Mary Magdalenes Tears Wiped Off, Objection 19 – Objection 22
OBJECTION XIX.
But I think my ſelf bound in Conſcience to do the moſt and beſt I may, and therefore I condemn my ſelf of ſin, as oſt as I fail of doing that which is beſt.
SOLUTION.
27. YOur condition may be ſuch, as that you may be utterly uncapable of doing that which is beſt; and conſequently you ought not in reaſon to think your ſelf bound to all that is beſt. A ſingle life is beſt, in compariſon of Wedlock, (ſuppoſing the Perſon qualified for Coelibate:) yet if you are entred into the ſtate of Marriage, (though you found your ſelf capable of living without Luſt of burning) yet you muſt now content your ſelf with that ſtate of life, and therein abide with God, 1 Cor. 7.24. doing the Duties agreeable, and proper to that kinde of life. But you mean (perhaps) of ſuch things as are yet in your choice; as to Pray in Canonical hours, as do the Regulars or Religious of the Roman Perſwaſion; or to give ſo much Alms, as may quadrupliate the proportion you have hitherto given, being able ſo to do. I confeſs I do not take it to be a fault, but a piece of Heroical Charity, if any one doth by this means, ſo leſſen himſelf, in reſpect of his former quality, that the Place and Dignity he formerly enjoyed as his Civil Right, (provided he be no publick Magiſtrate, which (perhaps) may alter the Caſe) the Port and Equipage of his living is thereby depreſt, and made inglorious in the eyes of worldly men. But as I take this to be no fault, but much otherwiſe; ſo I muſt take leave to ſcruple your ſcruple you raiſe from your private belief in this point; viz. that you are obliged thus do; becauſe your Conſcience tells you, you are capable of doing it. Your Argument ſtands thus; Such an Heroical piece of Religion I am capable of performing, therefore my Conſcience tells me I am bound to perform it.
Two things muſt here be enquired into. 1. Whether my capacity of doing that which I am not apparantly commanded to do, be a ſufficient ground to inferre my obligation thereto? in caſe this be not ſo, whether 2. my belief that it is ſo, hath a power of obliging me thereto? as in matters of Indifferency.
That the firſt Propoſition cannot be held for an univerſal Affirmative, may be clear to any one, from theſe two Inſtances. 1. There be divers perſons in the world, that are capable of performing the Miniſterial Function, in point of Parts and Moral Behaviour; which yet never did conceive themſelves, nor any body elſe believe, that they were indiſpenſably bound, by this aptitude of theirs to enter into Holy Orders. I muſt confeſs that in the firſt Plantation of the Goſpel, or in an intolerable ſcarcity of Miniſters, the caſe may (poſſibly) be otherwiſe; eſpecially if ſuch perſons perceive in themſelves an unuſual acquiſition, and improvement of their abilities, under common means; and a greater violence and ſtirring of Spirit in them toward that Profeſsion, (eſpecially if under perſecution, or very ſlender encouragements to imbrace it) together with the remarkable deſires of others, that they would engage therein, (the Concurrence of which are very neer to an extraordinary Calling.) But generally I conceive the caſe to be as is afore determined. Again 2ly tis clear from 1 Cor. 7. That a ſingle Life is better, in many reſpects, then Marriage: now if a Virgin living in her Fathers houſe, ſhould finde in her ſelf no neceſſity to marry, but rather ſtrong inclinations (and for the beſt reaſon of all, that ſhe might ſerve the Lord without diſtraction by worldly buſineſs) to continue a Virgin, ſuppoſing ſhe were actually obliged ſo to do, upon finding in her ſelf this capacity of living unmarried; I deſire to know, whether her Father (if he ſees it neceſſary for himſelf, eſtate or Family that ſhe ſhould marrie) may compell by his Fatherly Authority, ſuch a one to accept of a fit Husband, tendered to her by her Father? on the one ſide here is the Command of a Father; on the other (on that ſuppoſition) the Command of God; this to abſtain, that to marrie; into what a ſad perplexitie will ſuch a one be caſt, if that ſuppoſition were true?
