The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 50
Sect. 50, &c. And this makes way for another, and the laſt objection, &c.
WE are now drawing to an end of our ſecond Diatribe of Will-worſhip, and the matter is to conſider, how the Doctor will waſh his doctrine, from compliance with Romiſh Supererogation; to which end, he profeſſes well in words, rectifying, and applauding Cyprians ſentence, p. 224. n. 2.[That none of the moſt heroical workers, ever thought their maſter beholden to them. n. 3.And that it is infinite mercy, that any the moſt excellent work of ours is rewardable with him,] and that for two or three very good reaſons. And yet there will appear but little difference between his Principles and theirs: Firſt, he put a difference [between doing more then is commanded, and doing ſomething which is not commanded.] I ſaid, he that does ſomething not commanded, does alſo more then is commanded, and ſo they are, in that ſenſe, both one: and the Romaniſts do not ſuppoſe, that he that hath done more then is commanded, hath done all that is commanded, to ſet their Supererogation upon. Then it will follow, that he and they agree in this principle; [That Superogation is founded upon doing ſomething not commanded:] which he makes evident by a ſecond diſtinction: [To Supererogate ſuppoſes, either that the perſon hath paid God all that is due to him, that is, hath never ſinned,] (which is the ſame (ſaid I) with the firſt part of the former diſtinction, that he hath done all that is commanded, which the Romaniſts do not own.) [Or that having ſinned and ſo become a debter, he hath paid that debt by ſatisfaction, by doing ſomething elſe, which may ſatisfie God for his ſin.] That is, (ſaid I) by doing ſomething not commanded: In this latter, he placed the Romaniſts opinion. Now this principle is his as well as theirs, [A man may do ſomething not commanded:] This he hath often aſſerted, and expreſly here below, n. 12. [I affirm it poſſible for a Chriſtian to do ſomething which is not commanded him.] The ſenſe whereof we ſhall conſider, n. 5. p. 225.when we come at it. But hear what he ſays here. [I yield that the Romaniſt is not ſo groſs, as to affirm him that Supererogates, not to have ſinned, and therefore never defined that to be the Romaniſts doctrine.] But ſure it is, the Romaniſts do ſay and affirm ſome Saints not to have ſinned; the Virgine Mary for one, to be free not onelyonly from actual ſins, but original alſo; and he knows who was the man, of whom ſome of them affirm, Bonadventure.videtur Adam in hoc homine non peccaſſe: And then there is more reaſon to found Supererogation upon ſuch as never ſinned, then on ſuch as have ſinned, and yet pay God by ſatisfaction: the latter have enough to do, to ſatiſfie for their own ſins, and cannot well expect to Supererogate for themſelves or others: but the former having never ſinned, that is, done all that is commanded, which might ſatisfie God and his Law, for themſelves, might with more colour, undertake to ſatisfie God for others by doing ſomething not commanded. And yet by the way, I would ask a Romanist, whether if Adam had not ſinned, as the Angels do not, he or they could ſupererogate for themſelves or others? If they ſay, they could not, becauſe they, in doing all that is commanded, did but their duty; then, would I infer, much leſs can a ſinner Supererogate, by doing ſomething not commanded. If they ſhall ſay, they might Supererogate, (as their principles and the Doctors too, ſeem to import) by doing more then is commanded; I would deſire to ſee the reaſon, why they ſhould not found their Supererogation rather upon that firſt part of the diſtinction, [That to Supererogate, ſuppoſeth, that the perſon hath paid God all that is due to him, by doing all that is commanded him, by way of perfect obedience, that is, hath never ſinned,] ſeeing that is more reaſonable, as hath been ſaid. I leave them and the Doctor, to reſolve this doubt. And this indeed the Doctor comes to n. 8. [Supererogo, p. 226.is to lay out all and more, and from the opinion of pious mens doing ſo, the Romaniſts have clearly raiſed their treaſure of the Church, as the bank, into which, their payments are made.] Mark that, to Supererogate is to lay out all (that is commanded) and more, that is, to pay God all that is due, by way of perfect obedience; and to lay out more, that is ſomething not commanded. Which is that, which he findes fault with in me; that Supererogare is as much, as ſuper quod erogavit lex, (or rather, rogavit, for that was my word, however it was changed into erogavit.) Now upon this, the Doctor makes himſelf and his Reader merry; n. 7.