c. Here are mistakes enough For first prayer is not as properly that is as fully a branch of natural worship as love c. For this is evident that there may be natural worship of love fear c. where there is no use of prayer as in the blessed Angels and Saints Of Super. s 27. I say prayer is natural and prescribed worship and besides prayer publique prayer at least is a part of Instituted worship 2. Hence it is not inseparable from trust love c. for they continue when prayer shall cease 3. Prayer and praising do also differ in themselves though we usually say praises or thanksgiving is a part of prayer and are not inseparable for prayer shall cease in heaven no need of prayer because want nothing 1 Cor. 13. last but praises shall continue for ever because have all things in God 4. Faith and Hope are natural worship as well as if not more then prayer yet they are not inseparable from love or prayer but shall cease with prayer when love and praises shall continue for ever the Doctor made this Exception to take occasion to empty his note book and to shew his Reading for no use at all of it otherwise unless it were in the close to vent a secret jear in these words Perhaps such evidences as these out of Naturalists are the Philophy against which the Reader was to be forewarned in the Title page As if no body had ever read them or understood them but himself But he excepts again p. 10. n. 7. to shew the uselesness of my distinction That it is as possible to exceed in trust in fear in love as in prayer Let him not equivocate n. 8. and then make this out Thus he that so trusts in God as not to fear he that so fears as not to love n. 9. he that so loves as not to fear c. is an exceeder in trust fear love I pray now first does he not grant what equivocally he hath denied that a man may be too Religious by excess in natural worship trust fear love Such a man is an exceeder in trust in fear in love 2. Hear his reasons He that so trusts in God as not to fear him c. is an exceeder in trust c. Which is as if he had said He that trusts not in God for such is he that fears not God is an exceeder in trust and so of the rest for this is certain he that fears not God or loves not God doth not trust him and vice versa he that trusts not God c. does not love him These graces are inseparable in a gracious heart and many more And if he speak of saving trust true filial fear and love of God there can be no Nimietie or excess in them A man may pretend to trust to fear to love God and do none of these in true Interpretation Saint John hath told us That he that loves not his brother loves not God let him make what pretences he please so it 's said of some hypocrites They feared the Lord served their own Gods 2 Kin. 17.33 in the next v. 34. They feared not the Lord they feared him with a slavish fear v. 25. because of the Lions but they feared him not with a filial fear which onely deserves the name of the Fear of God say the same of trust he that pretends to trust God and fears him not neglects means c. This man presumes but trusts not so the Doctor We are wont to express it by presuming But then I pray is not presumption an excess of hope as despair is the defect so is presumption an excess in Religion in a part of natural worship as despair is the defect in the same worship and so a man may be said to be too Religious Though it be true also in another sense those that so pretend to trust fear love God and do not are so far from being too Religious that they are not Religious at all and that 's indeed a defect What need then all this contention about nothing if the Doctor would but understand my meaning c. The sum is this He that in Religious worship addes any worship of his own devising is too Religious this is an excess in Religion And this is no perplexing nor leading the Reader into Maeanders and needs no Oedipus to resolve it Let 's hear how he will clear p. 11. n. 11. what I have clouded he asks me a question Doth be mean in these words more and addition any new Species of worship neither prescribed by the law of nature nor instituted by any positive Law of God or doth he designe onely some Circumstance or Ceremony which is not particularly commanded of God or the Word the rule of worship as time place gestures c. I answer clearly I mean it not of Circumstances named but of new Species or parts of worship I observe onely how he joyns Ceremony with Circumstance which ought not to be confounded as I noted afore But what then Before he take my answer he runs away with this error n. 14. the grand mistake of his whole book that I mean it of Circumstances and not of new kindes of worship and thereupon expatiates for many sections to fasten absurdities upon me to make me ridiculous to his Reader which will now revolve upon himself as one that wilfully mistakes and perverts the question and fights with his own shadow he knows and hereafter confesses more then once that I profess against this sense of the question what absurdity and Injustice then is this to fasten it upon me Yea here n. 13. he sayes If I mean it of Species or sorts of worship then he