The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 32
Sect. 32. The next of works of mercy, that though they be commanded in general, yet the quantum is not defined, &c.
TO which, the Doctor addes two conſiderations more; I ſhall not trouble my ſelf with them; but onelyonly note ſome few things very briefly. Firſt, I obſerve whence the Doctor learned his Doctrine of Will-worſhip, p. 191. n. 2. foreign.[his over-meaſure-performances, more then the Law exacted.] Namely either from the old Aſidaei, or Phariſees, of whom our Saviour ſayes, [In vain do they Worſhip me;] or from the Papiſts, who talk much of uncommanded ſervices, and works, n. 3.above commands, and works of ſupererogation. 2. The Apoſtle gives no command to the Corinthians concerning their meaſure of their liberality to the poor. 1. Becauſe he knew not their eſtates. 2. Had not power to diſpoſe of them. 3. Alms ſhould be free, though a neceſſary duty in general; as the Macedonians, foreign, of their own accord did willingly contribute to the neceſſity of the poor. But when he addes foreign, above their power, as if they gave more then they were able to ſpare; this is a ſtrain of the text; yet three times uſed by the Doctor. Once here, [exemplarily liberal, above what they were well able to do.] And again n. 8. [Willingly liberal above their power.] And once more, p. 206. n. 12. [Liberall of their own accord, above their power.] But the words in the Original import no ſuch thing, that they were liberal, much leſs, liberal above their power; but thus they are, foreign, &c. which Beza, and we in Engliſh, tranſlate thus, [For to their power (I bear record,) yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themſelves, praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, &c.] They were willing to their power, yea, and beyond their power: that is, their will was greater then their power; and beyond their power. But the Dr. would have us believe they were liberal above their power, and gave more then they were able; which as it is a kind of contradiction, ſo it is againſt the rule of Charity, which (all ſay) begins at home. [Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy ſelf,] not above thy ſelf; that's an exceſs in Charity. But this gloſs fits the Doctors opinion well; that Free-will-offerings are under no command, and ſo under no Rule. But come to his anſwers to me.
I ſaid, it was anſwered in part, by what was ſaid afore. [It is not the queſtion, which is of Worſhip, not of actions of civil life.] He ſayes, firſt, p. 192. n. ….[An anſwer in part, is no ſatisfactory anſwer, and ſo this needs not to be conſidered.] But if I had liſted to ſtand upon it, this was a full anſwer, when it was quite beſide the queſtion. 2. He ſayes, [There is a parity of reaſon, from one act of Chriſtian performance to another.] Mark how he waves the queſtion, by putting in performance, inſtead of Worſhip: There is no parity of reaſon, from an act of Charity, a civil performance; to an act of Worſhip, a Religious performance. What ever there may be in Alms, there may be no foreign, ſomewhat of Worſhip above the Law; yet the Doctor ſayes, There may, by Analogy, be the ſame, in matters of Chriſtian Worſhip, as in matter of charity,] which is one principal ground of his ſo many miſtakes. 3. But then another evaſion: [This of works of mercy is generally defined to be in a Chriſtian performance, (how warily) an act of Worſhip, ſet in the front of ſuch, Matt. 6.1. *See infr. p. 195. n. 11 That rule ſeems to have a propriety to that particular time: and is not a rule for all other times.appointed to be exerciſed on the Lords day (as a work of the day,) 1 Cor. 16.2. ſtiled by Paul, a Sacrifice, Phil. 4.18, &c.] But, firſt, why in a Chriſtian performance? is not an act of mercy by an Heathen, an act of Worſhip, as well as by a Chriſtian? 2. A good man, a Chriſtian, is merciful to his beaſt, is that alſo an act of Worſhip? 3. Is the work of mercy, Matth. 6.7. an act of Worſhip, becauſe it is ſet in the front of ſuch? why, he knows, that Proteſtants deny Faſting, which is one of them, to be a part of Worſhip, but an help or circumſtance of worſhip: yet that is nearer to worſhip, then works of mercy. 4. Appointed to be exerciſed on the Lords day; but is it not a work of any day, as well. 5. Stiled a Sacrifice; but ſure not properly, but alluſively; as an imperate act of Piety, not elicite; as was ſaid above: what's this, but a Chaos of confuſion, to jumble the two Tables together, Worſhip and Charity. 6. But [to remove all ſcruple, he wiſhes that after the cuſtome of the primitive Apoſtolick Church, this Alms be preſented to God in the Sacrament, and then as certainly, it will be a branch of Christian Worſhip; and his inſtance ſhall be ſet to that, &c.] But this is as weak as the former; no act of Charity, when ever, or how ever done, can properly be a branch of Worſhip; unleſs he will confound the two Tables of the Law. He ſaid before, it was a work of the Lords day, why may not the Day, as well as the Sacrament, make it a branch, or an act of Worſhip. I hope all acts of mercy on the Sabbath, watering a beaſt, or pulling him out of a pit, yea, or viſiting the ſick, is not thereby made an act or branch of Worſhip; eſpecially when that Time it ſelf, is by the Doctor, made but a circumſtance of Worſhip. And now we proceed to the next.