[About the Etymologie of ſupererogation, which either my fancy or ſomething elſe (he ſays) ſuggeſted to me, as I did derive Superſtition, from Super ſtatutum:] In both he does me manifeſt injury; in the latter, againſt his own profeſſion, and I fear his conſcience; who ſaid, I did not raiſe the Etymologie of Superſtition from Super ſtatutum, (as indeed I did not) but onelyonly ſaid, that Superſtition was by our Divines, well applied, to ſignifie that which the Scripture calls addition to the word, or Rule of Worſhip, as being Super statutum, which rather reſpected the thing, then the Origination of the word Superſtition; as appears above. In the former he does the ſame, for I do not make the ſuper quod rogavit lex, the Etymologie, but thus: Supererogare is as much, (that is in ſenſe) as ſuper quod rogavit lex: And this, I ſhall evidence againſt all contradiction. 1. I turned to the word, in my Dictionary, and there found, Supererogatio to be rendered, (atteſting Auguſt. for it) a giving more, then is required; required, by what? but by the Law. 2. Supererogator, rendered, (out of the ſame Authour) one that giveth more then he needeth; that is, more then he is bound to give by any Law. 3. Supererogo; to give moreover; jam ante erogatis, addo; which ſuppoſes him to give all required by the Law, and to adde ſomething not required by it; and is not all this, as much, as ſuper quod rogavit lex? Again, for erogavit, I finde, that it hath this ſenſe, beſide others, rogando aliquid elicere, as well as expendere, to lay out: And if the word erogare ſignifie at any time to require, or procure by asking; the Etymologie might paſs, with reaſonable Criticks, Supererogare, is as much as ſuper quod erogavit lex. Beſides all this; Papiſts who beſt underſtand what they mean by works of Supererogation; Eſtius in 1. ad Cor. c. 9. v. 15.call them [works of Counſels, that is, thoſe which are commended ſo, that yet, abſolutely there are no precepts delivered concerning them.] That is, works done, more then the Law required. Laſtly the Doctor himſelf, in the place newly cited, from n. 8. ſays as much as I do, in ſenſe, [Supererogo, is to lay out all and more, and from the opinion of pious mens doing ſo, the Romaniſts have raiſed their treaſure of the Church.] Nay, its more then I ſaid, for I did not ſay, it is as much, as to lay out all, that is to do all that is commanded by the Law, and more; but onelyonly, more then the Law required, though he had not done all required by the Law. And upon this the Dr. founded their Supererogation, refuſing the former part of the diſtinction. But now I would ask, how can the pious Romaniſts be ſaid to Supererogate, that is, to lay out all and more, if not firſt, by perfect keeping of the Law, wherewith they are entruſted, and then doing ſomething more, laying out of their own ſtock, in a Counſel of perfection, and what is this, but more then the Law required? and by ſo doing, to make ſatisfaction for others ſins, having none of their own to ſatisfie for. He were ſimple, that would go about to ſatisfie God for others ſins, by doing things commanded to himſelf, or to ſatisfie for others, who needs it for his own ſins. It muſt then ſuppoſe, he hath kept the Law, and that he ſupererogates, by doing more then the Law required; which needing not himſelf, he is content, it be laid out for others that need it. And that the Romaniſts do hold many of their pious Saints, can and do perfectly keep the Law, the Doctor is not ignorant, (what he thinks, he can do, I know not; ſure I am he ſays, [Chriſts yoke is no made up of impoſſible precepts,] and ſo its poſſible for a pious man perfectly to keep them.] If he ſay, but he does not hold the moſt pious man never ſinned, though he may attain to ſuch perfection in time, *Doing all that is commanded. p. 228. n. 14. The evil which is or may be adherent to it (a good work) being pardoned by God, &c. ad pag. 220. numb. 55. numb. 8.as to keep the Law, and ſo, Supererogation cannot be founded upon the firſt part of the diſtinction, that the perſon never ſinned: I anſwer, if thoſe former ſins be pardoned, (ſatisfaction being made by Chriſt) they are as if they never had been, and then, when he is arrived at ſuch perfection as to keep the Law, that is, to ſin no more; then he may do more then the Law required, and ſo b…gin to Supererogate. Upon this, all the Doctors Grammatical notions vaniſh into nothing, and I go on.
