The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 40-41
Sect. 40.41. Object. Prudence will require us to do that which is fittest to be done, and ſo nothing is free; be anſwers, &c.
WE are now entring into a new Sea of controverſie; p. 203. n. 2, 3.]Whether man is bound to be prudent, to that degree, which he loſt by ſin.] The Doctor (to ſhew us ſome of his new Divinity) diſtinguiſhes; [If by ſin he mean mans own actual ſins, whereby he hath any wayes infatuated himſelf; then the affirmative is true, but not applyable to the mattter in hand, &c. But if of original ſin, this ſure will be found a miſtake; for this loſs of Adams was a puniſhment of Adams ſin, and in his posterity muſt be looked on as a puniſhment; and he that is puniſhed cannot be obliged not to be puniſhed.] It's eaſily known, in what School, the Doctor learned this Divinity, though I ſay nothing. But to the point, and to begin with the laſt firſt. Firſt, What doth the Doctor mean by original ſin? That in Adam onelyonly, or Adams firſt actual ſin? (as ſome Papiſts clearly do:) and ſo make the loſs of prudence and original righteouſneſs, to be no ſin, but onelyonly the puniſhment of ſin; If it were not ſin in Adam himſelf, then ſure it cannot he ſuch in his poſterity? n. 3.both in Adam, and in his poſterity? This Papiſts ſay, and the Doctor ſeems to hold ſo, by his arguing; at leaſt in Adams poſterity. Yet why is it not a puniſhment in Adam as well as in his poſterity; and then no ſin in him, [for he that is puniſht cannot be obliged not to be puniſht.] If no man now be bound to be as prudent as Adam was in his integrity, (as he ſays) was not Adam himſelf bound after his fall to be as prudent and righteous, as in his integrity? No, for then he ſhould be bound not to be puniſht, being puniſht with the loſs of that prudence, and original righteouſneſs. 2. Will the Doctor grant any original ſin in Adams poſterity? then I ask, what that original ſin is? If onelyonly, the loſs, or want of original righteouſneſs (as Papiſts make it) is not the want of original righteouſneſs a ſin? How then is it called orginal ſin, if it be no ſin? And ſin it cannot be (in the Doctors Divinity) becauſe it is a puniſhment of Adams ſin. Then again, no infant is a ſinner, in the want of original righteouſneſs: Oh, bleſſed harmleſs babes! while they live, and ſurely all ſaved when they die young. This is the Divinity of ſome of the Doctors Schollers, which I fear they learned from him. 3. Did the Doctor never hear, in the Schools, [That one ſin, is the puniſhment of another,] and in the Scripture, that God (in ſevereſt juſtice) puniſhes ſin with ſin? and why not Adams firſt ſin, with the loſs of original righteouſneſs (which it ſelf is a ſin, as being foreign, an inconformity to that Law created in him?) in himſelf and his poſterity, they being all in him, and ſtanding or falling with him? But if original ſin, in Adams poſterity, The pollutions of our nature, &c. are infelicities, if not ſins. Pract. cat. p. 52. yet p. 74. called ſin.be more then a want of original righteouſneſs, even a pravity of nature inclining them to all evil, as well as averting from any good; (as all Orthodox hold) it is not only a puniſhment, but alſo a ſin. And then though he that is puniſht is not bound not to be puniſht, yet he that hath loſt original righteouſneſs, is bound to be righteous; as righteous (and ſo as prudent) as he was created. As a decoctor or prodigal of an entruſted ſtate, who hath waſtefully ſpent it, (which is to him a puniſhment ſufficient, to want that eſtate) is yet bound to the repayment of it. 4. A man that by his actual ſins, hath infatuated himſelf (which is the firſt part of his diſtinction) is bound to be prudent to that degree of prudence, he lost by his ſin, (there is truth in this affirmation ſays the Doctor.) But ſay I, the very loſs of that prudence, is a puniſhment of his ſin; and ſo cannot be a ſin too, by the Doctors arguing. That it is both a ſin