Of Will-Worship

OF WILL-WORSHIP.

[§ 1] THe word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Will-worship, hath for some time had the ill for • une to pass under an ill notion, and be taken for somewhat • eproveable in a Christian: how justly. I shall briefly inquire.

[§ 2] That this word is not used in the Greek Translatours of the Old Testament, or the Apocriphall Authors, (no not so much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of which it is compounded, but once or twice in the Book of Wisdom ) will be acknowlodged by any which shall make enquiry: and therefore it cannot be expected, it should receive any light from thence. And in the New Testament, it is an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but once used. Col. 2.23. and for other Authors it may suffice to have observed, that it is not used by any, but those who (in all probability) have it from this place of Saint Paul. And so the result of this enquiry will be, how it is used, and what it signifieth in this one place; which must be done by examining the context.

[§ 3] The Apostles discourse in that place is of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or doctrines of men, teaching some things to be forbidden by God, that God forbiddeth not; where yet you must observe, he doth not speak of commands, 〈◊〉 doctrines; i. e. not of the prohibition of the Magistrate expressed by any act of positive human Law (which in indifferent things is permitted to him to interpose, and being so interposed, by virtue of the Apostles precept for obedience will have the power of obliging;) But of false teachers imposing them upon their brethren, as God's commands, when they are not; this is called Dogmatizing in this place. v. 20. (and teaching fo • doctrines the traditions of men, Matth. 15.9. which if the Magistrate should do, he should thereby incur the censure of a false teacher also) i. e. (as it is clear by the former part of the Chapter, and particularly, v. 16.) urging some abolishit Ceremonies as still in force by divine precept, which whosoever doth, he tells them, Gal. 5.2. That Christ shall profit them nothing: upon this ground, th •• Christ coming, as the substance typified by those legal Institutions, did consequently set a period to the obligeingnesse of those Institutions; which, if it should be still urged, would be interpretative the denying of Christ, and so most justly the forfeiting those benefits, which are to be expected from him; and therefore though Saint Paul might lawfully (and did) circumcise Timothy, yet the urging of Circumcision, (or any such Judaical rite, which Christ meant to abrogate) for a Doctrine, or teaching that it was then necessary for Christians, was in his opinion the denying of Christ: in like manner, as the teaching the abrogation of any of the moral Commandments, meant by the Law and the Prophets, Mat. 5.17. which Christ meant not to abrogate by his coming, is on the other side censured as a most unchristian thing. v. 19. and a kind of denying of Christ also.

[§ 4] This will by the way explain that difference (convenient to be premised) betwixt making of positive human Laws inindifferent things (which the frequent commands of obeying Magistrates presuppose to be Lawfull; for if there were no legality in the giving of such commands, the obedience to them being given could not be imposed on Conscience, as it is Rom. 13.5. And if the matter of the Command were before commanded by God, 'twere then no longer obedience to the law of the Magistrate, but only to God: and for an example of this even in matters of Religion, take the example of David, who 1 Chron. 23. v. 24, and 27. numbered the Levites, or appointed them to serve and do the work of the house of the Lord from the age of twenty years and upward (upon a ground there specified v. 25.) whereas by the command of God to Moses, Num. 8.24. this service belonged to the Levites, but from twenty five years old and upward, till the age of fifty years, and then they shall cease waiting, v. 25.) and urging or teaching things for divine commands, which either never were commanded by God, or else are now out-dated, and the obligingnesse taken from them by Christ. The latter of these is it on which the discourse of the Apostle proceeds here, without any reflection on the former.

[§ 5] His meaning in this particular he farther expresseth, by naming some forms of those dogmatizers, verse. 21. [touch not, taste not, handle not] noting thereby those kinds of doctrine, which affirm men obliged to fasting, or abstinence from such or such meats (the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to touch, signifying to eat among good authors) which now 'tis by Christ made free to all men to use fine discrimine. Then v. 22. he passeth a censure on such dogmatizing, and on all such out-dated, yet continued legal performances [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] all which are to destruction: i. e. destructive or dangerous, (not as we render it [all which are to perish) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the abuse (not as we render it [with the using) The Original enforces no such sense, and the way of interpretation that is ordinarily affixt to that sense [the perishing of the meat by going out into the draught] (when the Apostle speaks not of the meat, but of the commands of abstaining) makes the sense sufficiently improbable. The full importance of the words is, that when these abstinences are thus imposed and taught, as divine obliging precepts, this is an abuse of them (which were otherwise innocent things) and that abuse annexed makes the very use of them dangerous or destructive▪ which is the sense of what the Latin Fathers, Saint Augustine, and Saint Ambrose have said on this place: sunt in interitum & aeternam perditionem, si credant ea necessaria ad salutem, They are to destruction, and eternal perdition to them that believe them necessary to salvation.

