The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 46
Sect. 46. But then thirdly, (ſays he) the perfection we are commanded by Chriſt, is capable of degrees, &c.
IN anſwer to this, I cited a ſentence of Saint Hierome, [Charity, which cannot be increaſed is in no man, &c. and what is leſſer then it ought to be, is faulty, in vitio eſt, &c.] (Which afterwards, he alters, into ex vitio eſt. n. 36.) This place whether it was Hieromes, or Auguſtines, or in both, It's Auguſt. ad Hierom. ep. 62. p. 213. n. 35.(for I finde it cited, ſeverally, and it matters not which it was;) he endeavours firſt to avoid, by this diſtinction; [It ſpeaks of an univerſal impartial obſervation of the whole Law; and then it it will in no wiſe be appliable to our buſineſs, which is onelyonly of the degrees of this or that particular vertue, which it is certain that man may have, who yet it guilty of ſome ſin, in other particulars.] Which is as if he ſhould ſay, a man may be perfect in this or that particular virtue, as charity, &c. though he ſins in other particulars; and ſo be not perfect in the univerſal obſervation of the whole Law. And this is the anſwer of ſome Papiſts, that in ſome particular acts of virtue, a man may be ſinleſs: citing for it, very learnedly, that of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7.28. & 36. [If thou marry thou haſt not ſinned, &c. he ſinneth not, let them Marry.] True (ſays Chamier and others) Marriage it ſelf is no ſin; but there may be ſins committed in Marrying, in them that Marry. And they aſſert, (contrary to Papiſts and the Doctor) [That there is no act of vertue, that we exerciſe, but ſome ſin cleaves to it.] But if a man may be perfectly without ſin in one virtue, why not in another, and a third, and at laſt in all; and then ſome perfectioniſt may ſay, he is perfect in all; and (as ſome friend of the Doctors is reported to ſay;) keep himſelf from all ſins? Yet the Fathers Teſtimony will not ſo eaſily be ſhaken off. For they inſtance, in charity which generally reſpects the whole Law; [Love is the fullfilling of the Law;] that is, perfect love to God and man: if then there be no perfect love in generall, to be found in any man here, then there will be none found in the particulars, of love to God and love to man; which quite deſtroys the Doctors aſſertion, [That a man may be perfect in this or that particular virtue, and yet be guilty of ſome ſins, in other particulars.] He ſuſpecting this might be objected, flies to another; [acknowledging that be that fails of any part of his duty, is therein faulty, p. 214. n. 36.yet no man can infer hence, therefore every regular act and obedience which comes ſhort of the higheſt degree of perfection is a ſin.] But this is a ſecret calumny againſt his Adverſaries; as if they were of opinion, [that every regular act, ſhort of perfection, were a ſin.] Papiſts indeed charge Proteſtants with this ſlander; but they have been refuted many times over. It becomes not a Protestant to joyn with them, in this forged cavillation. The Doctor hath heard it often, [Bonum ex integris cauſis, malum ex quolibet defectu: But let him (if he pleaſe) charge this upon Saint Auguſtine, who ſays expreſly, Peccatum eſt, cum vel non eſt charitas, vel minor eſt quam debet. De perfect. Inſtit. ad rat. 15. We ſay onelyonly, it is ſinful, not a ſin.
That will not do, n. 37.he muſt try another: [perfection is capable of two notions; unſinning obedience, or an higher degree of exerciſe of any particular virtue, chaſtity, mercy, &c.] of the latter he intends it: But now he is gone from his former gloſſes, of a Latitude in perfection, and degrees of that perfection, making the lower (if not the loweſt) degree of mercy, to be perfection: now, perfection ſignifies an higher degree of exerciſe, of mercy, &c. Then his lower degrees, at leaſt, are imperfect, and no perfections; And if ſo, why are not his higher degrees imperfections alſo, ſeeing they come ſhort of the highest, which indeed is onelyonly perfection.