never doubted to affirm with me that all uncommanded worship is an excess if he please an error he should rather say a setting up that for worship of God which is not worship Now I appeal all Divines and indifferent Readers whether the Doctor hath not yielded the whole and main question between us My whole scope and intention being to beat down onely uncommanded worship not uncommanded Circumstances of worship no nor all Rites and Ceremonies unless they violate Scripture rules of which hereafter 2. Does not the Doctor here affirm with me that uncommanded worship is an excess an excess in Religion which he afore denied so peremptorily Let him call it error if he please there are errors in Religion in excess as well as defect this I call an excess in Religion 3. Yet fain he would evade all this by saying Setting up that for worship of God which is not worship nay perhaps quite contrary to worship If it be not worship then indeed it cannot be called an excess in worship But is not this a prevarication Is not false worship worship as well as true how else is worship distinguished by all and by himself into true and false do not the Species so he spake of new
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
moral or rather spiritual good then the bare caring for the things of the world to please a yoke-fellow 1. This supposes a man that is Marryed cannot be holy in body and spirit and care for the things of the Lord as the unmarryed may which is a dishonour cast upon Gods ordinance of honourable Marriage 2. That a Married man does barely care for the world to please his wife 3. That it is not as morally good for a married man to care for his family and to please his wife as for the unmarried to care to please God when both please God and there need no comparison 4. If Virginity or single life were morally better then Marriage the Apostle neglected the chiefest argument to perswade it the greater reward in heaven as a greater good work for so the Doctor determines this Free-will offering is more commendable acceptable rewardable But not one word of this in all the Scriptures What ever some Ancients and many Papists presume to dictate of an higher glory for Virginity then for Marriage and use this if not as the onely yet as the chiefest perswasive Hear what some of the Ancients who extolled Virginity enough if not too much In laudem Basilii orat 22. to the disparagement of Marriage say 1. Greg. Nazianz. commending the children of Bazil the elder sayes Some of them so used their Marriage that it was no hinderance to them that they might not aspire to an equal glory of virtue with the Virgins That is were as holy in body and spirit and cared for the things of the Lord as much as they Next Saint Chrysost with respect to the reward Ad Hebr. c. 4. orat 7. hath this saying Vse Marriage with meet moderation and thou shalt be the first in the kingdom More might be added but these shall suffice much being spoken to this afore His second argument p. 220. n. 54. against my position was this The best being superlative supposes the positive to be good but if bound to the best that which were onely good were evil This consequence I proved to be naught by an instance and now I adde it follows onely that that which is not the best is less good good I say by indulgence but so far sinful as they are short of perfection All our righteousness n. 55. is as filthy rags said the Prophet and Greg. after him All humane justice if it be strictly judged is injustice He crys out of my inconstancy I said before good works were not evil and now to be injustice And are not both these true They are not evil that is sins as wrought by faith but they are sinful and injustice if strictly judged by the Law said not the Prophet both these in one sentence and Gregory the same What prevarication is this in him Does he not say the same himself in his second answer When he said such a thing is good and another best he never meant that either of them is not convincible by God to have some mixture of evil What said I other then this But he elsewhere sayes more that not onely the best but the lower degrees of good may be sinless That the evil which is or may be and so may not be adherent to it in some other respects being pardoned by God in Christ the lower degree being good an act of obedience to Christs command that which is higher and so better then that may yet be somewhat not commanded and so a Nedabah in a Christian Where he supposes first That it may be sinless in it self though evil may adhere to it in other respects this is expresly affirmed by him p. 223. n. 5. of which anon 2. He also takes for granted that the higher degrees of good are under no command which is disproved above 3. If that Nedabah or work of higher perfection be a part of that mans righteousness it 's abundant righteousness with the Pharisees and the Doctor sure the Prophets Gregories and his own concession will in Gods strict judgement affirm it to be unrighteousness But that 's little less then a contradiction that an act of highest righteousness not under any Law should be judged