[§ 6] Having thus set a mark on them for caution, he adds a distinct specification of that which makes them so dangerous, or destructive (which in themselves were not) [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , after the commandments and doctrines of men. ] which words, whether they be annexed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , verse. 20. (The middle words being read in a Parenthesis, as our English reads them) or whether to the immediately precedent, they do point out that wherein the danger doth consist, to wit, imposing on men human ordinances or doctrines: i. e. those things, which though they are not commanded by God, are yet by men affirmed, and pretended, and taught (though as we say, magisterially, or without proof) to be so commanded.

[§ 7] Having thus far expressed the danger of taking up such doctrines upon false-Teachers imposing them, the Apostle then by way of close (either to take off the varnish under which they are commended to men's practice, and by which it is made probable to them, that they are commanded; or else to set down the simple nature of these things abstracted from all such accidental abuse) adds this brief description of the doctrines themselves, or the abstinences they teach [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] these words are variously rendered by Interpreters, as having great difficulty in them. The most simple genuine sense methinks might be this. [which things have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , rationem sapientiae, some true, at least appearing notion of wisdom in them (wisdom in Scripture phrase signifying piety) i. e. have either some real matter of piety in them, (for so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies: and this would be more clear, if we should read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , disjoined, not in one but two words, thus [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. which things have somewhat of piety in them, or being considered in some respect have piety in them ) or, as the Fathers seem rather to have understood it, some color, some appearance of piety; to wit, in voluntary worship and humility, and severity toward, or punishing of the body: as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies: and the margent of our Bibles acknowledges: and not in any honor or care of the body (for so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testament by an Hebraism signifies, that honor which is expressed in relieving of wants, Mat. 15.5. 1 Tim. 5.17.) not in administering to the body omnia necessaria ad saturitatem carnis explendam, as Saint Jerome hath it, all things necessary to the filling, or stuffing, or satiating of the flesh: for so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies. And I confess I cannot sufficiently wonder what should move some learned Interpreters to explain that word by mediocritatem ad simplicem usum restrictam, A mediocrity without any excess, when the word in all authors signifieth satiety or fullness. In Galen 'tis used for repletion or surfeit: and in all Attick writers for something like that: which made Robertus Stephanus in his Greek Concordance render it satietas in this place: and among the translators of the Old Testament, all the Hebrew words that are rendered by it, are of the same nature, such are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fatness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gravamen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 multiplicare, and especially 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 satiatus est, which is by them 18 times rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

[§ 8] This last part of the verse is added, I conceive to illustrate the former à contrario, and so to show that there is somewhat of true or pretended piety in those former doctrines by their contrariety to that tending, and filling, and pampering of the flesh, which is so unlike piety or Christianity: and though the connection of this last clause with the rest be somewhat perplexed, yet you shall find it but little more cleared by any other interpretation that will be affixt to it; and upon examination I am a little confident, that this which I have given is the most prompt, and proper, and genuine rendering of the verse, that will be met with among interpreters.

[§ 9] Which being acknowledged, there will be no doubt or difficulty in resolving, that there is no ill character set upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or will-worship by the Apostle in this place. And if you demand what it is that is noted by it, I answer punctually, That voluntary worship, or acts of Religion, which the Hebrews call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the free-will offering often mentioned in the Pentateuch, which was not required of them by any obligation of particular law, and yet was not wont to be condemned or suspected, but accounted as acceptable to God: under which head the abstinences here spoken of may not unfitly be comprehended.

[§ 10] For the clearing of all which, I shall first give my reasons for my first assertion, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here used in a good creditable sense. Secondly, I shall guess at the grounds, or occasions of the ordinary mistake of it in them that take it for a fault. And thirdly, I shall add somewhat concerning those voluntary oblations noted by it, as they may be appliable to us Christians.

[§ 11] A first reason of my assertion, is, because will-worship is here joined with two, not only lawful, but laudable Christian virtues: as 1. with humility, which being by Calvin interpreted in this place Dei & hominum reverentia, the reverence both of God and men, is without doubt a Christian virtue (and hath nothing in this place to set an ill character upon it, what ever it may verse 18. being joined with worship of Angels) and being so, cannot be so ill company as to defame the will-worship to which it associates, but will rather plead for it, that it is of the same making, a Christian virtue also. Secondly, 'tis joined with punishing, or not sparing, or (as Calvin varies the phrase) mortifying of the body, which as an act of self-denial cannot be unacceptable to Christ, and as a species of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , revenge, 2 Cor. 7.11. will deserve to be numbered among the effects of godly sorrow.

