oathes the negative and affirmative parts of it and then with what propriety can that be said to denote the right manner of the worship with all due reverence Or if it should be extensible so far then sure all ceremonies that may express that reverence though not elsewhere prescribed will be here commanded and then sure not forbidden in the 2d Commandment Lastly for the right time God's own appointed day the Sabbath I suppose he means though that be appointed in the 4th Commandment yet sure not so as to prohibite all others we know there was a yearly Sabbatick fast the great day of expiation so called Isa 58. 13. and many other feasts beside that of the weekly rest in the 4th Commandment some of Gods own institution others as the feast of dedication of the Altar in memory of the purging by Judas Maccabaeus instituted by the Jewes themselves and never mentioned in the Canon of the old Testament and so the fasts of the fift and seventh moneth Zac. 7. 5. And under the new Testament the first day of the week that certainly was not the last which the Decalogue prescribed and why the Apostles that instituted that proportionably to the weekly Sabbath should not either they or their successors institute other days festival or fasting proportionable to the like among the Jewes sure there is no manner of prohibition in the 4th Commandment which commanding one day to be hallowed and allowing the rest for their ordinary labour doth not yet interdict all others or bind his own or his peoples and all Christians hands from prescribing or setting a part any other And there being so little solidity in the grounds how can it be expected there should be any in the conclusion as he saith answerably erected on them that Superstition may extend to the whole first Table or that every excess which he will phansie reducible to any of these shall straightway commence Superstition That he may farther perswade this one observation he commends to us fundamental to this discovery but such as I think never slipt from any man before him His words are these The Commandments of God having every of them a negative and affirmative part expressed or understood the duties of Religion do stand in the midst as virtues between two extremes Here I shall not question the corner stone of this foundation else I might demand what is the affirmative part of the 2d Commandment or how can it be evidenced that there is any or indeed any more then a prohibition of idol-worship appendant to the no other Gods in the first Commandment which still is but a negative or an interdict or if an affirmative be to be understood must it not be bowing down to the true God and so that will not prejudge but justifie all outward decent gestures of adoration assist not oppugne our pretentions But in stead of this nicer inquirie and supposing with him that every of the Commandments hath its negative and affirmative part I onely demand how he could think that the duties of Religion stand in the midst what I pray is the antecedent to which in the midst relates there is no other in the period but an affirmative and negative part of each Commandment But do the duties of Religion stand in the midst of the affirmative and the negative part of each Commandment as virtues between two extremes Then sure the affirmative part of the command is one extreme and the negative is the other then what is commanded in the affirmative part to that which is under precept is an extreme and so a vice as far removed from virtue as that which is forbidden in the negative the worship of one God a vice as well as the worshipping of many paying to God our oathes a vice as well as perjurie perfect chastity a vice as well as the most prostitute adultery and so in the rest of them what could have been said more unluckily then this I would fain believe that the Diatribist did not mean thus and therefore would attempt to affixe some other possible meaning to his words as thus without any retrospect toward the former part of the period that the duties of Religion stand in the midst between two extremes as virtues stand in the midst between two extremes But then to what purpose was the ment on of the two parts affirmative and negative of the Commandments premised for this I am still to seek and therefore must misdoubt my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is not so fit for the malady as I could have wisht and yet I have no better to succeed it The best of it is he hath not pursued this observation nor made this Superstructure in his exemplification thereof the grosseness of it would not permit that But then to what purpose was his observation sure but to amuse the reader and say somewhat demurely which should pretend to be a ground of his beloved conclusions that all additions to the rule of worship are excess against the 2d Commandment additions of ridiculous ceremonies or gestures an excess against the 3d men's instituting other holy days and times an excess against the 4th And truly what else he please with as much appearance of truth or solidity of argument as these are inferred from either the letter of those Commandments or from the solemne observation concerning the affirmative and negative parts of them and the duties of Religion in the midst T is true all worshipping of Idols is forbidden in the 2d Commandment but how come all uncommanded rites to be Idols All perjury and by Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntarie swearing at all is forbidden in the 3d Commandment but how come rites and ceremonies and