unrighteousness by a righteous God without a Law to judge it by Let him consider it Sect. 48. The next objection raised by him c. THat we may see how good an expositor of the Law of God the Doctor is his answere to the objection from the first and great Commandment Thou shalt love the Lord thy God p. 221. n. 1. with all thy heart c. is very considerable He affirms That the phrase denoteth onely two things 1. Sincerity of his love to God as opposed to partial divided love 2. The loving him above all other things not admitting any other thing into competition with him or in such a degree of love First I would say that these two are almost both one for what is partial divided love but admitting of some other thing into competition with him and such love is insincere He that loves God sincerely loves nothing in competition with him 2. To love God above all other things is the same with to love nothing in such a degree of love But all this may be done and yet a man may be very short of the perfection of that Commandment To love God with all his heart and the rest And that we may know whence the Doctor learned this Divinity we find it in Bellarm and other Papists one while distinguishing thus God is two wayes loved with all the heart 1. Above all other things sincerely and perfectly that nothing be set above or equalled with the love of God and thus the love of God is under command to us 2. That no vitious cogitation may creep in but that the whole man be taken up with the love of God and this say they is not commanded us in this life Just the same with the Doctor 〈…〉 who agrees fully with them in the first part of the distinction and saying those onely are denoted must also agree with them in the latter Another while they thus distinguish The Commandment may thus be understood that God alone is to be loved and nothing beside him or that nothing be loved against God above God or equally with God c. The first part is not the scope or sense of the Commandment for he presently addes Thou shalt love thy neighbour c. The second part is the same with the first in the other distinction And it is remarkable that these distinctions are used by Papists in the case of venial sins and perfect fulfilling the Law in this life The former of these I observe not the Doctor to assert but the latter he does frequently that a man may fulfill the Law to perfection and that in the lower degrees and attain to perfection above all command But in this exposition of this Great Commandment the Doctor with Papists leaves many Vide Cham. t.
3 l. 11. c. 14. s 2. c. l. 6. c. 12. s 33. if not all the Ancients who generally hold this Law not possible to be fulfilled in this life and to require the highest degree of the love of God to the utmost perfection Yet who so great Admirers of the Ancients as they Let us return to the Doctors answer that those things were required by that Law I granted but more then this is also required 1. Perfect love with all the faculties and powers of the soul as the Ancients gloss it heart minde soul strength But where is the man that ever did or can do this A man may love God sincerely and above all other things the Doctors gloss and yet be far short of fulfilling this Commandment Saint Austin gives the reason So long as the flesh lusts against the spirit God is less loved then he ought The Law I said Required perfect love p. 221. n. 2. such as was in Adam in innocency 1 John 4.18 He answers 1. That perfect love in Adam p. 221. n. 2. had a latitude and consequently several degrees of that perfect love But this is proved false in both that Adams love had a latitude to love God with a less or lower degree then withall his heart soul c. and that there are degrees of perfect love 2. That perfect love in Saint John is not all one with that which Adam had in innocence for that I confess he says not to be acquireable in this life whereas the love in Saint John that casts out fear is in every Confessor and Martyr It 's no disparagement to his Confessors and Martyrs to say they had not perfect love of God many of them were fearful a long time even to denial of Christ at first and the best of them felt many reluctations of the flesh against the spirit but perfect love casts out all fear They loved God in sincerity and above all other things even their own lives yet were not perfect in love though God was pleased to pardon their defects and accept of their love c. There is no fear in love that is in perfect love so it follows perfect love casteth out fear and he that feareth is not made perfect in love But when shall love be made perfect Saint John answers ver 17. Herein or in this our love is perfected that we may have boldness at the day of Judgement Then love will be perfect and not till then how proves he this There is no fear in love he that feareth is not made perfect in love But the best Saint is here troubled with fear ergo And I again wonder that the Doctor should hold perfection of love in this life acquireable without all fear when he holds the best and highest degree of love and grace in his life may fail and be utterly lost Must