The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 30
Sect. 30. God commanded not David to build him a Temple, yet Davids intention in that deſigne is very acceptable, &c.
THere was a threefold anſwer given by learned Chamier to this argument, p. 181, n. 2.uſed by Bellarmine, (whom the Doctor is more ready to follow and defend, then any of our Orthodox Proteſtant Divines.) I named the two firſt, but inſiſted chiefly on the laſt. [It was not any part of VVorſhip, but a Circumſtance of VVorſhip,] and ſo nothing to the preſent buſineſs; which is of parts of worſhip, ſuch as thoſe Free-will-offerings were aſſerted to be: the Temple or houſe which David was intended to build, was not to be a part of worſhip, or a place made by him, more Holy than other places; but (as I ſaid) by accident, as it ſerves for the commodity, and convenience of the worſhippers, and I inſtanced, in our Churches now. For they uſed to ſay, [Time and Place, are equal circumſtances of Worſhip, and both equally Holy, or not Holy:] But he warily waves it, onelyonly ſaying, num. 8. [So is a Feſtival now, a time, as that (Temple) a place, and ſo equally a circumſtance of worſhip.] Yet ſurely Time, that is, his Feſtival, is made more then a circumſtance, even a part of VVorſhip, more Holy, &c. as will appear hereafter; and I ſuppoſe, he hath the ſame opinion of ſome places, our conſecrated Churches, though now he call them both, but circumſtances of VVorſhip. But to the point of Davids intention; it was either abſolute, or conditional; if conditional, that he would build an houſe, if God ſhould allow, and warrant the buſineſs, ſo far it was commendable; but if it was abſolute, Divines do not fear to ſay, it was unlawful; David might neither build, nor ſet out a place for the Temple, without Gods direction, and leave. And its moſt probable, that his intention was abſolute, 2 Sam. 7.5, 7.and therefore he is in a manner checked for it by God, though his intention to do ſomething for God, was by Indulgence accepted. And then, this example will afford no force for inſtituting Religious Ceremonies by men: which the Doctor calls, Will-worſhip, or Free-will-offerings. If they will ſay, they intend them conditionally, if God will allow them, let them produce that warrant, and we are ſatisfied: warrant, I ſay, not for circumſtances of Worſhip, (which is yeilded) but for their Will-worſhip, uncommanded Worſhip. Before then that this inſtance will ſerve the Doctors turn, he muſt prove theſe things, firſt, That this Free-will-offering of David, was a part of Worſhip; for ſo they are aſſerted to be under the Law, and yet he will not be obliged to make good the parallel ſo far, for his Rites and Feſtivals. p. 186. n. 19.2. That Davids intention was ſure a pious intention, being abſolute, (which pious intention he aſſerts, numb. 9.) 3. That it was commended, and accepted by God; as it was abſolutely intended by him. It was indeed approved by Nathan, ver. 3. but raſhly, without conſulting with God, and therefore both Nathan and David, are better informed, and in a ſort rebuked for that reſolution, to undertake ſuch a buſineſs without command from God. If Nathan failed in his allowance of Davids purpoſe, (as it's evident he did) then David alſo failed, in his too abſolute purpoſe, which God after diſallows. And thence we may raiſe this argument, [It was not lawful for David to purpoſe abſolutely the building any Religious houſe for Gods Ark, without Gods ſpecial command, or warrant, therefore it is not lawful for men to inſtitute Religious Ceremonies, without the ſame warrant.] I ſtill ſay a Religious Houſe, and Religious Ceremonies, which are thereby put into a ſtate of Religion, and ſo parts of Worſhip; which meer circumstances are not: and ſuch the Doctor ſays, he makes time and place; but indeed makes them parts of Worſhip, as we have often ſaid. Hence it is, that n. 2. he talks of uncommanded acts of Piety, and n. 9. makes Davids intention, a Pious intention; and being uncommanded, an foreign, a Will-worſhip of God, parallel to the foreign, in debate. He muſt not mean it of an Imperate act of Piety, or Religion, for that is no part of Worſhip, and may be in a civil thing or vertue: as acts of Charity, viſiting the ſick, &c. are by St. James called, pure Religion: But of an elicite act of Piety, which is it ſelf a part of Religion or Worſhip: but then it holds not parallel with his Will-worſhip, which is denied to be any part of Worſhip. As for example, if a company of people wanted a convenient place to meet in, for Religious performances; Aquila, or Philemon, accommodate them with a room in their houſe, or ſome good devout Centurion, builds them a Church: This were an act of Piety, not elicite, but imperate, which doth not make the place a part of Religion or Worſhip, but an accommodation to Worſhip.