gestures though never so ridiculous to be either oaths or perjuries or to bear any analogie with or by that means to be reducible to them In the 4th Commandment the not observing Gods designed Sabbath was a defect but what words of that Commandment conclude against instituting other holy days and times as an excess and that criminous not admittable among Christians If any it must be six days shalt thou labour but sure that is not the meaning of them but the explication is to be fetcht from the other part of the period and do all that thou hast to do i. e. all thy labour and all that thou hast to do shall be finisht as God's was in six days and no other day must be so set apart as to take off from the seventh dayes rest or Sabbath but for such celebrations as are reconcileable with that there is no word nor appearance to the prejudging of them But the unlawfulness of this last is confirmed by the sinfulness of Jeroboams act 1 Kin. 12. 32. He ordained a feast like unto the feast that was in Judaea But the Diatribist cannot but know what it was that made that criminous in Jeroboam his appointing this feast to be kept with sacrifices at Bethel which beside the
satisfied with my own innocence that I cannot be farther gratified with the contemplation of others guilts And so much for his first exercitation having I hope competently secured the observance of the rites and ceremonies of our Church from being the introducing of any new worship or criminous excess against any of the Commandments of the first table and consequently from the charge of Superstition in any justifiable notion or Etymologie or acception of the word not taking that of Super Statutum to be such CHAP. V. Of Will-worship Sect. 1. The state of the Question Will-worship distinguisht from the circumstances of it The matter of mans will of three sorts The 6. several possible notions of Will-worship The application of them to the matter in hand The vanity of the Diatribists distinction The scope of the 2d Commandment IN the Diatribe of Will-worship the first complaint is that the Dr. had not as it became him distinguished the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek or Will-worship in English before he began his defence of them and to repair this unbecoming defect on the Doctors part the Diatribist is pleased to do it for him by assigning it a double notion 1. For voluntary spontaneous or willing worship i. e. willingness or freeness in worship commanded by God and then they were to blame saith he that put an ill notion upon them or 2. For worshippe devised by the wit and appointed by the will of man as contradistinguished to the will and wisdome of God and then it was not so much the ill fortune as the just punishment of them to pass under an ill notion c. For the scope of the 2d Commandment in the affirmative part being this God must be worshipped with his own prescribed worship and in the negative to forbid all devised worship of God by the wit or will of man the very name of will of man put to worship of God as opposed to the will of God the onely rule of worship is as a brand in the forehead of it to characterize it as condemnable in all This his first § I have thus fully set down as the foundation of his discourse on this subject and very fit for my direction how to proceed in the reply to it For if I shall now punctually obey his admonition and having in his opinion formerly failed of my duty speedily indevour to repair it 1. by distinguishing the Greek and English word though by giving it the exact limits in that one place where it is used in Scripture I had hoped well that I had formerly performed all that was necessary in this kind and telling him clearly in what sense I take it defending it to be no way reprovable and 2. by shewing the unfitnesse of his distinction here premised and the fallaciousnesse of the reason or proof annexed to it me thinks this should set me on a good way toward the end of this second Stage and so do that which is most desireable to the Reader and my self confer much to our expedition in this journey For the first then I shall distinguish as formerly betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship whether the theological virtue or some act thereof together with the gradual intension and extension the degrees and also the frequency or number of those acts on one side and the external ceremonies or circumstances of it on the other side which are not parts but accidents of worship As in any other habit that of justice particularly may be exemplified It may beside the virtue of justice signifie 1. some act of that virtue or 2. the degree thereof and frequent repetition more or lesse of the acts of it but for the circumstance of time or place attending on any act of it they will never be called justice with any propriety Secondly For will the other ingredient in the composition of the word meaning thereby the will or choice of man it may be of four sorts distinguishable by the matter which is will'd or chosen 1. when the thing thus will'd by man is forbidden by God or 2. when 't is commanded and under obligation as far as the force of affirmative precepts extends of which the rule is true that obligant semper sed non ad semper they oblige us alwayes but yet do not oblige us to be always exercising some act of the virtues so commanded and so when it is done it is done in perfect concord with and agreeablenesse to the precept but yet for that time or in that degree it lay not under particular precept but might without disobedience or