But I deſire him that holds the firſt opinion [that his capacity of doing that which he is not apparantly commanded to do, is a ſufficient ground to inferre his obligation thereto] to conſider this reaſon to the contrary: the capacitie of doing any thing, whether precedaneous, concomitant or ſubſequent to the command, is no more then a Qualification, or obediential power and paſſivity in the object, by which the Law becomes ſuitable to the Creature, to whom it is given, and without which the Command can neither be reaſonable, nor juſt it being as diſagreable to original juſtice, that a Law or Command be given to any Creature Superiour to his abilities of keeping it; as it is contrary to ordinate juſtice to puniſh that Creature, for the not performance of a Command ſo given. Not the Obligency therefore, but the equity, or reaſonableneſs of the Law, is founded in the Capacity of the Creature to obey it (that being indeed founded in the Soveraignty of the Law-maker) otherwiſe there would be tranſgreſſion, where there is no Law, contrary to the ſaying of St. Paul, Rom. 4.15.
The main doubt behinde is, whether a belief grounded upon ſuch an aptitude, doth oblige that perſon in whom it is, to the performance of ſuch things, for which there is no particular precept given him by God? and ſo may be underſtood to be of the ſame nature with that, which Divines call a Perſonal precept, as was that of our Saviour to the young man, requiring him to ſell all, and give to the Poor, Luke 18.22. a Precept which Divines have hitherto held to be of the nature of thoſe Conſtitutions in the Civil Law, called Conſtitutiones perſonales, Inſt. lib. 1. Tit. 2. n. 6. none of which tranſgreditur perſonam, goes further than the perſon to which it is given, and therefore bebecome not Preſidents or Examples for others, though they have Legis vigorem the force of Law, in reſpect of them to whom they are given.
Therefore I anſwer, That a Perſon that thus believes, is bound by his erroneous Conſcience, or Judgement to the thing which he conceives himſelf thus capable of doing, but yet not irreverſibly bound, as that man that receives a perſonal Precept from the Lawgiver is, till the Law-giver himſelf be pleaſed to reverſe it. He then that is thus bound by the error of his Judgement, in the firſt of thoſe things controverted betwixt us, under this objection, is freed from all Obligation to performance, as ſoon as his Judgement (or Conſcience) is rectified; which is done aſſoon as he is perſwaded of the truth of this propoſition, viz. That the capacity of doing what is beſt, doth not render the Perſon capable obliged to do what is beſt. Wherein (I think) the reaſon foregoing will give ſatisfaction to any unprejudicate Perſon.
OBJECTION. XX.
But doth not our Saviour diſcharge the force of your reaſon in Mat. 19.12. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it; —But I am able to receive it,—therefore I am bound to receive it.
SOLUTION.
26. YOu muſt prove, that our Saviour injoyns that as a Precept, and not propoſeth it as his Advice or Counſell; otherwiſe it cannot be thought to contain in it the force of a Command; and conſequently hath not in it the obligatory of a Law, but the perſwaſory efficacie of an Advice.
Now that thoſe words do not contain the force of a Precept in them, will (I believe) be evident, if you conſider the paſſage to which they are immediately related; and that is the ſaying of the Diſciples v. 10. concluding Mariage to be (in point of Prudence) much worſe than a ſingle life, in caſe there ought to be no divorce of Man and Wife, ſave for Adultery only. It is not (ſay they) good to marry, if the caſe be thus; which clearly implies thus much, that it is beſt in point of prudence, (this being in every mans choyce) not to marry; to which our Saviours Anſwer is to this purpoſe, that they are in the right, if it were alike with all men in reſpect of abſtaining from Marriage; but being it is not ſo, they that cannot contein ought to marrie, but if a Man can contein, their Judgement is good, and is confirmed with our Saviours own Reſolution therein, it is beſt for him not to marry. I believe Saint Baul will give full ſatisfaction to this ſcruple, if you read his 7th. chapter, 1 Cor.
OBJECTION XXI.
But is not every Chriſtian bound in Conſcience to uſe the things that God gives him, to the beſt advantage of his Maſter?
SOLUTION.
27. BE is bound ſo to do in point of prudence: but not by any expreſs Law given by God. Now the Obligation which prudence layes upon anie man, is not in reſpect of ſuch things as are Good or Evil; for therein there is no libertie of Election, that which is Evil being by no means eligible: but onlie concerning ſuch things as may be well or better done, either way of doing them being chooſable without guilt, becauſe there intervenes no Law, which may determine my will, but I am left to govern my ſelf by prudential reaſons only, which amount to no more, but the modification of my Act of chooſing, whereby it is reſolved to be more or leſs prudent, not to be lawfull or unlawfull.