[§ 12] A second reason is, because these very doctrines of abstinence &c. are here said in respect of the will-worship, &c. discernible in them, to have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rationem sapientiae, somewhat of wisdom or piety in them: which [somewhat] if it be real, according to the former interpretation of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it will then be parallel to that which is said upon the like occasion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bodily exercise, 1 Tim. 4.8. which doth belong not to the gymnici agones, the Olympic exercises, as some contrary to the context would wrest it, but to such kind of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , abstinence, continence, &c. mentioned v. 1. which though, when they are taught as necessary (to the defaming of marriage or meats, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unlawful and to be refused, v. 4. and in the style of the fathers, and counsels, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hurtful and abominable ) are then signs of apostasy from the Faith, v. 1. yet considered in themselves as voluntary acts, are there said to be profitable, or (though in an inferior degree being compared with piety, yet) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a little profitable still, or profitable for a little. But if that interpretation of [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] will not be accepted, but [speciem] show of wisdom be required to be taken in its stead, yet will the Argument be still of validity; For can anything be said to have so much as a show of wisdom or piety in respect to will-worship in it, if that will-worship thus pretended, pass confestly either for foolish, or impious? Can anything be represented to me as having so much as a show of piety, in respect to rage or lust discernible in it? Certainly, whosoever would make such a recommendation, must, if he speak in earnest, suppose somewhat really of piety in those passions also, or otherwise they cannot impart so much as a show of piety to anything else.

[§ 13] A third reason is, because the Greek Fathers in their expositions of •• is place, though they interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , only of appear •• the • hew, as contrary to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , power and truth, or as Oecumenius hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a bare show of probability, yet generally they paraphrase will-worship, and humility, and not sparing of the body by words of good savor. Thus Saint Chrysostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He appears pious, and moderate, and a contemner of the body; and then all the fault is, that he is not truly what he appears: and Theophylact hath the same words, and Oecumenius comes very near 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. pretending ( i. e. having a show of) piety and devotion in worship: by which 'tis clear, what notion they had of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to wit, that of devotiousnesse, piety, the thing which is commended (by that word) in Simeon, Luk. 2.25, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , just and devout: and Act. 2.5. & 8.2. and prescribed by Saint Paul Heb. 12.28. and so sure far enough from any ill notion; even so far, that the interpreter of Clemens Alex: rendereth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] in religione, in religion.

[§ 14] A Fourth reason, because by this way of interpreting, that very obscure place, which hath posed so many, may conveniently be understood, and this prove the importance of it. That such doctrines are destructive of Christian religion, in obtruding human out-dated Judaical Constitutions, for divine precepts, still obliging Christians, (as they that urge the necessity of circumcission, evacuate the doctrine of the Gospel. Gal. 5. 2.) and yet in some respects have piety in them, at least a show of it, to wit, in Will-worship, Humility. &c.

[§ 15] A Fifth, because that which Hesychius saith of this word, is very agreeable to this interpretation, for he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , voluntary worship or piety (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a word used, Eccl. 19.27. is saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) the very notion of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I told you of, so ordinarily rendered by the 72. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , voluntary gifts, or offerings, or performances.

[§ 16] A Sixth, because reason it self assures us, that those things which are done in the service of God, are not therefore ill because they are spontaneous, (the voluntarynesse of ••• tion is not able to defame it, if there be no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , no irr 〈…〉 y imputable to the action it self, abstracted from the voluntariness; there being no universal negative command in the Scripture, especially the New Testament, prohibiting all things and degrees of things, besides what are in particular commanded) but on the other side, when in the service of God, a man out of a pious affection (of love and gratitude inciting to do things acceptable to God: as well as of fear deterring from all that is prohibited) shall (in conformity to God's general commands, and the doctrine of the Gospel) do anything else, beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept, this action of his, is to be accounted so much more commendable and acceptable to God, piety being one of those virtues quarum tantae sunt amplitudines, ut quanto auctiores sunt, tanto sint etiam laudatiores: which have such width of compass, that the larger they are, they are also so much more commendable; and withal the more voluntary and spontaneous, the more acceptable. To which that of the son of Sirach is agreeable. Eccl. 43.30. When you glorify the Lord, exalt him as much as you can, for even he yet will far exceed; and when you exalt him, put forth all your strength, for you can never go far enough, i. e. how far soever you exceed the particular command, you are yet within the compass of the general, and in respect of that can never be thought to have done enough, though the particular act or the degree of it, be somewhat that you are not particularly obliged to.