A Supererogating work, then, is certainly a work done, which is more then the Law required, or (which in my ſenſe is all one) the doing ſomething which the Law doth not require: which (ſaid I) [Is a derogation from the perfection of the Law of God, and layes imperfection upon it (as the Doctor plainly hath done.] The Doctor is angry at this, and anſwers, …. 11. p. 2271. [If ſuch works be derogatory to the Law, they are not Supererogatory works, but the contrary.] As if they might not be Supererogatory in the opinion of a Romaniſt, and yet really derogatory to the perfection of the Law, charging it with imperfection. 2. [His treatiſe (he ſays) defends not the thinking a mans ſelf to do more then the Law requires, but to do ſomewhat which the Law doth not require.] And I ſay again, is not the doing of ſomewhat which the Law doth not require, the doing of more then the Law requires? whether the perſon have ever ſinned or not, is another thing; nay, is not Supererogo, to lay out all, and more, in the Doctors gloſs: then it may include both, as was ſaid above. But for charging the Law with imperfection, the Doctor hath ſaid it, and will defend it, but by no new arguments; but the old repeated, and before confuted. And as confidently he again affirms, n. 12.[its poſſible for a Chriſtian to do ſomething which is not commanded him.] If I liſted to be merry, I might ſay, its poſſible for him to do ſomething not commanded him, for its too poſſible and frequent to do ſomething forbidden him. Or 2. its poſſible for him to do ſome, yea, many things not commanded nor forbidden him, many things indifferent: But more ſeriouſly, the Doctor means it of voluntary oblations, that is, voluntary worſhip, Will-worſhip, (that's the ſubject of his diſcourſe) its poſſible herein for a Chriſtian, to do ſomething not commanded him; yea many things, as Papiſts do; but how lawfully is the queſtion: Yes, lawfully enough in the Doctors Divinity; [For as in the Law, ſo in the Goſpel, the Law of Christ, ſome things are left free and uncommanded.] What things are ſo left free and uncommanded in the Law or Goſpel? Some civil things? All indifferent things? Or ſome Worſhip? Of that we ſpeak, not of circumſtances of Worſhip; as hath oft been ſaid: If he aſſert this of Worſhip, I ſhall deſire no other Adverſary to confute him but himſelf. As for his [Latitude, and higher degrees of that Latitude, not under precept] enough hath been ſaid afore. The concluſion is this, his doctrine of Will-worſhip, is founded upon this Popiſh principle, [Thou a man may do, not ſomething onelyonly, but ſome Worſhip to God, which he never commanded:] Will worſhip (he ſays) is voluntary Worſhip, uncommanded Worſhip, this is not onelyonly lawful but commendable, acceptable, and more rewardable then commanded Worſhip, and therein he and Papiſts do ſweetly agree; and why he may not agree with them in their Supererogation, I yet ſee no reaſon.
I ſaid again, that he that does ſomething not commanded, may be ſaid to Supererogate, in reſpect of him, who doth nothing but what is commanded, as the Phariſees did. p. 227. n. 13He anſwers [This belongs not to my notion of Supererogating.] Take it then in his notion, Supererogo, is to lay out all and more: He that layes out but all intruſted with him, does but erogare; he then that layes out more then all, is ſaid, ſupererogare, with reſpect to the other: and may not, at leaſt will not ſuch a man inſult over other men that do nothing but what is commanded, [Lord I thank thee, I am not as other men &c.] Yea, and expoſtulate with God himſelf, [Why have we faſted, and thou regardſt it not? &c. Iſa. 58.] But, [he that thus ſcorns and exalts himſelf above other men, is far from doing more herein then is commanded, &c.] True, but yet he may truly, in the Doctors ſenſe, do ſomething not commanded; though not more, that is all that is commanded and ſomething more: And this is enough to puff up a carnal heart, partly to compenſate for ſomething done amiſs, and to quit ſcores with God (as ſhe, Prov. 7.14.) and partly to inſult over other men, of lower performances: as experience tells us.