To my further anſwers, he replies, firſt, p. 193. n. 5.[The question is certainly this, whether ceremonies and feſtivals in a Church are criminous, if they be not commanded by God.] No, his conſcience can tell him, this is his grand and groſs miſtake; the queſtion is of Will-worſhip, like to the Free-will-offerings, which were parts or degrees of commanded Worſhip; which his Ceremonies and Feſtivals are here again denied to be; and called circumſtances, not acts of Worſhip. But his alms, were in the laſt number, made certainly branches of Worſhip: ſacrifices, acts of Worſhip. What interfeering is here? 2. [The reaſon is the ſame of circumſtances and degrees; if then uncommanded degrees may be lawful, uncommanded circumſtances muſt be lawful alſo.] Still the former miſtake, that there is the ſame reaſon of circumſtances, and degrees of Worſhip; when as degrees of Worſhip (ſuch were thoſe Free-will-offerings) were Worſhip, acts, and branches of Worſhip; but ſo are not circumſtances. 3. The next is founded on the ſame miſtakes, that either alms is a branch of Worſhip, or that there is the ſame reaſon, for Worſhip, and for Charity, both which are denied and diſproved. 4. The ſame anſwer may ſerve to this; Worſhip and Charity, are ill compared. But I adde, the degrees of alms, are generally commanded, with reſpect to mens abilities, and opportunities; but ſo are not his Will-worſhip. The utmoſt degree of mercy, in thoſe caſes, is not uncommanded, though it cannot eaſily be defined: for it muſt be reſolved, by abilities and neceſſities; which is not eaſie to determine, either how much I am bound to give, without defect, without exceſs; or what is the neceſſity of the receiver of it; as I muſt give according to my ability, (wherein we are apt to deceive our ſelves) ſo I muſt not give to the prejudice of my ſelf, or family, or others that need; which yet is ſometime done, for vain-glory, and hope to merit, by Papiſts, and others.
The horns of his Dilemma are eaſily broken, n. 7. p. 194.or turn'd againſt the wall: I ſay, 1. His Will-worſhips for which he pleads, uncommanded Worſhip, are under no command, to be done, but under prohibition, not to be done. 2. I think, there is no high degree of mercy, not the higheſt, that he will pitch on, but it is commanded, in caſes aforeſaid, the mercy it ſelf is under a ſpecial command, the degree under a general. As God hath proſpered a man, as opportunity is offered, by neceſſities of the poor, &c. But the Doctor is ſtill dreaming of acts of Piety and Charity, foreign, above any command; of which more ere long. 3. I ſaid, (by the Doctors grant) a man may offend in his Charity, in exceſs, in defect; then there is a middle rule, which binds men from both the extremes: which reſolv'd on, makes it a debt, and ſo no Free-will-offering. p. 194. n. 8.He replies, [He prevented that, by ſetting the inſtance, of a proportion exceeding that which is defined a duty.] But this begs the queſtion, that it may (eaſily) be determined, what is the utmost, that we are bound to do; the maximum, or the minimum quod ſic, which muſt be determined by circumſtances, as afore, and that very hardly: Let himſelf tell us his mind in this; [The truth is, ſuch a middle rule cannot be produced.] n. 9.Then ſay I, he cannot ſet a proportion, exceeding that, which cannot be defined a duty: It cannot be done, but by particular circumſtances, which require great wiſdom and judgement. But ſayes he, [If that which is done, be more then that which we are bound to, it cannot tranſgreſs in the defect.] So if we give leſs then we are bound to, it cannot tranſgreſs in the exceſs: yet both defect and exceſs, in vertues, are faulty. And I pray, If a man give more then he ought, is it not an exceſs? if leſs then he ought, is it not a defect? Did he not ſay, [It's poſſible, in Charity to offend both wayes?] But that cannot be, if it be impoſſible there ſhould be any exceſs, (as he expreſly ſays) in giving more then we are bound to. Is not Charity a Virtue, ſtanding in the midſt between two extreams? Then any deviction on either ſide, is ſtrictly conſidered, ſinful. Peccare eſt tanquam tranſilere lineam, ſaid he: Yet (ſayes he) [There is an allowance in the New Teſtament of ſelling all, and giving to the poor, Acts 4.] He might as well have ſaid, there is a command of Chriſt himſelf, to the young man, To ſell all and give it to the poor; and a promiſe annexed. But then it had been a duty, and no Free-will-offering, which would not have fitted the Doctors deſign. Sure there was ſomething extraordinary in that Acts 4. Either ſome ſpecial motion of the Spirit, or ſome preſent exigences of the Church, or honour of the Goſpel, that cauſed that Charity: for we read of none, that after that time, or the like, ever did follow them: till the Papiſts and ſuch like took it up; whom whether the Doctor will juſtifie or no, I know not: if he would undertake it, I believe he cannot prove it. If then, they had a ſpecial call; it was a duty, and no Free-will-offering.