not he that believes this be full of fear sometimes even tormenting fear How can he love God with all his heart minde soul strength that fears by reason of his own frailty and mutability of his will that fears God may be his enemy hereafter Nec hominem amicum possit quisquam amare cui noverit se aliquando fore inimicum August That one Martyr may be more zealous and express more intense and fervant love then another Proves what I say that neither of them are perfect in love the Commandment requiring perfect love in all Sincere love to be capable of degrees was never denied by me but affirmed yet not perfect love perfection is not capable of degrees but includes all degrees and what is short of that is faulty in vitio as Hierome said p. 222. n. 3. Sure says he if both obey the precept then they do not offend against it if not offend then is not this faulty Doth this beseem the Doctors learning a learned Catechist We know but in part and therefore believe but in part and obey but in part So far as we believe and obey so far we obey the precept but as we believe but in part and obey but in part so far we offend against it and so far in vitio and faulty Did not himself say p. 220. n. 54. Good works are not evill but good though not prefect from all possible mixture of sin If in our best works there be a mixture of sin do they not as far as they are good obey the precept and as there is a mixture of sin offend against it and so are faulty and sure every fault or vice must be a transgression of the Law as he says here The evasion is p. 222. n. 5. That it is not the sinless perfection we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath degrees but sincerity of this or that virtue in this or that performance c. But first what ever he does he knows I spake of sinless perfection even in perfect love Otherwise it were not strictly answerable to the Law and so far faulty they are my words there And I know not how to say there is a sinful perfection without a contradiction 2. What does he less here then speak of a sinless perfection In this or that virtue in this or that performance and as this though it excludes not all mixture of sin in the man in whom it is yet may exclude it in this or that act for it is certain that I may in an act of mercy give as much as any Law obligeth me to give and so not sin in giving too little Ad p. 214. n. 39. This was spoken to before but here is more plainly expressed and I shall adde a little to it 1. If it may exclude a mixture of sin in this or that act by the grace of God in Christ for so he cautions it why may it not exclude by the same grace a mixture of sin in another act of virtue and so in a third and in all and so exclude it altogether in the man and then there is an universal sinless perfection in this life which he hath oft denied 2. But what needs any such grace of God to do that which may be done by an Heathen without grace He may in an act of mercy give as much as any Law obligeth him to give and so not sin in giving too little 3. Neither he nor the Doctor can determine aforehand how much the Law obliges him to give as was said above but it 's determinable onely by circumstances which then bring it under a command 4 Neither of them giving as much as the Law obligeth to do sin in giving too little but may they not sin in giving in the act of mercy some other wayes For want of Charity 1 Cor. 13.3 out of vain-glory in hope of meriting Matth. 6.1 2. c. The Pharisees it's like gave more then the Law obliged to their abundant righteousness as they called it yet here was a mixture of sin not onely in the men
that proposition thus All forbidden Worship is false Worship that the Doctor cannot deny But all uncommanded Worship is forbidden This is proved above by the scope of the second Commandment and granted so by the Doctors own gloss God must prescribe his own Worship ergo no man may invent and prescribe it and consequently all not commanded by God is forbidden and by a further consequence superstitious And from the Doctor himself once more To invent and make new sorts or kindes of Worship is superstitious p. 12. n. 13. but to set up uncommanded Worship that is not commanded by God is to invent and make new sorts of Worship Therefore it is superstitious Thus the Major is good But the Doctor pleading for his Festival as he does sets up uncommanded Worship That he makes it a part of Worship is proved above in the third Argument And making it an example of his Will-worship he grants it to be Worship That it is not commanded by God was also granted Will-worship he explains by uncommanded Worship or will-devised Worship It is then an uncommanded Worship and so superstitious And thus we have proved from the Drs. own Assertions and practice that in observation of his Festival he was grosly superstitious and whether he will confess it or no is self-condemned I shall leave it to the judgement of the Reader and proceed to consider how he will excuse the matter of Riot attending on it There are many things of lesser concernment little to the main business which I shall therefore pass by One thing may not be omitted the Good will the Doctor bears to the Lords day every way to equal it at least with his Festivals For here and n. p. 266. n. 5. 