The inſtance of Paul, not taking Hire of the Corinthians, when he might, &c. I ſaid, was as little to the purpoſe, for it was not in a matter of Worſhip, p. 184.2.but an action of common life, and alſo a due debt: For the firſt, he anſwers, [He no where ſaid, it was in an action of common life, it is miſreported, &c.] Let him review, his 30, ſ. of Will-worſhip, and he will finde, that he ſays, [There be many particulars, both in the Worſhip of God, and in actions of common life.] Particulars he means of Free-will-offerings: Now the firſt thing he would have obſerved in them, was, [That they were a part of the Worſhip of God,] ſ. 29. to which he ought to have confined himſelf, and not to go out into actions of common life; which have no plea, to be parts of Worſhip; and this inſtance of maintenance, I took, and ſtill take to be one of them, and not to his purpoſe. What ſays he to it? [1. He appeales to my ſelf, Whether I can doubt, whether an Apoſtles exerciſing his office, be not an act of Worſhip.] Truly, I did not formerly doubt it, but the Doctor hath ſaid ſomething to make me ſcruple it; for he ſeems at leaſt to deny, that preaching by a miniſter, is any part of Worſhip; Hearing and Preaching are relates, and either both, or neither parts of Worſhip. See p. 131. n. 14.But [Hearing of Sermons, is not (ſays he) any acknowledged branch of Worſhip.] Some body would hence infer, [Then Preaching is no branch of Worſhip.] It may be he will ſay, Apoſtolical (and perhaps Epiſcopal) preaching, is a part of Worſhip, but not of Inferiour officers: If he will ſay ſo, let him enjoy his own opinion. My anſwer is otherwiſe; I meant that maintenance, and ſo refuſing or receiving it, was a matter of common life, and not a matter of Worſhip, whereof we ſpeak. But mark his inference; [And conſequently any (but) circumſtance thereof, a circumſtance of Worſhip.] Who can once doubt, but any circumſtance of Worſhip, is a circumſtance of Worſhip; there is no great depth in this: But we are ſpeaking of Free-will-offerings, which were parts of VVorſhip; and he tells us of a circumſtance of VVorſhip; ſuch was Pauls cloak, when he wore it in Preaching, and his cap, &c. circumſtances of Worſhip: yet more, [Pauls not receiving hire, was either an action, or in an action of Worſhip, or both; and ſo ſurely a Free-will-offering.] I liſt not to make any inference upon this, but leave it to the Reader.
That his refuſing his hire at that time and place, was a due debt, n. 4.I proved from learned Chamier, and from the Scripture it ſelf: But our new gloſſes, will not down with this learned Antiquary. He had rather run into errour with ſome Ancients, then hold and ſpeak truth with Moderne Divines. Let us hear their, and his gloſs; the text is, 1 Cor. 9.17. For if I do it willingly, I have a reward; but if againſt my will, a diſpenſation of the Goſpel is committed unto me; i. e. what is my reward then? &c.] The Comment is this, [The preaching of the Goſpel was committed to him, and was under precept, and ſo no Free-will-offering of his: That is his meaning when he ſaith, if I do this willingly, foreign, as a volunteer (ſo ſaith Theophilact.) If I had not been Commiſſionated to Preach, but had done it of my ſelf; if I did Preach the Goſpel without any command, & ſo no neceſſity to do ſo; if of my ſelf, ſpontaneouſly, I have the reward, this would be rewardable in me; i. e. the very Preaching would, without any other honourable circumſtance to inhanſe it; but if voluntarily, if I am Commiſsionated to Preach, and ſo my Preaching be an act of obedience to a plain command, and ſo neceſſary, ver. 16. then all that can be ſaid of me, is, being trusted with a ſtewardſhip, I diſcharge it; it is manifeſt, that I do it not ſpontaneouſly, but I perform my Lords command, &c. And ſo there is nothing of excellence in this, this wil bring me no reward: what in this whole matter ſhall bring me in any reward? To which he anſwers, that Preaching the Goſpel, I do it freely without making it chargeable to the Auditors, that I make not uſe of my power that I have in the Goſpel, i. e. the power of receiving maintenance from others, &c.] This indeed is the gloſs of ſome Greek Fathers, and onelyonly two Papiſts follow them; Gagnaeus, and Cajetane, as Eſtius tells me, In locum.who throwes off this Interpretation, as too violent and diſtorted, for very good reaſons. But take the ſum from him, more conciſely; [By one willing, they underſtand him that doth it, having no command, but doth it ſpontè, & of his own proper motion: whom they ſay, to have a reward, not any one, due to one that Preacheth the Goſpel, but much and great above others that took their hire: the unwilling they interprets to be him, that doth it upon command, and enjoyned diſpenſation, although he do it willingly and from his heart.] Now take the abſurdities that follow upon this Interpretation which the Doctor follows.