But ſuppoſing the middle rule cannot be produced, (as he ſaid) n. 9. he will make a double uſe of it. 1. [If it cannot, then is this an evident proof, that there are no ſuch middle points, the variation from which is alwayes criminous.] This is ſome of the Doctors new Divinity, and Morality; do not his Ethicks, tell him, that Virtue is the middle betwixt two extreams? How can he know when he exerciſes a vertue, if there be no ſuch middle point? And in Divinitie, does our ignorance, that cannot eaſily ſettle the middle, excuſe us from crime, if we miſs it? But worſe ſtill. 2. [If it 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, and ſo no duty Univerſally obligatory.] This is right the Doctor. How gentle a Confeſſor, and eaſie a Caſuiſt would the Doctor be. If it be not eaſily known, when we ſin, (who can underſtand his errors?) we are exempted from duty, in obeying ſuch commands: ſuch as are ignorant, are not obliged by them. Becauſe we cannot do an act of vertue, without defect, or exceſs, does not the command of God bind us, to avoid both? If ignorance would excuſe, men would affect it, to free themſelves from duty. But though it be hard, it's poſſible to find that middle point; Adam in innocencie could finde it, (if he could as well have kept it) and our bleſſed Saviour did both finde and keep it, and hath revealed enough for us to finde it, if we had but will or grace to ſeek it. And the truth is, it's eaſier for us to finde it, then to keep it, when we have found it. Strange it is to me, that the Doctor ſhould ſay, p. 195. n. 10[There is no ground in the Goſpel, for defining or to determine the middle rule which conſtitutes a debt.] The Goſpel and law both, preſuppoſe that middle rule, when they ſay, [Turn not to the right hand, nor the left, let thine eyes look ſtrait forward: make ſtrait ſteps to your feet: walke exactly, foreign, go to the pitch of the rule, &c.] But then he will evade by another loophole: The truth is, that this middle rule conſiſts not in an indiviſible point, but in a latitude, wherein there are many degrees, but all within the rule of allowance, though not of precept, &c.] This cannot be true, in the rigor of the Law, of which we ſpeak, (for we ſpeak of things under, or not under command.) The Law requires exact obedience, to the middle point of perfection, and knows of no latitude of degrees, or of any allowance; but [do this and live, or not, and die. Curſed is he that continueth not in all things, &c.] Allowance is a priviledge of the Goſpel, which gives a latitude of acceptance, of what we can do, and pardons, what we cannot do: but that very pardon and allowance, argues inconformity to the Law; and ſo a duty or debt, not performed or payed: which argues again, it was within the rule of precept, as well as under the rule of allowance. And if (as here again it's ſaid) a man may be too parſimonious on the one ſide, or prodigal on the other, and go to far; both theſe are breaches of the rule. But if neither the Doctor nor his Scholler can finde this middle rule, this ſtrait line, let not their ignorance hope to eſcape, and make ſins, no ſins, becauſe they cannot tell, when they are beſide the line.
True it is, n. 11.[that every degree doth not binde every man, ſo as to make that degree a debt or duty in that man.] But the reaſon is not, becauſe there is a latitude of vertue, in the Law; but becauſe every man hath not, the ſame abilities, or opportunities to ſhew mercy. He knows, there are laws, that bind ſome men, that bind not others: the rich, [charge them that are rich, to be rich in good works, &c.] not the poor, &c. but thoſe abilities and opportunities ſuppoſed, the higheſt degree, pro hic & nunc, is to them, under precept, and ſo a duty. And he knows alſo, that he made that text, 1 Cor. 16 2. an appointment by Saint Paul, [That man ſhould give, as God proſpers them:] In his Pract. Catech. and elſewhere; as above n. 4. Which now he evacuates, by ſaying, [That rule ſeemes to have a propriety to that particular time, of great diſtreſs and famine, and is not a rule for all other times.] Let him agree with himſelf; I needed not to have followed him thus far, but to give the world ſatisfaction. It might have been enough for me to have ſaid, [If there may be a Free-will-offering in degrees of Charity to men, yet there may be no Worſhip, nor any degrees of that Worſhip to God, which is not commanded.] And this may ſerve, (with that ſaid afore) to take off his caſes put in numb. 12, & 13. OnelyOnly I ſhall ſay, Let him put what caſes he will, the middle rule being either impoſſible to be produced (as he ſaid numb. 9.) or not eaſily to be done, as there he ſayes; he might juſtly ſcruple whether he do not offend ſome way or other, though neither he nor I, be able to ſay, when and where he went beſide the rule; becauſe it's very poſſible, and too eaſie, to go out into the exceſs or defect, but very difficult and uneaſie to keep to the rule.