and puniſhment, the Apoſtle is clear, Rom. 1.21, 22. [When they knew God, and glorified him not as God, &c. they became vain in their imaginations, and their fooliſh heart was darkned, they became fools.] Is it not a ſin for a man, by his own luſts, to darken his own heart, and to put out his own eyes? yet is it alſo a puniſhment, infflicted by God upon him, ver. 28. [God gave them up to a reprobate minde.] Much more might be added: But granting it true, of a man, infatuated by his actual ſins; yet the Doctor hath his evaſions: ['Tis not appliable to the matter in hand, viz. to ſuch an high degree of prudence, as now he ſpeaks of; for of that he may come ſhort, without any degree of actual ſin, as ſhall thus infatuate, and deprive him of prudence.] Let the Doctor apply this to Adam himſelf, when he was alive, after his fall: He was bound to that high degree of prudence, which I ſpeak of, that he loſt by his ſin: and of that he might not, without ſin, come ſhort, though his following actual ſins did not further infatuate him, and deprive him of that little remaining prudence which he had. Prudence in the higheſt degree, was a part or degree of the Image of God, that knowledge he had, at his creation, which by his actual ſin he loſt; and is not loſs, or want of that knowledge, or Image of God, a ſin, as well as a puniſhment? If ſo in Adam, ſo alſo in his poſterity. He therefore ſhifts the foot of his anſwer; [He ſpeakes of a regenerate man, by the inlightning wiſe Spirit of God return'd to that ſtate of prudence, from which his own actual ſins may have degraded him; and if ſo, he is as prudent as he is bound to be, and yet capable and growing in knowledge, and ſo free from ſin in this reſpect, though not at the higheſt, that lapſt nature is capable of.] Though this regenerate man, appear not in the Doctors diſcourſe, yet it will do him no good, if granted; for we ſpeak of any man ſince the fall, every man is bound to aſpire to that degree of prudence, or knowledge, which he loſt, not onelyonly by his own actual ſin; but by the ſin of Adam. Hence the Apoſtle, Rom. 12.2. laies it on all as a command, [Be ye transform'd in the renewing of your mind, that you may prove, what that perfect will of God is. And Eph. 4.23, 24. Be renewed in the ſpirit of your minde, and put on that new man, foreign, &c. which after God, was created in righteouſneſs and true holineſs.] Which in Col. 3.10. he expreſſes thus, [Which is renewed in knowledge, after the Image of him that created him.] Implying that what is ſhort of that Image, that knowledge, is ſhort of that which the Goſpel calls us to, and conſequently a ſin, contrary to the Doctor who ſays, [Though he arrive not at the higheſt degree, The Law is ſatisfied with the loweſt. n. 6. n. 3.he is free from ſin.] His latitude, gives his diſciples elbow-room enough in Religion, and takes off their care of aſpiring to higher degrees, when the loweſt is without ſin. But hear more in the ſecond part of his diſtinction; [No man is bound now, to be as prudent, as Adam in his Integrity, any more then to be as healthy, any more then to be born in the state of innocency and perfection, &c.] Strange confidence this: 1. Is there no difference between a meer puniſhment, and that which may be a ſin, as well as a puniſhment? Does not he that ſins (did not Adam ſo) deface the Image of God, whereof prudence was a part? as he that defiles himſelf, defaces the Image of God, that conſiſted in true Holineſs? and is not that a ſin? and is not that man bound to make reparation of that wrong, in defacing the Image of God? But ſickneſs and diſeaſes are meer puniſhments, and ſo no man is bound to be as healthy, as Adam was created. And for innocence and perfection, (as well as prudence) a man is bound to be as innocent and perfect as Adam, though he cannot be born ſo, being begotten of impure and defiled parents, and for want thereof, is born by nature the childe of wrath, which ſuppoſes him ſinful.