But I ſhall deſire to know, what is the higheſt, or higher degree of chaſtity, (one of his inſtances) which is not under a law of Moſes, or Christ in the Goſpel? ſuppoſe a man ſhould attain to the chaſtity of the Law (which the Doctor made imperfect) yet if he attained not to the higheſt degree of chaſtity, which the Goſpel requireth, ſurely he will not be perfect in chaſtity. And (ſuppoſing a man arrived there) can a man aſcend to an higher degree of it, then Chriſt requires in the Goſpel? I deſire to know, what that is, or how it may be manifeſted? Suppoſe a man arrived ſo high, as not to luſt in his heart; no concupiſcence ſtirring there, &c. this were, I think, the higheſt attainable in this life, (if not in the other life alſo) yet this is none of the Doctors perfection, which muſt be above all command, to make it more acceptable, and more rewardable: for this higheſt degree of chaſtity, is under command, and ſo no uncommanded virtue, or perfection. I know not what the Doctor can inſtance in, to make an higher degree of exerciſe of this particular virtue of chaſtity, that is not under command, unleſs he will produce, Virginity or ſingle life, & make that, (as he does) an higher virtue and perfection, (he ſayes, the higheſt) becauſe it is not under command. And if ſo, then as he knows, there is, or may be an impure Caelibate, or ſingle life; ſo let him take heed, that he charge not honourable Marriage, with ſome degree of unchaſtity, or as a leſſer chaſtity, as Papiſts do. In a word, perfect chaſtity conſiſts in puncto: and the leaſt ſpot (as in pure white linnen) renders it defective, and imperfect. Whence it follows, that there are no degrees in the perfection of chaſtity, though in chaſtity it ſelf, there may be degrees: provided that we yeild, that what is ſhort of that higheſt degree of perfection, is ſo far ſinful, or imperfect.
And now I am charged with another Imputation, that I would make the world at leaſt ſuſpect, n. 39.[that the Doctor holds and teaches perfection in this life, and calls it, little juſtice.] I did not charge him with any ſuch thing; but upon ſuppoſition, left it doubtful, becauſe though ſome paſſages incline that way, yet I found him not directly aſſerting it; but ſeemingly the contrary numb. 36. [Fulleſt perfection, which cannot be increaſed, is not to be found in any man in this life.] But upon conſideration of what he ſayes now, I may be bold to ſay, he does teach perfection in this life, 1. In ſaying onelyonly, the fulleſt perfection is not to be found in this life; therefore ſome perfection is to be found in this life. 2. He maintains degrees of perfection of virtues, both under and above commands; and I ſhould think, perfection above command, is a full, if not fulleſt perfection. But if any ſhall ſay, the Doctor does not aſſert unfinning perfection in this life; See n. 41.I ſhall ſay, that he does too: for thirdly, though he deny univerſal unſining perfection, yet he aſſirms, ſinleſs perfection in the exerciſe of ſome particular virtues, chaſtity, mercy, &c. Yea, not onelyonly the higher degrees, but any degree of perfection, he makes to be ſinleſs, and to fulfill Chriſts precept in the Goſpel; as we ſhall hear preſently; and is angry that any ſhould charge the lower degrees of perfection, to be ſins, or ſinful: for if he yeild them to be ſinful, he denies their perfection, or elſe ſpeaks contradictions, p. 215. n. 39.imperfect, ſinful perfection. His cavil at my change of (if it be) into (if there be) will not help him; He ſpake of the perfection of mercy before, ſ. 46. and then ſays, [If it be not that, but any perfection acquireable in this life, &c.] which leaves a ſuſpition, and more, that he holds ſome perfection in this life; adding, [it will be capable of degrees and growth alſo.] And this I charged with contradiction: which he endeavours thus to avoid; n. 41.