The Apoſtle indeed allowes, n. 13.a glorying and rejoycing, in the conſcience of having done well; but he never allowed or practiſed, a glorying in doing any thing, which the Law commanded not: as appeared above, in the inſtance of preaching without wages. The Doctor cannot but know, [That a man without grace, an Heathen or hypocritical Chriſtian, may do many of his works of higheſt perfection: as give liberally to good uſes, keep himſelf ſingle and unmarried, &c.] But this man uſes not to compare himſelf with others virtues, but with their defects: and he is ſo far from charity to wiſh or think other men better then himſelf, that he thinkes himſelf better then others, and thankes God there is not an honeſt man but himſelf, as that proud hypocrite did. I fear, that all Will-worſhippers, that think they do more then is commanded, are guilty of ſome pride and ſcorn, as humble ſoever as they ſeem to be. But I ſaid further,
They that think they can do ſomething not commanded, do expect to finde more acceptance from God, and a greater reward, then they or others do, for doing onelyonly what is commanded, and this is a kind of Supererogation; an over-pleaſing of God. [This, firſt, he ſayes, p. 228. n. 14. I willingly, and expreſly grant it to be my doctrine, that voluntary oblations are more acceptable and wardable with God. p. 229. n. 17.is nothing to the notion of the word.] I have profeſſed to look more at the nature of the thing, then the notion of the word: and this, I am ſure, they that do things not commanded, do expect, as I have ſaid, and the Doctor will confeſs it preſently. But, ſecondly, he will put in a caution, to make it paſſable; [That uncommanded works can never ſatisfie for diſobediences, and that it is perfect impiety and folly, to neglect duty, and then to compenſate by doing more then is commanded.] Firſt, I obſerve how the Doctor confounds the terms of his former diſtinction, doing more then is commanded, is here put, for doing ſomewhat that is not commanded; which is found alſo ſo uſed, numb. 13. The firſt of them, for it is twice, (the crime the Doctor found in mine, at the beginning.) But, ſecondly, the caution will not do the work: For Papiſts (ſome at leaſt) do not think, their uncommanded works do ſatisfie for their own diſobediences; but when their own ſins are pardoned, (as they think at leaſt) and they enabled to keep the Law, then they think by uncommanded works, to ſatisfie God for others ſins. And the miſchief is, that they, that think they can do things not commanded do uſually the rather neglect the care of ſecuring of duties, but hope to compenſate by doing things not commanded: [You make void the Commandment of God by your own Tradition, and ſay, it is corban, &c.] But we have here the Doctors method and path-way to Heaven; it is ſomewhat long, but it could not well be ſhorter, and the end will make amends for all, the greater reward. Thus it lies: [He that ſhall have obſerved this method uprightly, eſchewed evil, in a ſtrict mortifying of luſts, &c. in abſtaining from ſin, and doing [* Doing all that is commanded.] Mark that.all that is commanded (confirmed by authority of a Poet, virtus eſt vitium fugere &c.) and whenſoever he hath failed, ſecured his retrait by an early humiliation, confeſſion, begging of pardon in Chriſt, and ſincere reformation, and then laboured industriouſly to ſuperſtruct doing of good works, of the more eminent (I mean uncommanded) degrees of virtues; I ſhall not doubt to encourage him to think confidently, and expect from our great foreign, more and greater acceptance, (I ſhall adde, reward alſo) then the ſame perſon could in reaſon expect, for doing onelyonly what is commanded.] I ſhall adde what he addes in the next, p. 229. n. 15and conſider them together. [There is no reaſon to make queſtion, but that of two men, which have been equal in obediences, one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection, the more perfect, ſhall have the richeſt reward, &c.] To all this, I ſhall ſpeak firſt in general, and then to ſome particulars. In general thus, by conſidering how far an hypocrite may travel in this way to glory. 1. He may abſtain from ſome, yea, many ſins, (wherewith ſome ſincere Chriſtian may be overtaken,) and the Doctor will not ſay, his pious Chriſtian can or doth abſtain from all ſins. 2. He may do all that is commanded, for the letter of the Law; as Paul himſelf before his converſion, ſays, he was blameleſs; and the Doctor does not ſay, or does not mean, (though he ſay all) his pious man, may do univerſally all that is commanded. 