But this and the like aſſertions of mine, p. 204. n. 4.(he ſays) [Are nothing but an heap of paralogiſmes, no one of the proofs belonging to the higheſt degree of mercy, which ſhould be inferred from them. I had thought that perfection, which Law and Goſpel call for, had intended the higheſt degree of piety and mercy; but the Doctor hath found out a new kinde of perfection, which hath a large latitude of degrees; n. 5.of which more ere long. Hear what he ſays here. 1. [The perfection of Holineſs which the Law required, was but either ſincere and upright, or at moſt, but unſinning obedience, and neither of theſe includes the higheſt degree of Piety, which is poſſible.] The firſt part of this anſwer, confounds Law & Goſpel: The Law required not only ſincerity and uprightneſs, but alſo exact perfection of of parts and degrees: [Do this, all this, and do it well, or die.] The Goſpel is ſatisfied indeed with ſincerity and uprightneſs; pardoning what is not exactly done, and accepting through Chriſt what is done; but the Law knows no ſuch Indulgence: This he miſdoubting, helps it with another; [or at moſt but unfinning obedience.] But unfinning obedience, includes both a conformity of nature, to the Holineſs of the Law, and alſo the higheſt degree of piety poſſible. He that comes ſhort in a degree of Holineſs, which the Law requireth, his Holineſs is ſinful, and without mercy, damnable. [Curſed is he that continueth not in all things, &c.] Yea, the higheſt degree of Piety (if poſſible) in a nature corrupted, and inconformable to the Law, is finning obedience; and needs pardon.
This anſwer afore, ſatisfies him not; therefore he addes, n. 6.[If by the Law be meant the Covenant made with Adam in innocency, then it's true, that the perfection, which that required, was unfinning obedience; and if Adam had performed that, yet he had been capable of higher degrees of Piety, then that law required, there being in unfinning obedience a latitude, &c.] The Doctor is much beholden to his latitude, and degrees of perfection, &c. But it's proved already that unſinning obedience, reaches to the leaſt title of the Law, and to the highest degree of Piety; and then the cauſe is mine. And as for Adams being capable of higher degrees of Piety, upon his unfinning obedience; that is, that his ſtate was a ſtate of proficiency, it comes preſently to be conſidered in the next. But I pray was not the ſum of that Law, [To love (and to ſerve) the Lord, with all his heart, ſoul, minde, ſtrength,] that is, to the utmoſt of his poſſibility? and then, muſt he not needs ſin, if he came ſhort, or remitted his love, in any of thoſe circumſtances? Yet he ſays, upon his former miſtake, [That to thoſe higheſt degrees, the Law cannot be thought to binde, when it is ſatisfied with the lowest; all the ſuperiour degrees being additions.] Which is certainly falſe: For if Adam might have ſatisfied the Law, with the loweſt degrees of Piety, he might have remitted of his love in the ſervice of God, contrary to that Law, and beſides might have merited (as Papiſts ſay) by going to thoſe higheſt degrees, beyond unfinning obedience, and above what the Law did binde him to. But this ſuits well with the Doctors uncommanded Worſhip, and works of perfection above all commands.