[What contradiction can there be, in affirming that in this virtue of loving enemies, mercy, &c. there are degrees, and conſequently poſſibility of growth alſo?] Truly none at all, but he was ſpeaking of perfection it ſelf; that this perfection was capable of degrees and growth, n. 40.which to me ſeems ſtill a contradiction. There was little juſtice in this (his own words) to change the queſtion, I hope he will be ſenſible of it. But he ſayes, [Love and mercy to enemies, &c. Some degree attainable in this life, &c. n. 40.is certainly attainable in this life; and no hereſie to ſay, that by the grace of Chriſt, one may obey ſuch a precept of Chriſts, when Paul profeſſeth unlimitedly, he can do all things through him that ſtrengthens him.] That the virtues named, are attainable in this life, I never doubted, in ſome meaſure; but to ſay, perfection in thoſe virtues, is attainable in this life, is next to an hereſie, a Popiſh error at leaſt; and ſo much the more ſuſpicious in the Doctor, becauſe he makes uſe of the ſame text that they do, for their perfection of Virginity, or Caelibate; yea, perfection to keep the whole law. [Paul profeſſeth unlimitedly he can do all things, &c.] Let us hear an ingenuous Papiſt interpreting this text, againſt his fellows and againſt the Doctor, 1. Eſtius in loc.[Paul having before, Phil. 4.11.12. ſpoken great things of himſelf, leſt he ſhould ſeem too arrogant, (as they that plead perfection in this life, are) he refers all to the power of Christ; I can do all things, but through Chriſt, that ſtrengthens me. 2. The ſenſe is, all thoſe things before mentioned, and all other things, which are to be ſuffered by me, I am enabled and do perform, by Christ.] Not all things unlimitedly as the Doctor phraſes it; for then he might fulfil the whole Law, and be unſinningly perfect in this life: which he cap. 3.12. renounced. But ſayes the Doctor, [by the grace of Chriſt, one may obey ſuch a precept of Chriſts, as [Love your enemies, &c.] This is equivocally ſpoken, it may mean, perfectly obey it, to the highest pitch of it, (and that the Doctor dare not ſpeak, what ever he thinks, for he ſpeaks doubtfully; [It is attainable by them which have ſinned, and do ſtill ſin, in other things, and perhaps in ſome circumstances of this.] Mark it, ſin in other things, (and not in this) or perhaps in this, &c. perhaps not in this, what ever they do in other things:) or it may be meant, in ſome meaſure they do obey that precept, love your enemies; and that no man denies. In a word, the perfection meant by Chriſt, Matth. 5. laſt, Be ye perfect, is not an unſinning perfection in general, or in thoſe particular virtues, of loving enemies, or mercy; as if attainable in this life; but onelyonly an exhortation to Chriſtians to aſpire to that high perfection, the copy whereof is in their heavenly Father, which they can never attain unto, at leaſt not in this life. As when the Apostle ſays, [Be ye holy, as he is holy,] he does not mean that any can perfectly keep that precept, but onelyonly that they ſhould endeavour after perfection of holineſs, 2 Cor. 7.1.[perfecting holineſs in the fear of God.]
And now the Doctor complains of my ſharp diſcipline, p. 216. n. 44exerciſed upon a ſaying of his, [If the perfection be not acquireable in this life, 'tis certainly not under Evangelical precept now, &c.] This I ſaid was ſtrong and ſtrange confidence; that was all the diſcipline upon it, except my reaſons to prove it; which was doctrine rather then diſcipline, in his ſenſe. I ſhall produce them in order, and conſider what he ſays to them. [1. The Law it ſelf requires perfect obedience of Chriſtians.] To this he ſayes, two things, [1. The Law, not the Moſaical, but that of the firſt covenant, required perfect unſinning obedience; but this is not now in force with faithful penitent Chriſtians, who are not now under the Law, but under grace: the ſecond Covenant, which requires not innocence, but repentance ſincere, not perfect obedience.] But here are many miſadventures. 1. The Catechiſt told us. [The Judaical law, did repreſent to us the firſt covenant, by requiring perfect obedience, and pronouncing a curſe upon him, that continued not in all things, &c.] Pract. Cat. p. 8. this is now contradicted. 2. This Law Moſaical, the moral Law, is ſtill in force, to unbelieving and impenitent Chriſtians, they are ſtill under the Law, and under the curſe, though it ſhould not be in force with faithful and penitent ones. 3. But even faithful Chriſtians and penitent, are under the Law, as it is a Rule of righteouſneſs, though not as the firſt covenant or elſe the Doctor muſt turn Antinomian. 