages of Marriage the unmarryed careth for the things of the Lord how he may please the Lord c. which are not barely worldly spiritual advantages and a greater moral or spiritual good then the caring for the things of the world to please a yoke-fellow But 1. Every thing that may be an advantage to a moral and spiritual good is not presently to be accounted it self a moral or spiritual good Riches are a great advantage to do more good but yet are not moral goods A Church is an advantage to the publick service of God and in some sense better then a field or wood yet not a moral good and many such like And it may be said he that hath riches is better then he that wants them not morally but in respect of a worldly advantage to do more good and they that may serve God in an house or field do well but they that have a Church do better that is have better accommodations to serve God which yet are neither moral nor spiritual goods say the like of Marriage and single life But this he says Paul spake of him that hath the gift That if he Marry he does well if not better that is say I neither wayes he sins but in regard of freedom from the troubles of the times and more liberty to serve God he that Marries not doth better which if he will understand of morally better he having the gift and yet Marrying 1 Cor. 12. last should do ill that is sin for he is bound to do what is best if in his power as here it is supposed to be Mark once more the Doctors words Is not the holiness of body and spirit and the caring for the things of the Lord a greater
does not make it impossible for himself also to Supererogate which is as he sayes to lay out more then is commanded that is to do something not commanded But again if a man may Supererogate being a sinner by doing something not commanded how easie a consequence is this to carnal reason I can do more then is commanded ergo I may merit more glory for my self if not satisfie for others which brings me to the next 2. If supposing every man to have sinned it pretendeth not to the least degree of satisfaction to God for any the least sin of our own 3. Much less for others sins So they differ onely in point of satisfaction for sins which notwithstanding hinders not but there may be Supererogation in point of doing more then is commanded whence Supererogation hath its denomination and also in purchasing if I may not say * Virgo-majoris est meriti said Hierom. cited above p. 95. meriting which is true enough if such works have no promise of greater reward meritting I say glory more glory for our selves if not for others and so the Doctor falls into their doctrine of merit of glory though he escape the gulf of satisfaction for sins and which is worse and most blasphemous against the precious and infinite merits of Christ is hard to determine By all which it may appear my Charity was useful enough to fetch out a brother fallen or stay him falling into the pit And yet see how contemptibly the Doctor throws it away p. 229. n. 16 I onely adde that 't is no way useful for him to lose his pains and his charity by confuting those of whom he onely divineth that they may hereafter fall into false doctrine which yet I hope I shall not do having no temptation from all this Diatribists exercitation and arguments therein contained to flie to any other Sect of Religion to furnish my self with answers for him Truly I am sorry my charity and my pains should be lost upon him I finde my pains is not lost to others and for my charity let him now consider what need he had of it if not it shall I doubt not return into mine own bosome And were I of his opinion I should finde a temptation upon me to those ill consequences of his doctrine and must either flie some whither for answers to them or flie to Rome to be of their opinions in point of Supererogation For what wise man might not be tempted to thinke When the Scripture calls to the most excellent way and prudence as he said suggests the readiest way to be most glorious in Heaven is to do that which is best and the Doctor or Papists shall teach this doctrine See n. 17. That to do things not commanded is more commendable acceptable rewardable with God then to do things commanded by God Who will not feel himself tempted to leave or somewhat neglect the common rode of obediences to commands and run into this new-found easier way that will lead more speedily to higher glory This hath mislead thousands of Papists and they no Babies as it did the Pharisees of old and if I be not deceived many of our own superstitious Formalists for such there were though the Doctor scorns the words into many Will-worships who it 's known too well to be hid did neglect the commands of God enough but were zelots in the Doctors uncommanded Worship and Ceremonies and ambitious some of them of his uncommanded eminent perfection and virtues c. And for a close of this I did not before but now almost durst take upon me to Divine that in his next answers to what is now said the Doctor must either flie to some other Sect of Religion that of the Romanist for answers or else must return to the way of truth which he hath deserted and I defend which God grant Hear what he says more p. 230. n. 18 As those which freely do those things which others account unlawful ought not to despise those which do them not so on the other side those which do them not ought in no wise to judge or condemne those that do them Rom. 14. But first this rule of the Apostle must be understood of things meerly indifferent meats c. not of things unlawfull and forbidden as all uncommanded Worship is In this case they that do it not ought in all wise to judge and condemn them that do it and not to suffer sin upon their brother Levit. 19.17 2. It 's well known that they which did too freely do those things which others accounted and proved unlawfull did not onely despise but judged condemned and punished those which did them not And so were the first and worst transgressours of their own rule bespeaking the favour not to be despised by others that themselves might have the liberty to judge others c. Had they left them as indifferent and free to do or not to do them there would have been as no judging of them that do them not so no despising but rather pittying of them which do them And now I have done with this Diatribe but that charity which begins at home though it after go abroad calls upon me to rectifie two misprisions and injuries put upon me 1. That I censured our Bishops by the Character of Over-looking as guilty of insolence and contempt towards others which like the Karaeans kept close to the rule of the word for their Worship I can sincerely profess that to my best remembrance the Bishops in that notion were not in my thoughts some of which I ever reverenced as learned and pious men But if any of them were superstitious Formalists as some were known to be in that notion I might intend them whose insolence and contempt of their differing brethren was too often felt in making their own constitutions and ceremonies snares to tender honest consciences c. Yet if the Doctor will needs know whom I meant I shall freely tell him they were those who ambitious perhaps of that Episcopal dignity did comply to every new introduced superstitious ceremony with scorn enough overlooking them who could not do so some of them being loose and profane in morall conversation That 's the first There is another great mistake and very false yet like a threed runs through all his former discourse That I presume all use of uncommanded Ceremonies to be Superstition first and then Formality Which I so professedly disclaimed often and have his confession sometimes to the contrary that I understood the question onely of uncommanded Worship not of Circumstances not of Ceremonies unless they be made parts of Worship or offend against some other Scripture Rules Which whether his Christmas Festival as it was by most observed be guilty of comes next to be considered Exercitation 3. Of Christmas and other Festivals HAving so largely vindicated the two former Diatribees in Thesi I shall not need to be long in Hypothesi The judicious Reader ere this