7. 16.35 Because the Lords-day is subject to the same abuses of Riot and profaneness with his Festival he would weaken the argument for abolition of his Feasts That if abuse must abolish a custome it might hazard the Lords-day which hath been so abused But we have said afore that there is not the same reason for Divine Institutions and humane Inventions in the Worship of God The former must not be abolished for any abuses but the latter when abuses do almost inseparably stick to them the best way is to separate them from the service of God If he say n. 14. 16 might not Reformation serve but abscision onely Truly it is little for the credit of his Governours that in so long time as since the Reformation they never attempted any Reformation of the Riot and Profanations of his Festival but rather countenanced them in their own and others Families when the abuses not of Riot and Revellings onely but of Superstition also for so I meant have been so notorious I said Sect. 18. The Heathen usages do imply that the Festival it self was instituted to gratifie the Heathens by imitation of their Feasts at the same time of the year n. 6. The Doctor speaks a little to the usages but denies the Festival to have been instituted to gratifie the Heathens though he confessed the Saturnalia to be celebrated in the same moneth of Decemb. Sect. 63. But this makes it very suspicious the Feast was instituted to gratifie the Heathen hear a great Papist speak his judgement in this matter What wonder if the grown customes among the Gentiles we may adde the Jews also were such as from which though they were converted to Christianisme Baron ad An. 58. p. 606. Quid mirum c they were yet so hardly taken that it might seem impossible to put them quite off what wonder I say if the most holy Bishops have granted them place in the Worship of God But hear another more expresly in matter of Feasts it is Hospinian after Beat. Rhenanus in Tertul. de Coron Mil. The old Bishops were wont De Orig. Fest volluere veteres Episcop c. when they could not call men from the Superstitions of the Heathens by the Preaching of the word to seek at least to do it by observing their Holy-dayes with their own Worship But this was to drive out one nail with another no way to take off the Superstition Albeit then the beginning of these Solemnities was tolerable at first yet at last they grew to such an heap of Superstitions that they became the fountain and beginning of horrible errours and Susterstitions I might adde to these Doctor Jackson Orig. of â—dol Sect. 4. c. 23. who sheweth the first occasion of Superstition in Christians to have been the infirmities whereby it came to pass that Heathenish and Jewish Rites where to men had been long accustomed could not easily be extirpated See more there the mischief of such Accommodations The Apostle said I exercised his discipline upon the Agapae those Love Feasts as well as upon the riotous part p. 269. n. 17 To this the Doctor says It was the Lords Supper into which that excess was crept Did Paul he asks destroy and abolish this Feast the Lords Supper He is still unhappy in his comparisons of Divine Institutions with Humane Inventions and Additions He tells us n. 18. There were two parts of the Lords Supper first Bread and Wine taken in commemoration of Christs Body and Blood the other in eating and drinking together more liberally this latter was taken away upon unreformable abuses of it But then sure the Apostle needed not to exercise his discipline upon the first part the Lords Supper by abolition of a Divine Institution but upon the Feasting part wherein might be distinguished 1. The Love feast it self begun upon good intentions to relieve the poor and testifie brotherly affections 2. The Riot and excess that crept into it which was separable from the former and yet the Apostle takes away the Feast it self as well as the Riotous part because as the Doctor says of the too common unreformable abuses of it Say the same of his Festival abus'd both to Superstition and Riot But he tells us out of Justin Martyr how this Feast was reformed Offerings not lessened p. 270. n. 20 but otherwise disposed of and that which was not eaten at the Lords table was kept in a common bank for the poor c. Which is as if he should say the Feast it self was abolished but that Charity which was spent formerly in Riot was otherwise disposed of and if this will serve his turn it shall serve mine also in reformation of his Festival as he prescribes n. 21. But how satisfyingly the Doctor excuses his indulgence to the eating and sporting part n. 22 23. let the Reader judge When I have but once more presented his former words which he labours to mollifie or palliate Thus he said Sect. 22. of Fest For the eating and sporting part that need not be abolished save onely in case of great and general abuses 2. Till the abuses are not onely so great as discernible to out ballance the good uses but also so general that the