4. Nor is it Orthodox to ſay, the covenant of grace (or the Law in the hand of a Mediator) required not innocence, but repentance, I… requires both, though it is contented with repentance, and the Law as the firſt Covenant, required ſincere, as well as perfect obedience; and the Goſpel requires no leſs. The very Goſpel requires perfect obedience, (the Doctor ſays perfecter) as well as the Law, 2 Cor. 7.1. but then the rigor of forfeiture in failing, is by anothers perfect righteouſneſs abated; there's mercy concerning this, which the Law knew not of. No repentance would ſerve there. But he ſays, ſecondly, [It cannot be ſaid, that the Law is the Rule of Evangelical righteouſneſs, i. e. of that righteouſneſs, whereby believers are now ſaid to be juſtified.] Here are more mistakes; for Evangelical righteouſneſs, is two-fold, or hath two parts, foreign, Rev. 19.8. 1. The righteouſneſs of Juſtification, and ſo the Law is not the Rule of Evangelical righteouſneſs, but Faith, or the Law of Faith, as it's called, Rom. 3.27. 2. The righteouſneſs of Sanctification, and ſo the Law, ever was, and will be the Rule of Evangelical righteouſneſs. And I cannot but wonder, that the Doctor ſhould deny the Law to be the Rule of Evangelical righteouſneſs, that is, by which believers are juſtified *Not ſeparating faithful actions, or acts of faith, from faith, or the Condition of juſtification, &c.(at leaſt in part) who makes the condition of the new Covenant, to be, not onelyonly Faith, but Obedience, and all other graces, required by the Law; even to Juſtification, Pract. Cat. p. 28. But that by the way. The ſecond thing I objected, was, [That the Orthodox maintain the Law to be perfect, or the eternal Rule of righteouſneſs, againſt the Church of Rome.] This he ſhakes off, n. 45.by ſaying; [It is but a contention of words, that the Diatribiſt, (it ſeems) and ſome others have eſpouſed againſt I know not what adverſaries.] Sure the Doctor is not ſo little ſeen in our Controverſies, as not to know, that this is one point of difference between the Romaniſts and us, concerning the Law; that they put imperfection upon it, and ours maintain it to be the moſt perfect Rule of moral righteouſneſs. The firſt difference that Bellarm. puts between the Law and Goſpel is this, Lex operum eſt doctrina inchoata, Evangelium perfecta. But we need not go ſo far to finde an adverſary that hath eſpouſed this quarrel: It is the learned D. H. Who was charged by me, [for compliance with them of Rome, in charging the Law with imperfection] This he made my third miſadventure, and he undertakes to maintain it, againſt the Orthodox, n. 46. p. 216.ſaying, ['Tis evident in that place of the Catech. p. 94. that, firſt, The words of Chriſt, that he came, foreign, to fill up the vacuities of the Moſaical Law. 2. The many expreſs examples of his doing ſo, in Matth. 5. his additions to the Law; It was ſaid of old,—but I ſay unto you. 3. The uniform ſuffrage of all antiquity was the ground, whereon he built his affirmation, &c.] Here, I muſt confeſs, I had a ſtrong temptation (to uſe the Doctors language) to undertake the examination of that part of his Catech. p. 92. to p. 95. but that I am loath to ſwell my diſcourſe into a volume, to the burthen of the Reader, and trouble of the Printer; for it deſerves (as many other paſſages in that book do) ſome conſideration: The Doctor herein palpably concurring, not only with Papiſts in this expoſition, (excepting but that they make ſome of thoſe additions, Counſels, not all precepts, as he does) and profeſſing [he ſhould never diſclaim the doctrine upon that account, &c.] but with Socinians alſo, in making Chriſt a Law-giver, and not an expoſitor of the Law; and preſcribing a new way of ſalvation, from that of the Law, not in regard of Juſtification by faith in Chriſt; for ſo it may be called a new way, in oppoſition to that of the Law; (but this they deny) but in regard of the obſervation of thoſe new precepts, or Laws, which Chriſt, they ſay, makes the way to ſalvation: And the Doctor does little leſs; making obedience to the Goſpel precepts, to be in part the condition of Juſtification, as they do, as was touched above. I ſhall at preſent, onelyonly ſpeak ſomething to the third particular grounds of his Affirmation; [That the Law was imperfect, and had before ſome vacuities, which now are *Chriſt meant to heighten that which was imperfect. Qu. of Bapt. Inf. ſ. 4. Requiring