An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 6 · Section 14
Sect. 14. The fourth of the more liberal almesgiving. Sadduces and Aſidaei. Righteouſneſs. Mercy. Paul's advice without command. 2 Cor. 8. 2. The Diatribiſts anſwer ſatisfied. Almes the Chriſtians ſacrifice in the offertory. Allowance no command. A latitude of degrees in the middle rule. The Apoſtles direction of giving as God hath proſpered. Of the circumſtances of giving.
THE fourth inſtance is in the almeſgiving or works of mercy where the quotum (what proportion of the whole every rich man ſhould ſet apart for this purpoſe out of his yearly revenue) being left free, and not particularly defined by God, there is evidently place for voluntary oblations, above that which is under command or neceſſary, as is ſet down undeniably in that Tract. §. 32.
To what is there ſaid I now adde theſe two conſiderations, for the evidencing of it; the firſt from the very denotation of the names, Saducaei and Aſidaei or Eſſeni among the Iewes: A proportion there was of charity and liberality, which was by law required of all, and this was called their foreign righteouſneſſe, and from hence I ſuppoſe the Sect of the Sadducees, called Tſadikim, firſt derived their title, they that obſerved the whole righteouſneſſe of the Law, did all that by the Law they were required to do, and ſo tranſgreſt not in this reſpect, But beſide this, there was foreign that which exceeded this neceſſary proportion foreign abundance of goodneſſe or mercy, as hath formerly been ſaid, and from thence the Eſſeni had their title foreign Chaſidim or Aſidaei, and they were ſuppoſed to have their foreign, their over-meaſure, performances more then the Law exacted from them, and ſo that is an example of what I now ſpeak of, the free-will performances of mercy.
The Second ſhall be from S. Pauls language, 2 Cor. 8. 2. where ſpeaking of the Corinthians equalling the Macedonians in liberality to the poor Jewes, he gives them no command to do ſo, (foreign, I ſpeak not by way of precept, v. 8.) but only his advice or opinion, his foreign, juſt as in the caſe of ſingle life, 1 Cor. 7. 25. foreign, foreign, I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my advice; And if the Corinthians did obſerve and practiſe according to this advice, if they did give in proportion to the Macedonians, or (in caſe they did not) yet ſtill the Macedonians themſelves, which certainly were thus exemplarily liberal, and that foreign of their own accord, v. 3. without any obligation of precept lying upon them, and yet farther foreign, above what they were well able to do, are again an inſtance of doing more in this kind, then either all men at all times, or they at this, were obliged to have done, and ſo this was a foreign in them.
Now to this inſtance of works of mercy, he firſt reſolves, that it may be anſwered in part, that it belongs not to the queſtion, which is of worſhip, not of actions of civil life.] But to this I reply, 1. that an anſwer in part is no ſatisfactory anſwer, and ſo this profeſſing to be no more, needs not be conſidered. 2. that the parity of reaſon holds from one act of Chriſtian performance to another, that if in duties of charity between fellow Chriſtians, there may be an foreign, ſomewhat above the commands of the law of Chriſt, there may alſo by analogy be the ſame in matters of Chriſtian worſhip, there being neither reaſon nor revelation of Chriſts will, not yet of his allowance, to one more then to the other. But then 3dly This of works of mercy is generally defined to be, in a Chriſtian performance of it, an act of worſhip, ſet in the front of ſuch by Chriſt, Mat 6. 1. appointed to be exerciſed on the Lords day (as a work of the day) 1 Cor. 16. 2. and accordingly interpreted by Chriſt to be done to himſelf, Mat. 25. 40. and ſo by S. Paul ſtyled foreign and foreign, a ſacrifice, an acceptable ſacrifice, Phil. 4. 18. Heb. 13. 16. And yet 4. to remove all ſcruple, I wiſh that after the cuſtome of the Primitive Apoſtolick Church, this almes be preſented to God, in the offertory at the Sacrament, and then, as it will certainly be a branch of Chriſtian worſhip, ſo my inſtance ſhall be ſet particularly to that ſort of almes, and it will certainly hold in that, as exactly as in any other.