sin have been omitted 3. When the thing will'd is left free and indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden by God 4. When although it be not indifferent much lesse forbidden but good in an high degree yet it is not under particular precept and so may be omitted without sin when it is done it is highly rewardable by God I shall give an example of each of these branches also Of the first when a man himself commits or teacheth others to commit adultery adultery being forbidden by God and so his action or teaching an act of his will opposed to the will of God Of the second when I give to the poor yearly or weekly such a proportion out of my estate which I am able to give and so offend against no office of justice in giving and yet am not obliged to give by any precept of Gods which laies it as a duty upon me An instance of which is set down at large in the Tract of Wil-worship § 32. which together with other exemplifications of the point in hand very necessary to cleer my sense and yet in no reason here to be repeated I must desire the Reader to fetch from that place § 30. and so forward Of the third when I walk or sit still laugh or weep the law of God leaving it perfectly free for me to do or omit either of these as I shall choose Of the last all writers Jewish Heathen and Christian give us frequent examples Maimonides among the Jewes More Nevoch par 3. c. 17. mentions it as the common saying of the Iewish Doctors that Reward is by God given to him that doth any thing uncommanded Among the Heathens one for all Plutarch who instances in acts of fortitude freeing the city from Tyrants doing any great thing which saith he are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 required or commanded by Law For saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. if the Law command such things then all must be counted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedient and breakers of Lawes which deserve not reward in warre which let the Tyrants live an houre or which do not some of those other things which are accounted excellent and by consequence all such must be punished as offenders So Nazianzen of the Christian Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of our Law some things lay necessity on them
be many acts of worship many circumstances of worship yea and many heights of Christian heroical virtue which may bear proportion with worship that are not under obligation from any particular command of Gods and so remain to be acts of the will or choise of man which are perfectly lawfull acceptable yea some highly rewardable by God and so far from the guilt which Mr. C. affixes of high indignity or affront to the divine Majestie What he addes of the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they are but twice apiece used in the Book of Wisdome and alway in an ill notion which saith he is but little to the credit of the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might sure have been spared it being as certain and visible to him that the same word is used by St James c. 1. 27. in as good a sense as could be wisht with the epithets of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pure and undefiled before God added to it and v. 26. for the profession of Christianity though for want of actions bridling the tongue and the like that becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vain And as plain that the word is in it self equally applicable to the true as to the false indifferently to any religion to St Pauls religion among the Jews Act. 26. 5. the strictest sect of our religion to the worship of Angels Col. 2. 18. and so to the worship of Idols in the Book of Wisdome which yet can no more tend to the disadvantage of the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when that is not terminated on any prohibited object then the use of the Latine cultus sometimes for the worship of false Gods can prejudge voluntarius cultus voluntary worship when either the object is not specified or the mention of the one true God is added to it It being confest and supposed by both parties in this contest that the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship it self is not culpable save onely when the other part of the composition the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the interposition of the will or as he will style it the devise or appointment of man hath an influence upon it Sect. 3. His entrance on the view of Col. 2. answered The difference betwixt Commands of Magistrates and imposition of dogmatizers What t is which is said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS 3d § is his entrance on the view of Col. 2. where onely the word Will-worship is to be found and in setting down his grounds of interpreting it 1. He citeth Beza and BP Davenant whose words are presently answered by adverting to the distinction formerly given between the essentials and circumstantials the parts and the ceremonies of worship 2dly He pretends to discover a mistake in me in that I observe from v. 22. that St Paul speaks not of commands but doctrines not of the prohibition of the Magistrate but of false teachers imposing them as the commands of God Whereas saith he the Apostle speaks expressely of these impositions that they were after the Commandments and doctrines of men v. 8. after the traditions of men to worship God by the observation of them Of which words of his if there be any shadow of force in them by way of exception against me the meaning must be that the Apostle