what the Law had not required, and ſo the adding more to it. p. 217. n. 48.filled up, by Chriſt.] The firſt was, [the words of Chriſt, that he came foreign, to fill up the vacuities of the Moſaical Law.] But this looks like a fallacy, called petitio principii, which he aſſerts, but proves not, abuſing his Reader with ambiguity of words: For he confeſſes, Catech. p. 93. the word foreign, ſignifies two things, [Either to fulfil and perform; or to fill up and perfect; and is rendered ſometimes by one, ſometime by another.] Why then does he ſo poorly beg the latter ſenſe, when it may as rationally be read, to performe, or fulfil. As, 1. Take the Law, for the Moral Law onelyonly; Chriſt came not to deſtroy that, neither by Doctrine, nor Practice, but to fulfil it; otherwiſe he had not been a ſinleſs, perfect Saviour. 2. If the Ceremoniall Law was alſo intended, that alſo was fulfilled by Chriſt, both in his obſervation of it ſtrictly, as occaſion was, and alſo, in bringing in the ſubſtance, of thoſe Ceremonies. 3. The *That it might be fulfilled, which was ſpoken by the Prophets, frequently.Prophets) are alſo mentioned: Now, whether it be meant of their Doctrinal Interpretations of the Law, or their propheſies of Chriſt; both wayes Chriſt came to fulfill the words of the Prophets; but in no good ſenſe, to perfect, or fill up their vacuities: But again, take the word to ſignifie to perfect or fill up, that may have a double ſenſe. 1. To *Non veni ſolvere, ſed ad implere] his viz. additamentis, quae vel ad expoſitionem, pertinent antiquarum ſententiarum, vel ad converſationem in eis. Aquin. in loc. ex Aug. cont. Fauſt.perfect or fill up, the full ſenſe of the Law and Prophets, which the Phariſees had evacuated and voided, by their jejune and empty gloſſes of the Law, and Prophets; and thus all Orthodox Moderne Divines, underſtand it. 2. Or to fill up the vacuities, and to perfect the Imperfections of the Law and Prophets, which is the gloſs indeed of ſome Fathers, the Greek eſpecially, who follow one another for the moſt part; and of moſt Papiſts. And why the Doctor ſhould follow them, (having ſo many other ſenſes Orthodox) and refuſe the ſenſes of the Modern Proteſtants, I know not, but that he loves to run croſs to our own, and chuſes often to follow the Ancients, (as the then Phariſees did their Anceſtors) into error, rather then to ſpeak truth with ours. The ſecond ground, was [the many expreſs examples of his ſo doing in that fifth of Matth. his additions to the Law, in ſo many particulars, introduced with; It was ſaid of old—But I ſay unto you.] But this ground is as unſound and fallacious as the former; taking it for granted, that thoſe words [you have heard, it was ſaid by (or to) them of old time; ſignifie, you have been taught, and that out of the word of God, or books of Moſes,] which is the very queſtion now in hand: whether it do not rather ſignifie *Matt. 5.20. Imports he ſpake of the corrupt gloſſes of the Scribes and Phariſees: except, &c. compared with the former, and following verſe.you have heard, it was ſaid by them of old time, the Phariſees and Scribes your Rabbies; or ſaid by them, to your Anceſtors; (for the Phariſees were of ſome long ſtanding, before our Saviours time.) They ſaid thus, and thus, corrupting the ſenſe of the Law, but I ſay unto you, this is the true ſenſe of thoſe Laws, &c. as the inſtances do make it appear. Concerning the third, [Thou ſhalt not forſwear thy ſelf,] it is vindicated above, ad p. 43. I ſhall clear the other two from his gloſs, not to be directly meant of the word of God, or books of Moſes, but as perverted by the gloſſes of the Phariſees. The firſt is evident thus, it carries their gloſs with it: [Thou ſhalt not kill, and whoſoever killeth, ſhall be in danger of the judgement.] Now the firſt part, is the Law of God, by Moſes, there is no queſtion of that; but of the ſenſe of it, which they made onelyonly to be actual murther, (as our Saviours Interpretation of it, doth import) and the puniſhment onelyonly to be temporal death, by the Judges. Whereas our Saviour makes leſſer degrees of murther, guilty of eternal death. But it's worth the while to conſider, what the Doctor underſtands, by killing, in this Law. [1. Pract. cat. p. 99. & 101.The principal thing is the ſhedding of mans blood. 