An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 6 · Section 10
Sect. 10. My anſwer to the laſt objection, of Supererogation. A place in St Cyprian vindicated from the Romaniſts reading. Imputare. An act of mercy in God that our works are rewarded. Supererogation wherein it conſiſts. The Diatribiſt's etymology of the word diſproved. Erogare. Erogatio. The Diatribiſts ways of Supererogating. Pride, Glorying. More reward for eminent uncommanded excellencies ſuperadded to duty. The Diatribiſts charity, and confeſsion of us. His cenſure of the Biſhops unjuſt.
Now follows my anſwer to the laſt objection freeing this doctrin of voluntary oblations, or of doing ſomewhat which is free and uncommanded, from all lyableneſs to the ſuſpicion of being favourable to the doctrine of Supererogation among the Romaniſts, which is founded in their opinion that a man may by theſe performances make ſatisfaction for his own and other mens ſins, which I that no way believe or acknowledge, cannot be charged as guilty of that opinion.
And to what is there ſaid, I muſt ſuppoſe with ſome evidence, §. 51, 52, 53. I ſhall here adde, and apply one conſiderable ſaying of St Cyprian's in the Epiſtle ad Lapſos, telling them that Qui in Eccleſiâ ſemper glorioſi & granditer operati ſunt, opus ſuum Domino nunquam imputaverunt, Thoſe which have through all times wrought gloriouſly and heroically in the Church, yet never thought their Maſter beholden to them. That is the meaning of imputare to reckon their layings out & charge him with whom they reckon to be in their debt. For want of underſtanding of which (or from ſome worſe principle) the latter edition of St Cyprian by Pamelius leaves out the word [nunquam, never] which the old Baſil edition doth retain, and the ſenſe evidently requires in that place.
By this (which is my full ſenſe in this matter) and by what is already ſaid in that treatiſe, that objection is wholly ſuperſeded, for I do not pretend that God becomes a debtor to any man for any of his moſt bountifull ſpontaneous oblations, but that 'tis an act of infinite mercy in God, as the Pſalmiſt ſaith, that any the moſt excellent work of ours is rewardable with him. And that partly becauſe we being ſinners, the utmoſt we can ever do, can never make ſatisfaction for our ſinnes, and partly becauſe whatſoever degree of perfection either by doing or ſuffering we can aſpire to, 1. It is ſtill a work of God's good grace and ſtrength in us, (for what haſt thou which thou haſt not received? and then what place for glorying?) and 2. It is in no degree meet or worthy to be compared, bears no proportion to the glory which ſhall be revealed, and partly again, becauſe God wants neither our obedience, nor our richeſt performances, we onelyonly are like to receive the benefit of them, and ſo we onelyonly are debtors to our ſelves, and can claime nothing from him, ſave onelyonly on the account of meer mercy.
Now in his reply, the firſt thing that he objects, is that this diſtinction betwixt doing more then is commanded, and doing ſomething which is not commanded, is new, and ſometimes coincident for he (ſaith he) that doth ſomewhat not commanded, doth alſo ſomewhat more then is commanded. And becauſe he cannot but know my notion there of doing ſomething more, viz. doing all, and and more then all, he therefore preſſeth it farther, that in this ſenſe the Romaniſts in their ſupererogation doe not ſuppoſe that he which ſupererogates hath done all that is commanded him.
To this I anſwer, by yielding that the Romaniſt is not ſo groſſe, as to affirm him that ſupererogates not to have ſinned, And therefore I never defined that to be the Romaniſts doctrine, or that our doctrine was by that one diſtinction, differenced from theirs, but having by way of foundation laid that diſtinction (as will appear to any that ſhall view the place §. 51.) I make the notion of ſupererogation to be founded in one of theſe two, either in having paid all that is due (i. e. having never ſinned) or 2. (having been a debter, i. e. a ſinner) in paying that debt by ſatisfaction, And the latter of theſe two it was, and not the former, wherein I placed the Romaniſts opinion, and wherein I conceived the doctrine of free-will oblations under the Goſpel to differ from their doctrine of ſupererogating, as appears §. 52. And this he ſees, and ſets down in his next words, It was but the multiplying of my lines, and his own, that he could not earlier take notice of it.
To this 2d then at length after ſome prooeme he will proceed; that ſtill I cannot free my doctrine from ſome kinde of ſupererogation, for, ſaith he, ſuch works have not their denomination from ſatisfaction made by them, but they are therefore called ſatisfactions, becauſe they are ſomething more then the law required, ſupererogare is as much as ſuper quod erogavit lex.