there speaks of the commands or prohibitions of Magistrates in things of themselves perfectly indifferent and censures those commands under the style of Will-worship But then this hath no degree of truth in it for 1. The matter of the commands is no lawful matter but either the worship of Angels and that is criminous as the worshipping of a creature or the reducing of antiquated rites of Judaisme which ought not to be reduced being once cancelled and nailed to the cross of Christ 2. The commands were not commands of Magistrates but of men which had no authority to prescribe any thing especially so contrary to the doctrine which the Apostles had planted among them the Christian liberty from the Judaical yoke 3. The manner of imposing them was quite distant from that of the Magistrates giving laws Ecclesiastical or Civil those are by way of Canon as of things indifferent in order to decency and the like without ever pretending them to be in themselves necessary as commanded by God these are imposed as from God when they are not so and that is the known sin of dogmatizing to which I formerly applied the place And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commands signifies no more then so being joyned with and explicated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines i. e. such things as false teachers require all men to do in obedience to God or as if they were now commanded by him when some of them as abstinencies c. having once been required by God are now abolisht by Christ and the other the worship of Angels though it pretend not ever to have been commanded but onely to be acceptable to God is clearly forbidden by him So that here is a palpable mistake in the Diatribist who observes them to be commands meaning as he must if he censureth or opposeth me commands of Magistrates and not onely doctrines of false teachers when indeed commands and doctrines are all one both joyned together to signifie these dogmatizers pretending the things which they taught to be in force by Divine command by virtue of the Law given to Moses and not onely such as would be accepted by God as of the worship of Angels I suppose was pretended by those false teachers For this is to be remembred here once for all that the seducers spoken of in that Chapter were the Gnostick hereticks who made up their Theologie of Judaical and heathenish additions to the Christian truth from the Jews they had many abstinences such as were now abolisht by Christ and those they imposed as commands of God when they were not and from the heathens the doctrine of the Aeones or Angels as creators of this inferior world and so such as might with Gods good liking be worshipt by us Lastly Those commands of theirs are not censured by the Apostle as acts of Will-worship or blamed or put under any ill character for being such any more then for being acts of humility which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with Will-worship in that place v. 22. but as intrenchments on that liberty purchased for them by the death of Christ v. 20. which had cancelled these Judaical ordinances to all that were dead with him i. e. to Christians and had turned all Daemon worship out of their hearts but had no way bound up the hands of his Apostles or their successors the Governors of the Church from instituting ceremonies or festivals among Christians When the Diatribist addes of Will-worship that it had a shew of wisdome but no more t is but a begging the question or if it pretend to be concluded from that text it is without
by perfection according to the Commandments he will allow me to mean as the words literally import that sort and degree of perfection which the Commandments of the Gospel allow of very well though they require it not of every man or lay it under precept then I shall not doubt to approve the perfection which I instance in viz. that of martyrdome to be such unless when some discharge of known duty or yet greater good calls us another way and if this be the doctrine of Papists I hope yet that all Protestants are not therefore bound to disclaim it I never heard that our old English reformation which I thought had been sealed by the blood of many martyrs had lookt on martyrdome as a conceited Popish perfection And if this be the privilege of the present deformation to exclude martyrdome out of the catalogue of virtues as the Martyrs and Saints out of our Calendars if this Diatribist be now one of that Triumphant Church which hath thrown all cross from their shoulders and disclaimed all pretensions to this conceited perfection and resolved all to be Papists which shall thus communicate with the sufferings of Christ and observe this conformity with the image of Gods son Rom. 8. I shall only tell him that I shall be very well pleased to be guilty of this piece of Popery and to suffer from this sword of the tongue till God please to call me to any higher tryals Mean while when the Apostle and the Church which hath transcribed his style have used the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perfected by sufferings and called martyrdome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfection I cannot retract that style what envy soever fall on me for the using it What now followes in pursuit of this matter Does God call all men at all times to martyrdome Is there any command for all men to be martyred c. is directly the evincing my assertion against himself for upon that very foundation it is that I superstruct therefore Martyrdome which is the highest degree of perfection is not under any command Quod erat demonstrandum In my third answer which was that perfection here had degrees in it and consequently supposing men bound to be perfect Mat. 5. 