2. By way of reduction, other things which are preparatory to that; as 1. Mutilating. 2. Wounding. 3. Entring and accepting of Duels. 4. Oppreſſion of the poor. 5. The beginnings of this ſin in the heart, malice, hatred, curſing, &c. all theſe reducible to this Commandment, as it was given in the Law.] But if the Law prohibited theſe, ſure the Phariſees did not think, nor teach it ſo: And then Chriſt was an Expoſitor and not a Law giver: and if malice and hatred were reducible hither, as preparatories to murther; why not raſh anger, and calling Racha, or fool, which are alſo degrees and preparatories to the main ſin. Yea, theſe were expreſly forbidden or condemned by Moſes and the Prophets, as were eaſie to inſtance; and ergo, Chriſt doth not give new precepts, but expounds the old Law, and vindicates it from their falſe gloſſes. The like may be ſaid of the ſeventh Commandment which they gloſſed onelyonly of the outward act of adultery: when as our Saviour ſhews, Prov. 6.25. & 23.33.the Law extended to the luſtings of the heart; which are clearly forbidden in the Old Teſtament. The third ground of his affirmation was, the concurrence of ſome Greek Fathers, in this gloſs: who, in this, (as in other things not a few) were confeſſedly miſtaken, and in other things rejected by the Doctor himſelf: though herein embraced by him, in oppoſition to Calvin; as ſome Papiſts have acknowledged ſome interpretations of Scripture to be more proper and genuine, but yet reject them, becauſe they hate Calvin, who was of that opinion. The arguments whereupon the Fathers built their Interpretation, are of no ſtrength; 1. [Becauſe Chriſt under the Goſpel, gives either higher or plainer promiſes, then he did before; eternal life, as thoſe of a temporal Canaan.] As for plainer, it may be granted, but that makes no difference in the Law, the Jewes being under clouds and ſhadows, Chriſtians in the Sun-ſhine. And for higher, there could be none higher then eternal life, and glory; and that was promiſed in the Law and Prophets, onelyonly not ſo cleerly, and frequently, as in the Goſpel. 2. [Becauſe he gives more grace, to perform them, then before he had done.] To this, I would ſay, 1. This makes no difference, but rather ſeemes to imply, that the precepts were the very ſame; there was onelyonly leſs grace diſpenſed to perform them. 2. If he do give more grace, yet if he lay higher precepts, of greater perfection, then the Law required; a leſs ſtrength to a leſſer burthen, might do as well, as a greater, to a greater; yea, no doubt, ſome of the Saints under the old diſpenſation, did perform them as exactly, as any under the new: then, either grace was the ſame to both, or the Law equally perfect to either. They did, I ſay, perform thoſe very duties, which he ſays, are required by Chriſts new precepts, as exactly, as any under the Goſpel diſpenſation. But the Doctor will perhaps evade or avoid this, by ſaying (as he does,) [Theſe were above that which the Law required, and ſo were works of Counſels, or ſupererogation, more acceptable, and more rewardable: not neceſſary, before Chriſt advanced, and perfected the Law.] But though it concerned the Doctor rather to confirm his Affirmation (which he hath not done, in his Catech. or here) then me to prove a Negative; yet I ſhall propound an argument or two, for my opinion; [That Chriſt did not give new Laws, or perfect the old, as being imperfect before, but onelyonly reduced the Law, corrupted by the Phariſees, to it's true and genuine ſenſe.] Or which will come all to one; [That the Law is in it ſelf perfect, without imperfection, and conſequently needed no Additions of Perfection.]
1. The Old Teſtament every where pronounces the Law to be perfect, Pſalm 19.7. & Pſalm 119.96.
2. The ſum of the Law, and the higheſt degree of perfection, is the ſame with that given by Chriſt in the Goſpel, [Thou ſhalt love the Lord, with all thy heart, &c. and thy neighbour as thy ſelf *Ver. 33. This is more then all whole burnt-offerings & ſacrifices, all Freewill-offerings.: there is none other Commandment greater then theſe,] Mark 12.31. mark that; there is none greater then theſe. If there had, here was a fit time for Chriſt to have declared it: Then it follows, that Chriſt added no new Commandments to the old, and ſo nor did, nor could perfect the Law.