Yet this the Doctor muſt gain, or he loſes his cauſe; he therefore inſtances in frequency of prayer, [Adam (ſays he) might have exceeded any proportion which Gods Law required of him. p. 7. p. 204.] But what if I ſhould ſay, Adam needed not to pray at all, as wanting nothing, unleſs he would pray for perſeverance; but the Angels in Heaven, need perſeverance, yet we read not that they pray for it: But this may ſeem a paradox, but not ſo unlikely as ſome of the Doctors. I ſhall therefore wave it, and deſire to know of him, what proportion of frequency in Prayer, the Law required of him? How many times a day, &c. this muſt be reſolved, before he could exceed that proportion: I leave it with him, and proceed. 2. [If Adam had never finned, yet might his ſtate, he a ſtate of proficiency, and then the perfection required, was not the higheſt degree of Piety, &c.] The Antecedent is very uncertain, that his state was a ſtate of proficiency; he was as perfect and complete in his kinde, as his nature could hold; as the Angels were (it's probable) as full of holineſs, at their creation, as they are now; and ſo the Saints after the day of Judgement, as perfectly holy, as to eternity; no proficiency in grace; that's for viatores, not for comprehenſores: And hence it's evident, that the higheſt degree of Piety was required of him, and he had ſinned, by any lower; contrary to the Doctors conſequence. 3. That Adam and his poſterity ſhould have been rewarded according to their works, (the Doctors third argument) is true; but that they ſhould have had degrees of rewards, is at beſt a probleme, and upon the former ground, of a ſtate of non proficiency, like to be falſe. This may be ſeconded, by the inſtance of Angels, there is no ſuch proportion of rewards to them; for they enjoyed God, their utmoſt happineſs, from the firſt creation, at leaſt from their confirmation, as they ſhall do, to eternity. And now if I were diſpoſed to make the Doctor ſome new work, I could caſt a foreign, (as he calls it) an Apple of contention, before him, by ſtarting a new queſtion, [Whether there ſhall be degrees of glory, to the Saints, in Heaven.] He knows it is a controverſie amongſt very learned men, and much is ſaid on both ſides: If he pleaſe to determine it, let him; and I proceed.
What was ſaid before of Adams proficiency, and rewards proportionable, he confeſſes to be but a ſpeculation; p. 204. n. 8.he therefore [ſuppoſes I meant the Law of the Jews, and then the perfection of Holineſs which that required, muſt, he ſuppoſes, ſignifie truth and ſincerity of Holineſs, ſuch as was in Zach. and Eliz. Luke 1.6.] There is firſt a miſtake, that I meant the Law of the Jews, as contradiſtinct to the Law; which he calls a covenant of works: I meant it of the Law, as contradiſtinct to the Goſpel; in that ſenſe, the Law given to the Jews required not only ſincerity and truth, See Gal. 5.3.(which yet were required in innocence) but perfections of Holineſs, in the higheſt degree, as I ſaid afore. I remember I have read ſomewhere, Pract. cat. p. 8. 2. edit.that the Doctor ſayes, [The truth is, the Judaical Law did repreſent unto us the firſt covenant, and that eſpecially, and is ſo called, Heb. 8. by requiring perfect obedience, and pronouncing a curſe on him, that continued not in all thoſe many burthenſome ordinances, which the Law gave no power to perform.] True it is the Doctor addes there, [So it did repreſent the ſecond covenant:] But under favour, he ſpeaks, incongruouſly twice. 1. In ſaying, the Law Judaical repreſented the ſecond Covenant, which the Goſpel onelyonly holds forth. 2. That he joyns the Ceremonial Laws and Ordinances, as a part of the firſt Covenant with the Moral Law, which alone was the Covenant of works to Adam. Neither did that Law repreſent the ſecond Covenant at all; for the Ceremonial Law of Sacrifices, &c. did onelyonly repreſent Chriſt, and this was a Goſpel diſpenſation, and beſide the promiſes of Chriſt, obſcurely intimated, this was a great part of the Jewes Goſpel. Hence it will follow, that the perfection of Holineſs which that Law of the Jews ſo conſidered, required, was not onelyonly ſincerity and truth of Holineſs, but (as he ſaid) unfinning perfect obedience, and pronouncing a curſe, &c. Sincerity and truth of Holineſs, as it was alſo required in the Law, is accepted onelyonly in the Goſpel: Then Zach. and Eliz. were not juſt with reſpect to the Judaical Law, but the Goſpel diſpenſation. And when we hear of any, ſaid to be juſt, and perfect, it muſt be underſtood Evangelically, not Legally and ſtrictly: for properly there is no perfection, but what exactly anſwers to the perfection of the Law. Then it follows again, that there are no degrees of perfection; perfection implying the higheſt degree. There are degrees of Holineſs and Righteouſneſs, in the ſame, or divers perſons, but no degrees of perfection; yet theſe degrees of perfection, the Doctor makes great uſe of, as we ſhall again hear.