48. yet it followes not that they are bound to the highest degree of perfection his answer is he will grant this and yet deny my voluntary oblations still But how can that be when that higher degree of perfection is supposed to be under no precept and so to be free and so when arrived to a voluntary oblation But his grant it seems was only conditional for it followes in his words For we say there are degrees of or rather to perfection here upon condition that he will grant that every degree even the highest is required by the law of God and what is short of that highest is so far culpable This condition I confesse I cannot perform and so must lose the advantage of his grant And truly to require it of me is to grant my premises and require me to renounce my conclusion For from that concession that there are degrees in perfection and there may be perfection where yet there is not the highest degree of perfection it infallibly follows that the highest degree of perfection is not under obligation of that precept which requires no more then that we be perfect as when the precept binds to no more then to be mercifull in some degree it is evident that it binds not to be mercifull in the highest degree and consequently that the highest degree of mercy shall be still free under no obligation of precept In this matter he desires to speak his own sense in St Hieromes words Charitas quae non potest augeri c. citing Ep. 62 for it But this citation is sure mistaken there is no such thing in that Epistle The place sure is in St Hieromes Epistle to St Augustine where he desires his sense of those words Jam. 2. 10. He that keeps the whole Law and offends in one point is guilty of all On which occasion he discourseth a great while how one virtue may be found in them which yet are guilty of other sins and so from one thing to another not by way of defining but by raising of difficulties to provoke St Augustines solution of them And on these termes he purposes his notion of virtue that it is the loving of that which is to be loved and is in some greater in some less in some none at all and then addes Plenissima verò quae jam non possit augeri quamdiu homo hîc vivit est in nemine quamdiu autem augeri potest profectò illud quod minus est quà m à ebet ex vitio est Ex quo vitio non est justus in terrâ qui faciat bonum non peccet c. But the most full virtue such as cannot be increased is in no man as long as he lives here But as long as it may be increased that which is less then it ought to be is faulty whereby it is that the Scripture saith that there is not a just man on earth which doth good and sinneth not and in thy sight shall no man living be justified and if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves c. By this view of the place it is evident that the virtue which on occasion of the place in St James he speaks of being an universall impartial observation of the whole Law and consequently every failing in that a vice for to that all the proofs belong that there is no man but sinneth sometimes there is no reason to extend his speech any farther then to this and then it will in no wise be appliable to our business which is onely of the degrees of this or that particular virtue which it is certain that man may have who yet is guilty of some sin in other particulars This therefore I willingly acknowledge that he that failes of any part of his duty is therein faulty or this is ex vitio in him and if of that onely S Hieromes words quamdiu augeri potest be understood as it is most reasonable they should whether wee judge by the occasion or the proofes of his speech or by the express words quod minus est quà m debet ex vitio est that which is less then it ought i. e. less then he is bound to do is faulty then as I fully consent to the truth of them so when that is granted no man can hence infer therefore every regular act of obedience which comes short of the highest degree of perfection is a sin for beside many other inconveniences formerly noted this fresh one will be observable from St Hieromes own words that then every act of virtue in this life is a sin for as for that fullest perfection which cannot be increased the beginning of this testimony acknowlegeth that it is not to be found in any man in
money upon the navy is Cicero's phrase pro Flacco erogare pecunias ex aerario in his Oration in Vatinium erogare in oleum in Plinie Ep. 240. joyned with conferre in operibus balnei unde in eos sumptus pecunia erogaretur in Livie l. 1. and the substantive erogatio for expending or laying out erogatio pecuniae in Cicero ad Atticum l. 15. 