1. It ſuppoſes that Paul, or any man, might have taken upon himſelf the office of Apostleſhip, or to Preach the Goſpel, without a commiſſion; (contrary to Scripture, Rom. 10. and the Doctors own principles:) [If I had not been Commiſſionated to Preach, but done it of my ſelf.]
2. It makes Paul, or any man, that does ſo, a volunteer in Worſhip, to ſet upon uncommanded Worſhip, ſuch is the Office of Preaching, an act of Worſhip, n. 2. afore: which alſo the Doctor denies, to ſet up a new kinde of Worſhip, without command.
3. It muſt then be ſaid (which is Eſtius obſervation) that Paul and all the Apoſtles, Preached the Goſpel, invitos, unwillingly. Yea, the Angels and Men, what ever they do by command of God, to do it unwillingly; nay, Chriſt himſelf as man, to have Preached the Goſpel, and done what ever he did in the fleſh for our ſalvation, unwillingly; becauſe he did all upon his Fathers Commandment: which how abſurd it is, who ſees not?
4. He makes the reſt of the Apoſtles labour in the Goſpel, though willingly and with all their hearts, worthy of no reward; becauſe they took their hire of their Auditors: or at leaſt, no great reward, as they may expect that Preach freely. [This (ſays the Doctor) would be rewardable in me; the other will bring me no reward.] [What is then my reward? that is (ſays the Dr.) what in this whole matter ſhall bring me in any reward? the anſwer is, that Preaching the Goſpel; I do it freely, without charge to the people.] But Eſtius anſwers otherwiſe, [How did Paul deny himſelf a reward, if he took hire of them? Thus, he that without care of the ſucceſs of the Goſpel, & ſcandal of the weak, burthens his hearers with charge; he ſurely Preaches the Goſpel unwillingly, (& ſo loſes his reward:) For he (as he had ſaid afore,) Preaches unwillingly, who Preaches it out of fear, and he who doth it, not loving the Goſpel, but his own profit by the Goſpel, &c.] Yea, Chryſoſt. the firſt that hinted this Interpretation, of foreign and foreign, (for Theophylact follows him at heels:) Yet ſays, that he that preacheth the Goſpel upon command, ſhall have a reward; (which the Doctor denies,) though not ſo great as he that does it without command. In locum.
5. It makes Paul to teach works of Supererogation, (which Papiſts plead from this text, thus underſtood) which merit greater reward, for an uncommanded performance, (as the Doctor phraſes it oft) then for an act done upon command; and this we ſhall hear the Doctor confidently aſſert hereafter. p. 229. n. 14.
6. Adde this abſurdity to the reſt, that the Doctor here jumpes with the Jeſuites, in expounding thoſe words, ver. 5. of this Chapter, foreign, of ſome Chriſtian woman, that attended and miniſtred to the Apoſtles; a ſiſter, a woman; not as Proteſtants, a ſiſter, a wife: Vide Chamier. T. 3. l. 16. c. 12. ſ. 19. &c.which as it overthrows the Apoſtles ſcope, which was to ſhew his liberty to be chargable to them; whereas if he had led about a woman, to bear his charges, this plea were impertinent: ſo this Interpretation of the Jeſuite, is wittily and ſharply chaſtiſed by a learned hand, Doctor Hall, Hon. of Marr. Clerg. l. 1. ſ. 26.to whom I refer him.