Now if I chooſe that which is leaſt to my own advantage, I do no more then what may be done, where the election of my will is not predetermined: and if that be leaſt for the profit of my Maſter, yet he having given me no other Command, than to uſe thoſe things well which he hath given me, I have obeyed his Commands who enjoined me to do ſo much.
If a Merchant ſhould deliver a large ſtock of Goods or Monie to his Factour, and ſhould ſay unto him, imploy this to my beſt advantage, in all inſtances and at every opportunitie your prudence ſhall judge to be fit: in this caſe the Factor is preobliged, and muſt do onlie what is beſt, elſe he breaks the Command of his Maſter. But if his Maſter ſay thus unto him, imploy this ſtock to my advantage, and your reward for ſo doing ſhall be proportionable to the advantages I receive by your Endeavours: in this caſe the Factor is not obliged by his Maſters Command, to do anic more than imploy his Maſters goods to his profit; which if he do, be it much or little, he obeys the Command of his Maſter; but prudence binds him to do the beſt he can, for the advancing and improving his Maſters Goods, becauſe his own Reward will carry its proportion to that ſucceſs, whether it be for the better or no, the caſe correſponds to the latter part of this illuſtration.
OBJECTION XXII.
But how can this ſtand with mine, (and the obligation of all Chriſtians) to love the Lord, with all my Soul, with all my mind, and with all my ſtrength.
SOLUTION.
28. I Do not conceive this Paramount Law inevitably infringed, by not doing every thing that we have ability of doing, but are not thereto expreſly required by precept. Indeed it binds the whole man to all Duties, exacted from him by Gods revealed will, and to ſubmit to, or not withdraw my obedience therefrom, for any Competitor whatever, that may pretend claim to my ſubjection, becauſe for that time, & in that thing, (if I were never ſo good a Chriſtian) my Diſobedience of Gods Law, would unqueſtionablie condemn me of not loving Him, with all my mind, with all my ſoul, and with all my ſtrength; the demonſtration of which Love (as our Saviour himſelf reſolves) is the keeping of Gods Commandements, Jo. 14.15. if you mark it, the keeping his Commandements is the Teſt of every mans love, ſo that he that doth that; that obſerves what ever doth appear to be Gods Commandement, is ſaid truly to love God, and that with al his Heart. So that conſequently there is left unto men a Latitude of expreſsing their Love to God, in ſome Acts of Heroical Vertue, proportionable to the free-will offerings amongſt the Jews; whereby God may have occaſion given him, of remunerating ſuch men according to his Bounty; like as the Duties performed agreeable to his Law, are rewardable by his Iuſtice. You may take this Reſolution of your ſcruple in this formal way of reaſoning. The Love that Chriſt requires from his Diſciples is the Love of Him with all their Heart, with all their Mind, &c. But ſuch a Love as this is expreſt by keeping his Commandement. Ergo, The keeping of Gods Commandments is ſuch a Love as God requires from his Children.
We may adde hereto, that when a man doth ſincerely propoſe the glory of God, as the ſcope and center of all his Actions, every ſingle Act of his Life, whether civil or religious, may be interpreted as a line tending thereto; drawn from the Circle of his firſt Reſolution, and cannot be truely ſaid to be a breach of Duty, for that it tends leſs to perfection than doth every other Action of his Life; gradual Differences in moral Actions, (as good, better, and beſt) making no eſſential difference in the Subjects in which they are: whereas the objects of Reward and Puniſhment, muſt be oppoſed by contrariety as are Vertue and Ʋice, which diverſity of Degrees in the ſame ſubject are not, as well in moral, as in natural Things.
So that without forfercing your Reaſon you may believe, that you do not love the Divine Majeſtic with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your ſtrength, becauſe you do not every thing, which ſome eminent Chriſtians have done before you, as giving all to the poor; &c. ſuch high Attempts require long ſitting down, and conſidering with your ſelf, e're you ing age in them; leſt not only that happen unto you, which befel the man in the Goſpel, who beginning a building too great for his Purſe, Luke 14.30. and deſiſting, was derided therefore by his Enemies, but a much worſe thing, I mean the irremoveable anxiety of future life, with all the vexatious ſcruples that Satan, or a volatile fancy may caſt upon your Soul.