3. When he hath failed (if at leaſt he may fail) he may (in the Doctors language) ſecure his retrait by an early humiliation and confeſſion, Pray ye to the Lord for me.as Ahab and Juda did. 4. He may beg pardon of God, and that in Chriſt, as its like Simon Magus did, who deſired others alſo to pray for him. 5. He may make an outward Reformation of his failings, in many things, as Herod did, and the Doctor will not ſay, but his Pious Chriſtian, may fail ſtill by infirmity, in ſome things repented of. 6. After all this, he may uſe Auſterities, Faſting, Watchings, and other Penances, for the mortifying of his luſts, at leaſt in pretence, as Papiſts do, and the Phariſees did. 7. And then he may proceed to ſuperſtruct doing of good works of the more eminent uncommanded degrees of virtue: (for I obſerve none ſuch named by the Doctor, but an hypocrite may do them) as give alms liberally, as the Phariſees did, above what the Law required; [If I give all my goods to the poor, and have not charity,] (ſuppoſes the eaſe poſſible) I am nothing: He may be frequent in Praying five or ſix times a day, in Faſtings, twice or thrice a week, and in other ſuch Auſterities as afore: He may make himſelf an Eunuch, undertake to profeſs a ſingle life, under pretence to pleaſe God better: Nay, he may offer himſelf to voluntary Martyrdome, (which two laſt, are the Doctors higheſt perfections of all.) [If I give my body to be burned (for Religion, for Chriſt) and have not Charity.] Suppoſes that caſe alſo poſſible, for an hypocrite to attain to: May now the Dr. [encourage this man, to think and expect confidently, more and greater acceptance and reward then another, that onelyonly hath done what is commanded?] And that with ſome failings? Perhaps he will ſay, he does not all theſe things uprightly, or ſincerely, and ſo loſes all. Be it ſo, yet this was more then the Doctors eye could diſcover; for he cannot ſee his heart: therefore, he might encourage him ſtill, confidently to expect, if not more, yet ſome acceptance, and reward; if not for abſtaining from ſo many ſins, and doing ſo many things commanded, (becauſe he plaid but the hypocrite in all) yet for his eminent uncommanded degrees of virtue, a juſt foreign, would not let ſuch high perfections go altogether unrewarded: But I ſhall come to ſome particulars. And firſt, with reſpect to what I ſaid laſt, it muſt be ſuppoſed, in this diſtribution of rewards, that uncommanded eminent degrees of virtue, Elſe they are but as Cyphers in Arithmetick which of themſelves ſignifie nothing, but make a figure more by conjunction.and higheſt perfection, may of themſelves expect ſome reward, or acceptance from God, by whomſoever they are done, though he have not done all that is commanded. For if they give more acceptance and reward in conjuction with commanded virtues, they muſt give ſome poſitive reward ſingle and alone, or joyned with lower degrees of virtue, and then an hypocrite may expect ſome acceptance and reward from God for ſuch eminent virtues, who yet is moſt abominable to him. 2 Though obedience to commands, may expect acceptance with God, and reward and glory in Heaven, yet uncommanded eminent perfection carries away the prize, or crown of glory: But I deſire to know, who gave this authority to theſe men, to diſtribute rewards, leſs to obedience commanded, and more to uncommanded virtues? 3. A foreign on earth diſtributes his rewards and prizes, by an act of juſtice, to the beſt deſerving, not of mercy and favour. But I hope the Doctor will not ſay ſo of God, though Papiſts are bold enough to ſay ſo. 4. If this reward be not an act of juſtice, upon merit; then it muſt be by way of promiſe, which is of grace or mercy. For works commanded, are rewarded of meer mercy, Pſal. 62. last; if uncommanded works may not plead merit, none can; yet Papiſts that make commanded works meritorious, do alſo make uncommanded works more meritorious. If then the Doctors eminent uncommanded virtues may expect a greater reward, then works commanded, the works of mens deviſing are exalted above the works of Gods commanding. By what Rule? not of merit or juſtice, that the Doctor diſclaims; not of mercy, for then they muſt have ſome promiſe, the ground of that expectation: but promiſe he can ſhew none, or let us ſee the Patent; where uncommanded virtues are promiſed, I ſay not a greater, but any reward at all. All the promiſes in Scripture are made to the obedient, and obedience imports a command; as all threatnings are made to the diſobedient, which implies a prohibition. And for ought I ſee, there may be as well ſome eminent or leſſer wickednſs not under prohibition, againſt which there is no threatning, as any eminent virtues, not under ſome command, for which there is no promiſe. 