But I attend him further, p. 185. n. 5.[Although this was not obſerved by Cephas and other Apostles, ver. 5. Yet ſure Cephas is not conceived to have ſinned thereby, but 'tis poſitively ſaid, It was lawful for all, v. 7, 11, 14.] All this is true, but was it not lawful for Paul as well as for them? did not he take wages of other Churches, and perhaps of this Church at other times? yet did he not ſin, but this would abate of his boaſting, and rejoycing, over theſe that did take hire: Had he never taken hire of any Churches, this had made him differ from the reſt, and this had been, foreign, as Chryſost. ſpeaks, a virtuous action of his own choice, and matter of great excellence, in the Doctors language, and had been a place for boaſting, as he ſpeaks. [Paul counts and calls this matter of rejoycing, or boaſting, in reſpect to the reward, which he was allowed to expect from God for it.] But let's here Eſtius his gloſs of thoſe former words, that the other Apoſtles ſinned not, &c. [All of them, had not the ſame cauſes, to do as Paul did; but there's no doubt, but they alſo did abſtain from the uſe of that power, where the ſpirit, and reaſon, dictated abſtinence to them. As Paul when thoſe cauſes ceaſed, did not refuſe hire, no more then they, as among the Macedonians and others.] Judge, Reader, which is the Papiſt, which the Proteſtant, and which is the better Interpreter. And as for Pauls boaſting and rejoycing in it, as more vertuous, and rewardable; it ſavours not of Pauls ſpirit: For firſt, It's clear againſt our Saviours rule, [When you have done all, ſay you are unprofitable ſervants, we have done but what we were commanded to do,] nothing to boaſt of. If the Doctor ſhall ſay (as in effect he does ſay,) [When we have done all that's commanded, there is no cauſe to boast, but if do more then is commanded, foreign, as Chryſoſtome and Theophylact ſpeak, then a man may boaſt, and for that reaſon, expect a greater reward.] Surely, our Saviour did not think, (however ſome Fathers ſpeak) that a man may do more then is commanded, above the command of God, or that he could do all that is commanded; but ſuppoſe, you could yet ſay, but unprofitable ſervants. 2. It's contrary to Pauls own Doctrine, who every where makes the reward of eternal life, to be deſigned to Faith and Grace, not to Works, purpoſely to exclude boaſting, Rom. 3.27. [Where is boaſting then? it is excluded: by what Law? Of Works? No, but by the Law of Faith.] And again, Rom. 4.2. If Abraham were juſtified by works, he hath wherein to glory, but not with God. Contra: what place for glorying? upon this reaſon: It is a work of Gods good grace and ſtrength, in us: and then what place for gloryings? p. 224. n. 3.[But theſe men, give Paul, and themſelves leave and liberty to boaſt, for a work done without, or above a command. [To preach the Goſpel, (for hire) is a precept, and ſo a debt, no great matter of excellence or boaſting in it; but to Preach it freely, is the honour of my will, and hath a greater reward, and in that reſpect there is matter of boaſting.] VVhat Papiſt could ſay more? 3. Nay ſome Papiſts ſay leſs; Nec verò convenit Paulinae modeſtiae, &c. [It beſeemes not Pauls modesty, to promiſe himſelf a greater reward and glory with God, than the reſt ſhould receive, who preached the Goſpel ſincerely, though they took hire; eſpecially ſeeing, that concerned them alſo, which he ſaid above, ver. 12. To give no offence or hinderance to the Goſpel of God.] Eſtius, in locum. 4. But yet further, Paul himſelf makes it a duty, to Preach freely, when juſt occaſion is offered; for ſo he ſpeaks to the Elders of Epheſus, Acts 20.34, 35. [You your ſelves know, that theſe hands have ministred to my neceſſities, and to them that were with me. I have ſhewed you all things, how that ſo labouring, ye ought to ſupport the weak.] So labouring, ye ought, which implies a duty, See 1 Theſ. 2.9 & 2 Theſ. 3.7, 6, 9. p. 186. n. 6.where the people are poor and weak, unable to ſupply their Miniſter with his hire, he may not exact it. And this will bring me to the next thing enlarged by the Doctor.
