An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 6 · Section 7
Sect. 7. Of the difference betwixt a precept and a grace. The proportionable return to grace is in a latitude. The higheſt no exceſſe. A poſſibility for grace to be given in vain.
HIS next branch of diſcourſe is deſigned to diſcover my miſtake in making the difference ſo great betwixt a precept and a grace, And my ſetting down of that difference conſiſting of many degrees, of which each ſuperaddes to the former, and not any one ſingle, but all taken together are a perfect ſtating of it, the Reader is deſired to review the whole matter §. 39. and by ſo doing he will ſoon finde that every of the Diatribiſts objections to the former degrees, was perfectly prevented and anſwered in the following, ſave only the laſt of them, and therefore that only remains to be now examined.
The objection is p. 103. that ſure as grace it ſelf, ſo any meaſure or degree of grace being a talent alſo, requires a proportionable return to that degree, as to whom more is given, of him is more required. But to this alſo my anſwer hath formerly been intimated, viz. that as in the middle rule of almes-giving there is a latitude, ſo here in the proportionable return to any degree of grace, this proportionable return is not ſo placed in any indiviſible point, that as he that comes ſhort of that point offends in the defect, ſo the exceeding that point in the leaſt degree ſhall be an offence alſo, but, as I ſaid, in a latitude, wherein there may ſtill be a variation, and yet all the degrees of that within the latitude.
And therefore as it may be true of two men that have the ſame grace in ſpecie, that both may uſe it well, and yet one make better uſe of it then another, ſo it is ſuppoſeable of the ſame degree of the ſame grace, for though to that degree of grace, there be ſome degree alſo of return proportioned, that who ſo fails in that, offends by defect, yet it doth not follow from thence, that whoſo exceeds that minimum quod ſic, that leaſt degree that was proportionable, ſhall preſently offend by way of exceſſe, but indeed the contrary will be moſt viſible, that he that thus exceeds is more acceptable and more highly rewardable.
He that had ten talents intruſted to him to occupy withal, and having gained other ten, was accepted and rewarded, had he been yet more induſtrious, and brought in his Maſter more profit, gained eleven or twelve talents by thoſe ten, tis not imaginable but this would have been acceptable alſo to his Lord, and yet more highly rewardable.
Paul laboured more abundantly then all the Apoſtles, and this by the grace of God that was in him, and by ſome eminent meaſure of that grace, and ſuppoſing that meaſure to have been no greater in him then it was either in John or Peter, yet would this certainly have been accepted by God, and more richly rewarded, and not uſed like the giants on Procuſtis his bed, all the exuberance cut off and caſt away, I mean required to come down to that lower degree of return, which either of thoſe other diſciples did make, or to loſe his reward of that higher degree. And ſo this is full anſwer to all his exceptions againſt the difference by me aſſigned between Precept and Grace.
As for his incidental wonder at my expreſſion when I ſaid [it is the deſigne of grace only to ſtrengthen and incline, which he that makes uſe of as he ſhould, is promiſed a reward] upon which he cries out, This is ſtrange divinity, doth God give grace only to ſtrengthen and incline, and leave men free to uſe it or not to uſe it? ſo grace might be given in vain.] To this I briefly anſwer, 1. from the words of Scripture, Heb. 12. 28. that men are exhorted to have grace, i. e. I ſuppoſe to make uſe of it, as when to him that hath, Chriſt promiſeth it ſhall be given, and he ſhall have abundance, tis evident it ſignifies, to him that makes uſe of the grace which he hath, and certainly that exhortation were in vain, if the contrary were not poſſible, and ſo likewiſe when he which hath not (makes not due uſe of it) is threatned with the auferetur, & ejicietur, taking away from him his talent, and caſting him into utter darkneſſe, ſure tis ſuppoſed poſſible, that ſome man may not make uſe of his talent, or elſe theſe threatnings muſt be in vain, or men both deprived and caſt out without any demerit.
Again, doth not the Apoſtle exhort, that we receive not the grace of God in vain, that we grieve not, quench not (as elſewhere there is mention of reſiſting) the Spirit? Doth he not tell us of ſome that did abuſe the grace of God unto wantonneſſe? and can none of theſe be done? Is it not poſſible, through our own corruption and ſinful negligence and default, to reſiſt, to grieve, to quench the ſpirit, be it of prayer, of faith, of charity &c. to abuſe it to wantonneſſe, or not to uſe it through idleneſſe? What then is the meaning of laying up the talent in the napkin, that was ſo puniſht? Did not he receive the talent, the grace in vain?
But as generally it falls out, that thoſe that reprehend this kind of Divinity moſt demurely, if they be a while obſerved, need no other evidence to confute them but what their own words will yield us they that leave nothing to mans will, do yet often exhort and reprehend men, which muſt certainly be vain and ridiculous, unleſſe they that are exhorted be in ſome poſſibility by Gods grace to do what they are exhorted to do, and they that are reprehended in the ſame poſſibility to have done otherwiſe; ſo hath it happened to this Diatribiſt; He that juſt now thought the Divinity ſo ſtrange, that grace might be given in vain, addes in the very next words that S. Matthew ſaith, take him and caſt him into utter darkneſs for not uſing his talent, which certainly is that identical ſtrange thing, with grace being given him in vain, as to all fruit, or uſe he made of that grace. And in the very next words again he addes, Is he not threatned with loſs of his talent for not uſing it?
But tis poſſible the ſtrange divinity here cenſured, may have been ſomewhat elſe, not my ſuppoſing that it was left phyſically free or poſſible for man to uſe or not to uſe grace, but that it was morally free, i. e. lawful, or that which included no ſin, and then Gods not giving of grace in vain, muſt be his not giving it ſo as that it ſhall be no ſin not to uſe it; And if that be his meaning, then, as his expreſſions were very ſtrange, much more then my divinity, ſo ſtrange that I, whoſe divinity it was, could not underſtand it, as it was thus diſguiſed by him, (for who would ſay that to give grace without any deſigne of laying obligation ſub periculo animae to make uſe of it, were to give grace in vain? Is there no other poſſible uſe of grace but to condemn them, and render them unexcuſable? this indeed is another branch of no very old Divinity, though theſe daies have not made it ſtrange with ſome men) ſo I ſuppoſe I have already given anſwer to this in the former part of this §. and muſt not now ſo ſoon repeat it.
The ſhort is, though grace bring obligation with it, and that to ſome return proportionable to that grace, yet ſtill this proportionable return conſiſts in a latitude, which hath ſeveral degrees in it, and as the loweſt of theſe are under obligation, ſo the ſuperior are not, but yet ſuch as will be accepted and rewarded by God, to him that arrives to them. And ſo much for that of the difference between the grace and precept, which he thought would have yielded him ſo great advantage.