5. The Doctor puts us a caſe, [ſuppoſe two men equal in obediences, one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection, this ſhall have the richer reward.] Juſt the Popiſh dream of Aurea and Aureola: But let me put him a caſe; Suppoſe two men unequal in obediences (no doubt, but ſuch there are) and he that hath the leaſt of obedience, (whether by frailty or otherwiſe) hath exceeded the other in acts of uncommanded virtues: which now ſhall have the greater acceptance and reward? If the latter, then it will follow, that he that hath moſt ſins (ſuch is he that hath the leaſt of obediences) ſhall have more glory for uncommanded virtues, then he that hath leſſer and fewer ſins (ſuch is he that hath more obediences) for want of uncommanded virtues. Nay, it will follow, that he that hath leſs and fewer obediences, but more uncommanded virtues, ſhall have both leſs and more glory, then the other; leſs, becauſe the other having more obediences, ſhould in reaſon (the Doctors own phraſe) expect a greater reward, then he that hath leſs, and yet more, becauſe he hath more uncommanded virtues: which is a Q…odlibet fitter for the Romiſh Schools to determine. If this be not [the intruding into thoſe things which he hath not ſeen, vainly puft up by his fleſhly mind,] Col. 2.18. I leave it to conſideration. Yet the Doctor ſayes, p. 229. n. 15[Its moſt evident, (the latter ſhall have the richer reward) whether by conſidering the degrees of glory in heaven or the rule by which God diſtributes them ſtill under the Goſpel; to every man according to his work.] As for the degrees of glory of Saints in Heaven, he knows, its a diſputable probleme; how ever very uncertain how they ſhall be proportioned, being a work of pure grace and favour, which may give as much to him that comes in to work at the laſt houre, as to him that came in at the firſt, and do him no wrong. And as for the Rule of diſtribution of rewards, according to mens works; that may have a double ſenſe, either according to the quality or kinde of mens works, good to the good, and evil to the evil, as oft it is applied, Rom. 2.6. Gal. 6.7, 8. Or according to the quantity, more reward for greater good, and leſſer, for leſſer, and ſo greater torments to greater and more ſins; & contra: and ſo it is ſometimes uſed: And for greater puniſhments for greater ſins, its clear by Scripture, which ſpeaks of greater damnation, and eaſier for Tyre and Sidon, &c. the reaſon is, becauſe that's an act of juſtice; but whether more or greater good works ſhall have greater reward, may reaſonably be ſcrupled, becauſe that's a work of pure mercy, which may do what it will, with its own. However, God will reward men according to their works of obedience to his commands, according to his promiſe: but not according to mens own deviſed good works, of higher perfection, and uncommanded; unleſs they can ſhew us ſuch a promiſe.
In the next place, my Charity is ſlighted and rejected with ſome ſcorn; that I ſaid, n. 16.[Ours are not yet come ſo far, as to think they can merit by ſuch works, as Papiſts do,] and the Dr. concludes from my confeſſion, [We are not Papiſts yet, nor yet do I maintain works of Supererogation, &c.] It was both my Charity, and Modeſty thus to ſpeak of ſome; for he knows, ſome of ours who were as zealous as himſelf for Will-worſhip, are turned abſolute Papiſts even in this point of merit, by commanded and uncommanded works. [Let him that yet ſtandeth, take heed leſt he fall.] And the rather, becauſe he ſtands upon ſlippery ground, which may eaſily caſt him into the ſame precipice. I did not directly charge the Doctor, with the opinion or hereſie of works of Supererogation; but ſure he is very near it: and ſeeing that, I ſpake in Charity, (but he takes it by the wrong handle) to prevent his falling into the pit. I ſhall onelyonly ſhew him how near he is to it, if he will have the patience to hear me. As in other points he is gone far towards Rome, (as very learned men think.) ſo in this particular now before us. They agree in theſe things. 1. In the Principle of Supererogation, which is, [That a man may do uncommanded works, or, that there are uncommanded virtues, of eminent perfection, above commanded virtues:] So they, ſo he aſſerts. 