By this at length appears what bottome all this Diatribiſts ſtructure is built on, the extraordinary etymology which his fancy, or ſomewhat elſe hath ſuggeſted to him, of the word ſupererogation, which if it ſhould hold, I (after all this debate thus farre prolonged) am obliged to yield the cauſe to the Diatribiſt, thus farre at leaſt, that I were a friend to one word made uſe of by the Romaniſts. But I am ſo well aſſured of this Diatribiſts failings in this kind, by the experience of his ſuper ſtatutum, from whence he would have ſuperſtition deduced (and loſt his chief hold, when that origination of the word was wreſted from him) that I may be allowed again to queſtion his skill in that faculty. That erogare ſignifies to lay out (and not to require) is evident enough, erogare pecuniam in claſſem, to lay out 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 'tis 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 foreign.
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, tis 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, tis 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 foreign, 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 foreign, 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 onelyonly 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 ſhall have obſerved this method uprightly, eſchewed evill, in a ſtrict mortifying of luſts &c. in abſtaining from ſin, and doing all that is commanded (as,
Virtus eſt vitium fugere, & Sapientia prima
Stultitiâ caruiſſe—)
And whenſoever he hath failed, ſecured his retrait by an early humiliation, confeſſion, begging of pardon in Chriſt, and ſincere reformation, and then laboured induſtriouſly to ſuperſtruct doing of good, works of the more eminent (I mean uncommanded) degrees of virtue, I ſhall not doubt to incourage him, to think confidently, and expect from our great foreign and foreign more and greater acceptance (I ſhall adde, reward alſo) then the ſame perſon could in reaſon expect for doing onelyonly what is commanded.
And though it be not beſt for him in this caſe to compare himſelf with other men, the poſſible hazard of that, exemplified by the Phariſee, perſwading the contrary, yet of the truth of the ſucceſs there is no reaſon to make queſtion, or ſuſpect, but that of two men which have been equall in obediences, one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection, the more perfect ſhall have the richeſt reward, as is moſt evident whether by conſidering the degrees of glory in heaven, or the rule by which God diſtributes them ſtill under the Goſpell, by way of reward to every man, ſecundum opera, according to his works.
What he addes of Papiſts thinking they can merit with God by ſuch works for themſelves and others, though ours, ſaith he, are not come ſo far yet] is an eſſay of his charitable opinion of us; and I ſhall take it by the beſt handle I can, and conclude from it, then, by his own confeſſion, we are not Papiſts yet, and then I do not (after all that tract of Will-worſhip) maintain works of Supererogation yet, and then I need onelyonly adde, that tis no way uſefull for him to loſe his pains and his charity by confuting thoſe of whom he onelyonly divineth that they may hereafter fall into falſe doctrine, which yet I hope I ſhall not do, having no temptation from all this Diatribiſt's Exercitation, and the arguments therein contained, to fly to any other Sect of Religion to furniſh my ſelf with anſwers for him.
What now remains in the ſhutting up this 2d. Exercitation, is wholly ſpent either in proving it to be my doctrine (which I willingly and expreſſely grant it to be) that the voluntary oblations are more acceptable and rewardable with God, or in repeating his own ſenſe, the more voluntary the more abominable (wherein it ſeems we are already at diſtance enough, a man need not fly to the Papiſts doctrine of Supererogation to make the breach the wider) or in charging on this doctrine that it makes Superſtitious Will-worſhippers and formaliſts to overlook others with abundance of contempt and inſolence, adding Characters, by which we may diſcern who they are to whom he is pleaſed to affixe theſe titles.
To which my anſwer is 1. with St Paul, Rom. 14. that as thoſe which freely do thoſe things which others account unlawfull, 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 which do them, and conſequently that if our Biſhops, whom he ſeems to tranſlate, thoſe who did overlook others, had really been guilty of contempt and inſolence toward them, yet had not this been more criminous in them, more contrary to St Paul's direction, then this which is here viſible in this Diatribiſt, in calling them Superſtitious Will-worſhippers, and Formaliſts, which firſt preſumes all uſe of uncommanded ceremonies to be Superſtition firſt, and then Formality: and ſo is a double untruth, and 2. charges thoſe two great ſins upon his own Lawful Superiors, and ſo is a double uncharitableneſſe, attended with diſobedience to and ſeparation from them: I delight not now to compare theſe ſins, and affirme, which is more culpable; If his own plain words or conſcience do not accuſe this Diatribiſt in any of theſe, neither ſhall I accuſe him, but rather implore God's pardon for him; And onelyonly adde 2. That I have reaſon to hope and believe that the Governors of our Church, and thoſe who lately preſided in it, did not make their own voluntary performances the foundation or occaſion of any degree of contempt or inſolence towards others which uſed them not; If any did, I neither intended nor now deſign any defence for them: And ſo much for the 2d Exercitation.