But this imperfect anſwer being not confided in, he is pleaſed to adde more, 1. That the queſtion is not of a degree of an act of obedience, commanded, as Almes-giving is, but of the act it ſelf, if not commanded nor allowed in the ſpeciall nor in the generall. But this anſwer cannot be of any manner of uſe to the Diatribiſt. For 1. The queſtion being certainly this, Whether Ceremonies and Feſtivals in a Church are criminous, if they be not commanded by God; and ceremonies and Feſtivals, being geſtures and times, and ſo circumſtances not acts of worſhip, 'tis viſible that the queſtion is not onelyonly of the act it ſelf. 2. The reaſon being the ſame of circumſtances and of degrees, of one acceſſorie and of another, it follows, that if uncommanded degrees, may be lawfull, uncommanded circumſtances muſt be lawfull alſo. 3. Though almes-giving in general be commanded, yet as long as the degrees be uncommanded, the argument from the lawfulneſs of thoſe degrees will hold to the juſtifying of Ceremonies or Feſtivals, becauſe as almes-giving is commanded, ſo praying to, and praiſing of God is commanded alſo, and theſe ceremonies and Feſtivals are as viſibly circumſtances of prayer and praiſing as theſe degrees are of almes-giving. Nay 4. To take away all poſſibility that this anſwer ſhould be uſefull to him, the inſtance which I ſet of almeſgiving is of an uncommanded act, for ſuppoſing the utmoſt degree of the uncommanded mercy to be once defined and determined, and ſuppoſe me to exceed that proportion in giving, 'tis evident that that exceeding is an act firſt, and then an uncommanded act; an act, for ſo is every exerciſe or work of mercy, and this giving is ſuch an exerciſe; and an uncommanded act, for ſo is all which is not under precept, and ſo this is ſuppoſed to be, and herein it is perfectly anſwerable to the free-will offering among the Jews; Sacrifice or offering was a determined and commanded duty, and every exerciſe of that, above what was commanded, was a freewill oblation, and as ſuch accepted by God; and ſo it is here.
As for his cautious reſtriction added in the cloſe of that anſwer, which pretends that the queſtion is of ſuch acts, which as they are not commanded, ſo neither are they allowed in ſpecial or in general, he muſt needs know that this is an impoſing on the reader; For 1. The queſtion being of the lawfulneſs of uncommanded acts, and allowance, whether general or ſpecial, being yet no command, for no man is bound to do all that he is allowed to do; tis evident that the acknowledging the lawfulneſs of allowed acts, as they muſt needs be lawfull, if they be allowed, is the acknowledging the lawfulneſs of ſome uncommanded acts; for ſuch are they which are no more then allowed.
2. For the clearing of this, I ſhall offer the Diatribiſt this Dilemma; Are theſe high but uncommanded degrees of mercy allowed either in general or ſpecial now under the Goſpel, or are they not? If they are not, then this cautionary clauſe was very impertinently added, and my inſtance, though it proceeded of degrees which are not thus allowed, yet proceedings of degrees which are not commanded, was a valid inſtance. But if they are allowed, as I ſuppoſe by his caution he will affirme, why then, it ſeems, there is either general or ſpecial allowance ſtill under the Goſpel for uncommanded acts, and then there is as much for them under Chriſt, as there was under Moſes for freewill offerings, and ſo the Leviticalneſs of the freewill offerings conſiſted not in this, that they were thus allowed, and then this was no part of that Levitical Law, nor conſequently of that which was aboliſhed, as p. 91.before he had affirmed, and ſo the Diatribiſt's whole ſcheme is demoliſhed, or rather fallen aſunder of its own accord, as all infirme fabricks are apt to do.
What followes in the 2d place, as if it were an anſwer to the inſtance, is but an attempt or two of the Diatribiſt's, out of my words to gain ſome advantage, and thereby to conclude that there is ſome middle rule that binds men ſo, as that whatſoever is more or leſs then that, offends either by way of exceſs or defect.] But both this and all the other artifices were exactly prevented in the manner of my ſetting of the inſtance, of a proportion exceeding that, whatever it is, which can be defined our duty, and yet not offending againſt any other ingagement of the givers. For if that which is done be more then that which we are any way bound to, 'tis impoſſible it ſhould tranſgreſs in the defect; and yet being no way forbidden to give ſo much, not being guilty of neglecting any other part of duty incumbent on us, 'tis on the other ſide as impoſſible that there ſhould be any exceſs. Nay there being, in the New Teſtament, a viſible allowance, of ſelling all and giving to the poor, of laying that all at the Apoſtles feet, and St Paul commending the Macedonians who had been foreign foreign, willingly liberal above their power, 1 Cor. 8. 3. and the like, our greateſt liberalities, if they be prudently ordered and ſeaſanably placed (and there is no neceſſity, that he that is moſt liberal or merciful ſhould be a fool) are competently ſecured from offending on that ſide.