3. The Law of Moſes commanded perfect obedience; ergo, it ſelf was perfect; the antecedent is thus proved, if the Law required not perfect obedience, then there was ſome degree of diſobedience, which was no ſin, for where no Law, no tranſgreſſion; but no degree of diſobedience, but it is a ſin. 2. The Law ſet God for the pattern of holineſs, Levit. 11.44. So (and no more) does the Goſpel. Matth. 5. laſt. 1 Pet. 1.15, 16. This was cited by me, but waved by the Doctor.
4. If Chriſt in that Sermon, require nothing, which was not required by *Gloſſ. Niſi abundaverit, referendum eſt ad intellectum Phariſaeorum, non ad continentiam veteris Teſtamenti, Aug. contr. Fauſt poenem enim omnia quae monuit, vel praecepit Dominus inveniuntur & in illis veteribus libris. Aquin. in locum.Moſes and the Prophets, but the very ſame, then he came not to perfect the Law, but confirm it, by a true expoſition of it. The conſequence is clear; the Antecedent is proved, by the particulars in every Commandment; which they call additions, but are but explanations of the true extent of the Law: As raſh anger, reproachful terms of Racha, fool, &c. ſpoken by way of contmpt and revenge, to vex and fret a brother, as the *foreign, Chryſ. in loc. If the Law cut off the branch, much more the root.root or degrees to murther, tending to death, &c. are forbidden in the Old Teſtament, and blamed as …s. So the luſtings of the eyes, or heart, are often forbidden; to ſay nothing to the third Commandment: So love of enemies, doing good to them, &c. are required by Moſes and the Prophets, and practiſed by holy men in thoſe times, as a degree to that perfection which the Law called for: So thoſe virtues, of Spiritual Poverty, Mourning, Meekneſs, and the reſt, are commanded and commended in the Old Teſtament, as conformities to the Law; ergo, no new Laws, nor higher perfections, in the Goſpel. Theſe and many other arguments are uſed by our Divines, againſt Papiſts, and Socinians, in this point: I leave them to the Doctors conſideration, and proceed to what now follows.
And that is another heterodox aſſertion, p 2…7. n. 47[Acquireable perfection may be (and ſome degrees of it, is) under precept, but unacquireable perfection is not Chriſts eaſie yoke, is not now made up to us of impoſsible precepts.] Now he knows, 1. That our Divines maintain, there is no perfection acquireable in this life; againſt Papiſts, &c. 2. That I have ſaid and proved, there are no degrees in, but towards perfection. 3. That it's alſo proved, the highest perfection is under precept, and none above it. 4. Then it follows that unacquireable perfection, is under precept. 5. Chriſts yoke, is not therefore ſaid to be eaſie, becauſe it is not made up of impoſſible precepts, or made up of poſſible precepts, for ſo it is not abſolutely true, even Christs precepts ſome of them, are in themſelves impoſſible with reſpect to our preſent weakneſs. But it's ſaid to be eaſie, becauſe what is not, or cannot be done, is pardoned; and what is done, in ſincerity, is kindly accepted. Now that unacquireable perfection is under precept, and that Chriſts yoke is made up of impoſſible precepts, (to us) I prove by this one argument; [To love the Lord our God, with all our heart, ſoul, minde, ſtrength, is a precept of Chriſts, as well as of Moſes; but this perfection is to us impoſſible in this life, and unacquireable, ſay all Orthodox Divines; ergo.] Yet here the Doctor goes on, to aſſert; [That *Univerſal charity was granted not acquireable in this life. n. 34, 35. But Univerſal purity, is the ſame with that, and confeſſed under precept here. n. 48. p. 217univerſal purity, is now more ſeverely required of all Chriſtians, in an higher degree then it had been under the Jewiſh oeconomy.] Though I am not of his mind in this, the ſame univerſal purity being always required by the Law, though Chriſtians have more grace and ſtronger motives, to endevour it; yet I ſhall make ſome uſe of it, and tell him, that there is no higher perfection to be found, then an univerſal purity, which is onelyonly to be had in heaven: and this being (as he ſayes) under evangelical precept, I cannot but wonder where he will finde, [higher degrees of thoſe and other Chriſtian virtues,] which are above univerſal purity, which is under precept; why thus, he ſays, [Chriſt came to perfect the Law; ſo he might do, and yet leave ſome degrees of mercy, &c. free, and not under precept.] See but the progreſs of this diſcourſe; the Law required perfect obedience, but yet left ſome degrees free: The Goſpel that requires higher perfection then the Law, even the higheſt acquireable, univerſal purity. Is not this enough? No, then come the Papiſts, and the learned Doctor, and tell us of many degrees of perfection, above all Law and Goſpel commands; Oh, proud nature, whither wilt thou clime! theſe men think it below them, to aſpire to do their duty onelyonly, to arrive at commanded perfection, *Becauſe they would not have their piety reſtrained within thoſe narrower bounds, &c. Feſt. ſect. 28.unleſs they may clime above the very Angels, Seraphims, and Cherubims, (who content themſelves, with commanded obedience and perfection) and do much more then is commanded; and make God himſelf to be in their debt, for greater acceptance, and reward.