32. Tot impendiis tot erogationibus saith Plinie in his Panegyrick and in Suetonius 't is explained by largitio and profusio pecuniarum And accordingly supererogo is to lay out all and more and from the opinion of pious mens doing so the Romanists have clearly raised their treasure of the Church as the bank into which these payments are made I could not have expected that there should be any question made of this As it is I hope this will satisfie it And then alas what a remote unhappy etymologie hath this Diatribist fallen on supererogare is as much as super quod erogavit lex Had he been pleased to have englished this latine the mistake had been too visible and therefore that was more prudently omitted For what can erogavit signifie in that period of his Required so he renders it in the following period works saith he may be said supererogare when men think they have done more then the law required But 1. that is in no wise the meaning of the word as hath already been manifested 2. whatsoever it shall be resolved to signifie yet in this way of etymologie the erogavit belongs to the law whereas we know in the use of the word among all Romish writers it is the man or the works not the law which erogates i. e. lays out his money pains life c. and proportionably which supererogates 3. and which is yet more grosse the super must in this etymologie be assigned to the man as the erogating to the law and so the one word be divided betwixt them the law must be said to erogate the man to super and what is that either nothing or else to supererogate and yet that he cannot do in any sense wherein the law could be said to erogate Thus beyond all either reason or grammar incongruous and inconsistent is this etymologie And this being said concerning the nature of the word all that remains of his exercitation being built upon this mistake is perfectly superseded yet I shall attend him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In many respects saith he such works may be said to supererogate 1. with respect to the law it self when men think they have done more then the law required which makes them not supererogatory but derogatory from the perfection of the law of God and lays imperfection upon it as the Doctor hath plainly done above To this I answer 1. that by his own confession these which he now mentions are not supererogatory works but the contrary why then doth he set them as a first instance of the many respects in which such works may be said to supererogate 2. When he knowes that that treatise of mine on which he exercises his discipline doth not defend the thinking a mans self to doe more then the law requires but precisely in distinction from that to doe somewhat which the law doth not require why should he still confound things thus severed and lay that to my charge which he knows I am not guilty of 3. There is no truth in his suggestion that this doctrine as it is taught by me is derogatory to or layes imperfection to the law of God For if by the law of God he mean the Mosaical law then though from Christs own words I conclude that he came to fill it up or perfect it and so that it had in it before vacuities and imperfections yet the doctrine of the treatise of Will-worship is no way founded or concerned in that As for the law of Christ under which as well as under the law of the Jewes some things are left free and uncommanded and consequently I affirm it possible for a Christian to do something which is not commanded him I never accused that of imperfection but doe without all doubting suppose it to be a perfect codex of commands to which God will never adde more and when I have done so I found this doctrine of the Christians voluntary oblations in this perfection not imperfection of this law viz. that even in the greatest perfection there is a latitude and the higher degrees of that latitude are not under precept A 2d way of supererogating he mentions in respect to other men as the Pharisee that said with scorn and pride enough I am not like other men I fast twice a week c. To this I answer 1. that this as little belongs to the true as it doth to his false notion of supererogating For in neither of them doth the super include or intimate superiority above other men and 2. that he that thus scorns and exalts himself above other men is far from doing more herein then is commanded t is evident he comes short of very duty in an eminent most rewardable virtue that of humility wherein he that strives not to exceed as much and more as in any voluntary oblations t is evident that he is no good Christian and I never undertook to plead for such Pharisees but of all others think Christians obliged to use all diligence to avert this shipwrack And yet 3. the Apostle himself both by his doctrine and practise allowes of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies literally a glorying but it is certainly an humble rejoycing in having done things which he knowes are eminently acceptable to God and elsewhere rejoycing in his own work and as this is no way increasable to a Christian by comparing it with other mens defects or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his charity makes him passionately wish and his humility really think all others better then himself so it is very far from that scorn and pride in all Pharisees which makes them discriminate themselves from other men The 3d way he mentions is with respect to the overpleasing and acceptance of God when they that think they can do something not commanded expect to find more acceptance from God then they themselves or other do for doing onely what is commanded To this I answer 1 That still this is nothing to the notion of the word supererogating which sure signifies not overpleasing 2. That if one caution be taken in viz. that uncommanded works can never satisfie for disobediences and consequently that it is perfect impiety and folly to neglect any duty on one side and then to think to compensate that by doing more then is commanded on the other side If I say this caution he premised and proportionably the earlyest and principallest care be taken to secure duty to make good obedience in cannot be amiss in the next place to superadde this other care of the most eminent heroical uncommanded performances and he that