I ſaid, the Law required Perfection of Holineſs, and he ſaid, the Goſpel requires yet greater perfection: n. 10.He anſwers, [That greater perfection which Chriſt required, is but an higher degree of the ſame perfection; but not the higheſt that is poſſible, &c.] But here are many miſtakes. 1. That there are degrees of perfection. 2. That he having imputed Imperfection to the Law, yet calls that perfection that Chriſt required, an higher degree of perfection; when the Law before, was it ſelf imperfect, wanting perfection; Ʋt perfectorum perfectiores appareant & Gnoſticorum magis Gnoſtici viri, &c. ut Irenaeus, l. 1. c. 5. Opepones, &c.and required it not. Chriſt onelyonly required perfection. 3. The perfection required, whether by the Law, or Chriſt, being ſuppoſed to be the Higheſt, he yet makes one, yea, many degrees of perfection above the higheſt: Chriſt (ſays he) did not require the higheſt degree that is poſſible: And now we have a fine Philoſophical ſpeculation indeed: [Suppoſe eight degrees of zeal or piety, or perfection; A Jew had as many, ſuppoſe five, as would denominate him perfect a Chriſtian more, to have ſix, it's viſible, that he that hath all, that is required of a Chriſtian, is yet capable of having more, ſeven, and yet not come to the eighth degree.] [Take heed that no man ſpoil you, by Philoſophy, &c.] may very well be uſed here. The Doctor might as well made 18, or 80. degrees of Zeal, and Piety in ſeveral men, p. 205. n. 11and he does ſo, preſently: [There is beſide, in every degree, a latitude alſo, and in it, as it were fractions, and all this little enough to bear proportion with them different works of pious men here, or their glory hereafter.] But, firſt, In this Arithmetical, or Geometrical proportion, the Doctor forgat where to place the four firſt degrees of Zeal, Piety, Perfection; and I can think of none but Heathens to be a fit ſubject of them; ſo that ſome, at leaſt four degrees of them muſt be found in an Heathen, five, in a Jew, ſix, at leaſt in a Chriſtian: If then an Heathen arrive, at the fourth degree, he is perfect in his latitude; a Jew at five, &c. And no marvel, for the Doctor made (above) the Athenians to be very pious men, and more devout then their neighbours, 2. But then again, I would ask, what if the Heathen come ſhort of the fourth degree, the Jew of the fifth, the Chriſtian of the ſixth, are they perfect or imperfect, in that poſture? That they are yet perfect, according to the Doctors Philoſophy, (for Divinity it is not) is proved from this, that his latitude of perfection, takes in all the eight degrees; ergo, he is perfect that hath but one degree, as well as he that hath four being an Heathen, or five being a Jew, or ſix being a Chriſtian: Nay, he that hath the loweſt fraction of the ſixth degree, hath the ſixth degree; then he that hath the loweſt fraction of the fifth, hath the fifth; and ſo of the fourth. And why then hath not he that hath but one degree, nay one fraction of that firſt degree, a right to challenge perfection, as will as he that hath four, five, or ſix degrees. 3. If he ſhall ſay, He that falls ſhort of the fifth degree, being a Jew, falls ſhort of perfection, and is imperfect; and he that falls ſhort of the ſixth degree, being a Christian, falls ſhort of perfection, and is imperfect; then I would ask by what Rule of Scripture, or right reaſon, is he imperfect, that falls ſhort of five, being a Jew; or ſix, being a Christian; and yet he that arrives at five, or ſix, yea, the loweſt fraction of that degree, ſaid to be perfect; ſeeing he alſo falls ſhort of the eighth, which is ſuppoſed the higheſt degree of perfection. 4. Divinty would rather ſay; ſuppoſing Zeal and Piety, to require eight degrees; he is onelyonly perfectly zealous, and perfectly pious, who arrives at the eighth degree, and all theſe that fall ſhort, more or leſs, of that degree, to be more or leſs (not perfect, for that they are not, but) imperfect, and ſo no degrees of perfection; what is leſs then it ought to be, is in vitio, ſo far faulty, and ſinful; as we ſhall hear anon. As fractions therefore in Arithmetick, are imperfect numbers; ſo thoſe degrees of Zeal and Piety, in Divinity, are imperfect virtues: there may be degrees of virtues, Zeal, Piety, &c. but no degrees of perfection. But enough and too much of this fine ſpeculation.