And therefore the Diatribiſt that from the poſſibility of falling into extremes, was willing to collect a middle rule, and from thence a debt, ſhould in any reaſon have aſſigned that rule, and produced his authority for it in the New Teſtament, and then the weakneſs of his anſwer would ſoon have been viſible. For I ſhould immediately have aſſigned ſome proportion exceeding that middle, and made my inſtance of that, and ſo have proceeded as formerly. But the truth is, ſuch a middle cannot be produced; And if it cannot, then is this an evident proof, that there are no ſuch middle points quos ultra citráque nequit conſiſtere rectum, the variation from which is always criminous; Nay if it were not ſimply impoſſible, and yet cannot eaſily be done by every man for himſelf, or by the teacher for all, then ſtill it is evident that this obligation is not univerſally revealed, & ſo no duty univerſally obligatorie; and then my inſtance ſhall be ſet to ſuch a perſon, to whom it is not obligatory.
But, as I ſaid, there is no ground in the Goſpel for defining or determining the middle rule, which conſtitutes a debt. The truth is, that this middle rule conſiſts not in any indiviſible point, but in a latitude, wherein there are many degrees, but all within the rule of allowance, though not all within the rule of precept, he that obſerves the duty in any degree of the latitude, doth well (for if not, then that was too great parſimonie, and ſo no obſers vation but a breach of the rule) and he that goes yet farther, but not beyond the latitude, doth better, for ſo he muſt, unleſs he go too far, which if he do, then he is prodigal, and that is a breach of the rule again on the other ſide.
By this it appears, that as there is allowance not onelyonly for ſome one point, but for every degree within the latitude, ſo every degree of that latitude doth not bind every man, ſo as to make that degree a debt or duty in that man; No nor the general rule of giving according to God's proſpering them (the onelyonly thing which the Diatribiſt hath ſtill behind) For beſides that that rule, 1 Cor. 16. 1. ſeems to have a propriety to that particular time in conſideration of the great diſtreſs and famine in Judea, and conſequently is not a rule for all other times; Beſides this, I ſay, it is manifeſt, that they which do obſerve that rule, i. e. offend not in the defect againſt it, may yet be able to exceed the proportion, which that rule ſtrictly required, and then not onelyonly do well (as they muſt, if they offend not againſt any other rule) but alſo do better, for ſuch muſt all that be, which is more then well, and yet degenerates not into ill.
For ſuppoſe a man, in deſire to obſerve that rule of giving as God hath proſpered him, to give the tenth of his profits weekly or yearly, and ſuppoſe him to do well in ſo doing, i e. not to offend againſt the rule, as it is ſet and meant by St Paul, or if the tenth be not a fit proportion, let any other be aſſigned which is fit, and then ſuppoſe that man yet to give more, ſo that ſtill he offend not againſt any other precept by exceſſive giving, and then you have the inſtance of the foreign the uncommanded yet acceptable work of mercy, ſtill the ſame, as formerly, though ſomewhat more explicitely ſet, and ſo a more manifeſt evidence, that nothing is by this Diatribiſt (I may ſay, can be) produced as a valid exception or objection againſt it.
For as to that of the circumſtances of time and place and perſons in regard of the neceſſities of the poor, the caſe which I ſet is not capable of thoſe conſiderations, my inſtance being not laid in any particular almes, terminated in a particular perſon (though that alſo would admit of a latitude, I might give as much as were my duty to that particular perſon, and then I might exceed that, give more to him, and that would be my foreign) but in a weekly or yearly conſecration or ſetting apart of ſome more liberall proportion for pious and charitable uſes, not foreſeeing particularly what they are, and withall not reſtraining my ſelf from giving more, if objects offer themſelves to my charity, above what my aſſignation will extend to. This ſetting the caſe evidently prevents all thoſe difficultis ariſing from circumſtance of time and place and perſons by remaining abſolutely looſe and abſtract-from all theſe, and thus the caſe was (and is to be) ſet, and will not doubt to ſecure it ſelf from all objections by thismeans.