2. They agree alſo, in the ſucceſs of ſuch uncommanded perfections; that they are more commendable, more acceptable to, and more rewardable by God: this he and they do confidently affirm alike. 3. In the ground of them, in regard of ſatisfaction to God by them, that is merit: for ſo Papiſts do expreſly make them meritorious, of more glory for themſelves, and for pardon and glory for others that need them. But this the Doctor diſclaimes and abhors, p. 224. n. 3. [It is an infinite mercy, that they are rewardable, the moſt excellent of them.] True, in words he denies all meriting of glory, by his moſt eminent perfections; but ſee the conſequences of his doctrine: for thus I would argue, [If uncommanded works be more rewardable, it muſt be either by way of merit, or of grace; I know no third way, Rom. 4.4. Of grace or of debt: But his uncommanded works are not more rewardable by way of grace; for then they have ſome promiſe for that greater reward in Scripture; but they are all made to obediences, upon commands.] What remains then, but by way of debt, or merit, and then indeed, he may not onelyonly confidently expect a greater reward, but peremptorily challenge it, *The Doctrine of Supererogation is founded in their opinion, that a man may, by uncommanded performances, make ſatisfaction for his own, and other men ſins, which I no way believe or acknowledge, p. 224. n. 1.by way of juſtice as Papiſts do. It may be ſaid, wherein then does the Doctor differ from them? In point of ſatisfaction onelyonly, either for their own or others ſins. But Papiſts make their works of Supererogation, or uncommanded virtues, to merit greater glory for themſelves, if not for others alſo. And herein, in the firſt at leaſt, they both agree. Let us review a little the 53. Sect. of Will-worſhip, and we ſhall ſee what he aſſerts to free his doctrine from Supererogation. [1. It ſuppoſeth no perfect obedience;] Nor do Papiſt do ſo, but does not the Doctor ſo? both in his particular acts of ſome virtues, which he makes to be ſinleſs, and alſo in univerſal obedience to the Law, to be poſſible at leaſt: for Chriſts yoke is not made up of impoſſible precepts. Nor do Papists hold that all men can or do keep the Law, but onelyonly ſome eminent Saints, and conſequently they do, or ſhould hold, (if they ſpeak reaſon) that none but ſuch can Supererogate. But if ſuch as have ſinned, and do ſin may Supererogate, the Doctors denial of perfect obedience, does not make it impoſſible for himſelf alſo to Supererogate, which is, (as he ſayes) to lay out more then is commanded, that is, to do ſomething not commanded. But again, if a man may Supererogate (being a ſinner) by doing ſomething not commanded; how eaſie a conſequence is this, to carnal reaſon; [I can do more then is commanded; ergo, I may merit more glory for my ſelf, if not ſatisfie for others,] which brings me to the next. 2. [If ſuppoſing every man to have ſinned, it pretendeth not to the leaſt degree of ſatisfaction to God for any the leaſt ſin, of our own. 3. Much leſs for others ſins:] So they differ onelyonly in point of ſatisfaction for ſins, which notwithſtanding, hinders not, but there may be Supererogation, in point of doing more then is commanded, (whence Supererogation hath its denomination) and alſo, in purchaſing (if I may not ſay *Virgo-majoris eſt meriti: ſaid Hierom. cited above. p. 95.meriting, which is true enough, if ſuch works have no promiſe of greater reward; meritting I ſay) glory, more glory for our ſelves, if not for others; and ſo the Doctor falls into their doctrine of merit of glory, though he eſcape the gulf of ſatisfaction for ſins, and which is worſe, and moſt blaſphemous againſt the precious and infinite merits of Chriſt, is hard to determine. By all which it may appear, my Charity was uſeful enough, to fetch out a brother fallen, or ſtay him falling into the pit: And yet ſee how contemptibly the Doctor throws it away. p. 229. n. 16[I onelyonly adde, that 'tis no way uſeful for him, to loſe his pains and his charity, by confuting thoſe of whom he onelyonly divineth, that they may hereafter fall into falſe doctrine; which yet I hope I ſhall not do, having no temptation from all this Diatribiſts exercitation, and arguments therein contained, to flie to any other Sect of Religion, to furniſh my ſelf with anſwers for him.] Truly I am ſorry my charity and my pains ſhould be loſt upon him; I finde my pains is not loſt to others; and for my charity, let him now conſider what need he had of it: if not, it ſhall, I doubt not, return into mine own boſome. And were I of his opinion, I ſhould finde a temptation upon me, to thoſe ill conſequences of his doctrine, and muſt either flie ſome whither for anſwers to them, or flie to Rome, to be of their opinions, in point of Supererogation. For what wiſe man might not be tempted to thinke, [When the Scripture calls to the moſt excellent way, and prudence (as he ſaid) ſuggeſts, the readieſt way to be moſt glorious in Heaven, is to do that which is beſt;] and the Doctor or Papiſts, ſhall teach this doctrine, See n. 17.