And that is, that the Fathers ſeem to call it, a voluntary act of Piety, and the higheſt degree of munificence, above command, &c. But this muſt be candidly underſtood (as I ſaid) above the general command; [That they that Preach the Goſpel, ſhall live of the Goſpel:] but not above a ſpecial call, by circumſtances hapning. [Things that are reſtrained by circumſtances (ſays learned Chamier) are not therefore ſaid to be unlawful: nay, Tom. 3. l. 21. c. 21. p. 818. ſ. 75.are therefore ſaid to be lawful, becauſe they are not reſtrain'd but by certain circumſtances.] It is the Apoſtles own Rule, [All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient.] And it is another maxime of Divines, Quicquid non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet: [Whatever is not expedient (at this time or place) to be done, is unlawful to be done;] but then it cannot be above all command. This will not down with the Doctor. [They that received hire, were not faulty (ſayes Chryſoſt. which they muſt be, if bound by any ſpecial call (as the Diatribiſt from Chamier, but againſt the whole contexture of the place) to do what they did.] n. 8. There is no great ſenſe in theſe words: ſhould he not rather have ſaid, They were faulty, if they were bound by any ſpecial call, not to do as they did: that is, not to receive hire, which they did receive. However the reaſon is not beſeeming the Doctors ſtrength: might they not be faultleſs in receiving hire, where the people were able; and yet faulty, when they were poor, (which is the ſpecial call) if they did claim it? But the Apoſtle himſelf clears it, to be faulty for him, in that caſe, to have taken hire of them; [That I abuſe not my power in the Goſpel.] So moſt Interpreters render it: But the Doctor loves to ſwim againſt the ſtream, and renders the words, that I uſe not my power, &c. make no uſe of it. He knows the word ſignifies ſometime, and often, to abuſe, as well as to uſe; why muſt it needs be taken here in the latter ſenſe? becauſe it will better fit the Doctors deſigne, of uncommanded performances, or higheſt acts of Piety, above command. I could refer him to Chamier, Ubi ſupr. ſ. 78.to take his anſwers to Bellarmine urging this very ſenſe of the word; and vindicating the authorities by him brought for it, with this proem: Audiat Bellarminus Jeſuita, ſuorū Jeſuitarū judicium: Where he reckons up Salmeron, Justinian, and and others not Jeſuites, Cajetane, Thomas, Lyranus, and the Lovanienſes; who all render it by, abutar, abuſe; and give reaſons for it; take one, Fuiſſet enim, illud abuti poteſtate, &c. [For that was to abuſe his power, if he had required his hire, and in that thing, had derogated from the authority of the Goſpel:] So Salmeron: ſo the reſt, to the ſame purpoſe. But the Doctor cites Scripture for his ſenſe of the word, 1 Cor. 7.31. [Ʋſing the world, as if they uſed it not.] So he reads it, but ours and others, as not abuſing it: And if the Apoſtle had intended his ſenſe; he would have kept the ſame word as he did before, in the other inſtances, and have ſaid, foreign, not foreign. But that's but a conjecture; let's try if from the ſcope and context of the Apoſtles words, it may not appear, that it muſt be rendred, that I abuſe not my power. [If it was a ſin for the Apoſtle, in that caſe to have taken hire, then he had abuſed his power to take it; and conſequently he intended to ſay, If he had made the Goſpel chargeable to them, he had abuſed his power.] But the Antecedent is true, the conſequence undeniable;] ergo, The Antecedent I prove thus; [If his taking hire of them, in that caſe, had been to the hinderance of the ſucceſs of the Goſpel, then he bad ſinned, in taking of it.] But ſo it had been: This I prove from verſe 12. [We have not uſed this power, foreign, (the ſimple verb) but ſuffer all things, (the loſs of our hire) leſt we ſhould hinder the Goſpel of Chriſt.] Implying, that if he had uſed that power, he had hindered the Goſpel of Chriſt: which certainly had been a ſin. I know not what the Doctor can ſay to this; Chamier, ubi ſupra. ſ. 80, 81. &c.unleſs with Bellarm. he tell us, that foreign, [there ſignifies, Interruption, not a Scandal: and ſo not to be a ſin, to take hire, though ſome Retardation of the Goſpel, had followed;] which if he ſay, let him there ſee his anſwer, and more with it. But ſee the luck of it, (his own phraſe) he that differs from Eſtius in his true Interpretation of this text; yet agrees with him in the falſe conſequence, and abuſe of it; to prove works of Supererogation; onelyonly the Doctor dare not ſpeak out, as the other doth. Estius asks this queſtion; In locum.[How Paul, by not taking wages, did a work of ſupererogation, if he was bound by charity, not to take his hire, lest he ſhould ſcandalize the weak, or leave an occaſion to the falſe Apoſtles of glorying againſt him?] Hear his anſwer, [A work of ſupererogation is ſo called, not, that when it is done, hath none, or the leaſt obligation by the Law of Charity; but that which ſimply and nakedly conſidered, is not under precept, but a counſel: although it may by circumſtances, receive ſome greater or leſſer obligation, &c.] As naked and poor an anſwer as can be: having ſaid before, [That he ſhould abuſe his power, if he did receive his hire, indifferently of all to whom he preached.] And withall, holding that works of ſupererogation are works done by counſel without and above command. If it have the leaſt obligation by a command, it is a debt, and not a work of ſupererogation: and ſaying, that it may receive ſometimes a great obligation, by circumſtances. But what can a man do, when the cauſe he maintains is naught? Yet he is more ingenuous then the Doctor that will allow no bond of Charity to oblige him, or any ſcandal to the weak, or fear of the falſe Apoſtles boaſting againſt him, or any circumſtances to make it faulty, by any ſpecial call, for Paul to receive hire; but makes it above all command; that is in the Popiſh gloſs, a work of ſupererogation: which, how the Doctor will avoid concurrence with, we ſhall conſider ere we have done.