But if Chriſt hath perfected the the Law, p. 218. n. 49 See p. 177. n. 13.and given new precepts of higher perfection, how can it be ſaid, that Chriſts is an *The liberty conſiſts, in taking off, not impoſing weights.eaſier yoke, then that of the Law, and not rather heavier? Thoſe three wayes noted by him will not ſerve the turn; firſt, [The taking off the burthen of Ceremonies. 2. The taking away the damning power of the leaſt ſin. 3. In giving greater ſtrength.] for the ſecond, the taking of the damning power of the leaſt ſin, was common to the believing Jews, with Chriſtians; and to unbelieving Chriſtians, the leaſt fin is now as damning, as then; and ſo the yoke is as heavy as it was to them. For the firſt, the taking of the burthen of Ceremonies, is no great eaſe; for if Chriſt hath ſet the moral Law to an higher pitch of perfection, and [Univerſal purity is more ſeverely required of all Chriſtians in an higher degree then under the Jewiſh oeconomy,] as the Doctor newly aſſerted, n. 47. And if [Chriſt hath put ſome things under precept which were not under precept by Moſes Law.] I ſhall add his own words, p. 218. n. 49[In this one reſpect, there lies more weight on a Chriſtian, then did formerly on a Jew.] Inſtead of leſſening, Chriſt hath made the burthen heavier; one degree of moral perfection, is an harder burthen, then all the ceremonial Laws: Thoſe they might with ſome care and diligence exactly perform, being but external Rites; but no care or diligence of a man without grace, can riſe to one the leaſt degree of moral perfection. And to natural men, the Law is every whit as exact, and yet impoſſible to obſerve, as afore; and Chriſt hath not eas'd their burthen at all, but they lie under the curſe of damnation, for every the leaſt breach of the Law. But what an increaſe of weight will Chriſts new moral precepts of higher perfection, lay upon them? For inſtance, if the ſixth Commandment forbad onelyonly the outward act of murther, and the ſeventh onelyonly actual adultery, as the Phariſees at leaſt (if not the Doctor) ſuppoſed, and Christ have added new precepts, to make raſh anger, and reproachful language to be murther, and the very luſtings of the heart to be adultery, a natural man hath a much heavier burthen then a Jew: for it's not impoſſible for him to abſtain from the acts of thoſe ſins, and ſo to fulfil the letter of thoſe Commandments: but very difficult, if not impoſſible, without great grace, to prevent anger and luſtings of the heart. But he ſays, [That weight is abundantly recompenſed by other reſpects.] That muſt be, one way, becauſe he gives more ſtrength, by giving more grace. But 1. that is, not given to unbelieving Chriſtians, who yet lie under theſe new weights. 2. Nor is this to make the yoke lighter, but heavier, onelyonly giving more ſtrength to bear it: but a leſſer ſtrength to a leſſer burthen, might do as well, as was ſaid above. 2. He ſpeaks indeed of another way of eaſing the burthen, [The gainfulneſs of the new yoke, will make it light, though it be a yoke, Pract. Cat. p. 95.] But when the burthen is increaſed, to the proportion of the gain, there will be little eaſe in that; and if love of gain onelyonly make it eaſie, it ſeems more mercenary, then ingenuous. This is but one of the Doctors new Philoſophical Speculations.