The next about degrees of mercy, is bottom'd upon the ſame airy ſpeculation. 1. p. 205. n. 12That there is any higheſt degree of mercy determin'd by the Law, to which a man is bound; which being done, a man may exceed that. The Law is not determinative, but according to circumſtances, requires more or leſs; and then bindes, and ſo it is not above command. 2. That to give above a mans ability, and the neceſſity of the poor, is no breach of charity, in the exceſs; when as the Law limits charity to others, by that to our ſelves. 3. That the Macedonians, did give above their abilitie, which the text ſays not, as was noted above. I did not underſtand that precept, n. 13.[Be merciful as your heavenly Father, &c.] in regard of equality, but quality; and in regard of proportioning our mercy, according to the circumſtances, which command our mercy; as Deut. 15 8. [Thou ſhalt open thine hand wide unto him, and ſhalt ſurely lend him ſufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.] That's one act of charity; another is, giving, ver. 10. [Thou ſhalt ſurely give him, &c.] The words are more full in the Original; [Opening, thou ſhalt open thy hand, and lending, thou ſhalt lend him; (how much?) enough for his want, that which is wanting to him; giving, thou ſhalt give unto him.] That is, freely, fully, according to thy ability, and his neceſſity. But what if the Doctor do this, and then will be yet more merciful? is that exceſs, and a fault? I had ſaid, Circumſtances conſidered, [I am bound to ſupply his need; and to give leſs, were neither prudent, nor pious, what ever it were, to give more.] This laſt, the Doctor takes hold on; [He dare not pronunce it an offence, againſt either of thoſe virtues, to go beyond this: but breaks off abruptly, what ever it were to give more.] I did not then affirm it to be an offence to give more; becauſe it was in queſtion: but if he had read on the next Section, I brought here his own confeſſion; [That it's poſſible to offend againſt prudence in too prodigal a giving; and in too parſimonious, againſt Piety.] That ſays as much, as I intended: that there may be an offence in the exceſs in giving too much; as in too little, a defect: to which he ſays nothing, but labours to evade it, as we ſhall ſee preſently. But in his way, a man can hardly offend, either in the defect or exceſs: Not in the defect, if he give but a little; yet charity or mercy having a latitude, and degrees: he that arrives at the loweſt degree, or fraction of a degree, is not onelyonly merciful, but perfect in mercy, as well as he that goes to an higher degree: Not in the exceſs; for he had newly ſaid, n. 12. [Suppoſing any ſum, that in all thoſe circumſtances, two men are bound to give, yet certainly one may lawfully exceed that ſum, and give more; even beyond his ability; and this not be ſinful, but more acceptable, &c.] Why then ſhould the Doctor blame (if he do blame) ſome devout Papiſts, who give away all, and go themſelves a begging, as thinking it a very meritorious work, more acceptable; more rewardable? yet this the Doctor addes, [As I am bound to ſupply his preſent wants, ſo I may make proviſion alſo againſt his future neceſſities, &c.] He ſayes too little in the laſt; he may, yea muſt make proviſion againſt his future neceſſities; for he wants for the future, as well as at preſent; and an able man is bound to provide for that. The Samaritane gave him a good pattern for this, who did not onelyonly power in wine and oyl, for his preſent need, but left money, and charge to the hoaſt, to take care of him, with promiſe to repay it: [Go thou and do likewiſe,] is our Saviours inference and command: and then, not above a command.