[That to do things not commanded, is more commendable, acceptable, rewardable with God, then to do things commanded by God.] Who will not feel himſelf tempted, to leave or ſomewhat neglect, the common rode of obediences to commands, and run into this newfound eaſier way, that will lead more ſpeedily to higher glory. This hath miſlead thouſands of Papiſts (and they no Babies) as it did the Phariſees of old, and if I be not deceived, many of our own ſuperſtitious Formaliſts (for ſuch there were, though the Doctor ſcorns the words) into many Will-worſhips, who (it's known too well to be hid) did neglect the commands of God enough, but were zelots in the Doctors uncommanded Worſhip, and Ceremonies; and ambitious, ſome of them, of his uncommanded eminent perfection, and virtues, &c. And for a cloſe of this, I did not before, but now almoſt durſt take upon me to Divine, that in his next anſwers, to what is now ſaid, the Doctor muſt either flie to ſome other Sect of Religion, (that of the Romaniſt) for anſwers, or elſe muſt return to the way of truth, which he hath deſerted, and I defend; which God grant.
Hear what he ſays more, p. 230. n. 18[As thoſe which freely do thoſe things which others account unlawful, ought not to deſpiſe thoſe which do them not: ſo on the other ſide, thoſe which do them not, ought in no wiſe to judge or condemne thoſe that do them,] Rom. 14. But, firſt, this rule of the Apoſtle, muſt be underſtood of things meerly indifferent, meats, &c. not of things unlawfull and forbidden, as all uncommanded Worſhip is: In this caſe, they that do it not, ought in all wiſe to judge and condemn them that do it, and not to ſuffer ſin upon their brother, Levit. 19.17. 2. It's well known, that they which did too freely do thoſe things, which others accounted (and proved) unlawfull, did not onelyonly deſpiſe, but judged, condemned, and puniſhed thoſe which did them not. And ſo were the firſt and worſt tranſgreſſours of their own rule; beſpeaking the favour, not to be deſpiſed by others, that themſelves might have the liberty to judge others, &c. Had they left them as indifferent and free, to do or not to do them, there would have been, as no judging of them that do them not; ſo no deſpiſing (but rather pittying) of them which do them.
And now I have done with this Diatribe, but that charity, (which begins at home, though it after go abroad) calls upon me to rectifie two miſpriſions, and injuries put upon me. [1. That I cenſured our Biſhops (by the Character of Over-looking,) as guilty of inſolence and contempt, towards others, which like the Karaeans kept cloſe to the rule of the word, for their Worſhip.] I can ſincerely profeſs, that to my beſt remembrance, the Biſhops in that notion, were not in my thoughts; ſome of which I ever reverenced as learned and pious men. But if any of them were ſuperſtitious Formaliſts, (as ſome were known to be) in that notion I might intend them: whoſe inſolence and contempt, of their differing brethren, was too often felt, in making their own conſtitutions and ceremonies, ſnares to tender, honeſt conſciences, &c. Yet if the Doctor will needs know whom I meant, I ſhall freely tell him; they were thoſe, who, ambitious perhaps of that Epiſcopal dignity, did comply to every new introduced ſuperſtitious ceremony, with ſcorn enough overlooking them, who could not do ſo; ſome of them being looſe and profane in morall converſation: That's the firſt. There is another great miſtake, and very falſe; yet like a threed runs through all his former diſcourſe; [That I preſume all uſe of uncommanded Ceremonies to be Superſtition firſt, and then Formality.] Which I ſo profeſſedly diſclaimed often, and have his confeſsion, ſometimes to the contrary, that I underſtood the queſtion onelyonly of uncommanded Worſhip, not of Circumſtances, not of Ceremonies unleſs they be made parts of Worſhip, or offend againſt ſome other Scripture Rules. Which whether his Chriſtmas Feſtival (as it was by moſt obſerved) be guilty of, comes next to be conſidered.