[§ 17] Having thus vindicated this word from the abuse and reproach laid on it, It follows in the second place that I point at the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which seems to have caused or occasioned this abuse, and that I conceive to be someone or more of these four things.

[§ 18] 1. That the vulgar Latin translation renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Superstition, from whence I conceive it is that Master Calvin hath taken confidence to say, that Superstition Graecis dicitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and Saint Jerome agreeable to that translation, (which in this was most probably his,) Infelices Judaei quantâ superstitione vivant inter nations, dicentes, ne tetigeris, ne gustaveris, &c. Whereas the truth is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the Greek for Superstition, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies it no more, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth, which although it be by Etymologists deduced from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so appropriated to some customs of the Thracians, and abusively belongs to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , superfluous and curious worships, as Plutarch hath it, yet in simplicity of speech signifies worship, and in holy writ is used in this good sense. Act. 26.5. Ja. 1.27. (and never otherwise but when the adjuncts alter it) and from thence the compound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , voluntary or spontaneous worship.

[§ 19] 2. That as among the Jews in the time of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or God's immediate praesiding among them, all was to be done according to the pattern (in monte) in the mount; so some men have resolved themselves and labored to persuade others, though without any New Testament evidence, (Christ having no farther interposed in this matter, nor the Apostles, then that all be done decently and ordinately, and that obedience be paid to the higher powers in those things, wherein the law of nature, and the Gospel hath neither commanded, nor prohibited) that no rite, no circumstance, no degree of worship may be used in the Christian Church, but what hath Christ's example or particular precept to authorize it; which assertion being so irrational and proofelesse, and yet so resolute not to yield, hath been fain to catch at anything to sustain it, which can come within its reach, and in destitution of other auxiliaries, hath fastened on this (though but sound of) word, and taken advantage by the obscurity of this one text to impose upon easy readers this falsity, that whatever is not commanded by Christ by his particular precept, or justified by his example, is censurable under the title of Will-worship, though otherwise in respect of the matter of it, it would not be censurable. Which conclusion when we consider what small ground it hath in that obscure text thus explained, we shall have little temptation to resolve on, as a foundation to superstruct any other doctrines upon, (which we must not do but upon plain undoubted texts) or to conclude those actions criminous, because voluntary, which we may rather most justly conclude justifyable, because not prohibited; and not only so, but also acceptable to God, if agreeable to his general commands, and the doctrine of the Gospel, and the more acceptable for the voluntariness, as being in that parallel to those oblations which are pronounced most acceptable. A passage I have lately observed, which though it be not of any great authority, yet appearing at the first sight distinctly contrary to my present affirmation I have thought not impertinent here to take into consideration. It is in Photios's his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of Philostorgius set set out very lately by Jacobus Gotofredus in Greek and Latin. The words in Latin (which is the language which those who are most subject to be abused in this matter will be most likely to read him in) are these. Theophilus ad Indiam profectus est, multaque quae apud eos haud rite fiebant, emendavit; nam & sedentes audiebant lections Evangelicas, et alia quaedam faciebant quae lex divina non praecipit. Which words by affirming [that 'twas a fault, to be mended in them, to do something which the divine law commands not] seem to conclude against all voluntary worship uncommanded by the word of God, as absolutely unlawful; how justly you shall now discern. To which purpose you must first observe, the words in the Greek, which in Gotofreds copy run thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but in the manuscript in the public Library, have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; this undoubtedly is the truer reading, and the meaning of the word is, to admit, permit, or to use, invalescere, vel obtinere, to prevail or obtain for the usage of anything. To which if you add that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies not the law or word of God, but the sacred Canons or customs of the Church (which beside other arguments is clear, by Nicephorus his repeating those same words (out of Photios, for 'tis clear by other evidences that Nicephorus made use of Photios's ecloga, and not of the entire copy of Philostorgius ) only with this change of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Gotofred in his notes acknowledges) the product will then be only this, that the thing which in those Indians was amiss, and reformed by Theophilus, was the sitting at the reading of the Gospel, and doing some other things which the Ecclesiastical or sacred Canons did not allow of, or use, for which they were not in force; and so the place will yield us an authority from the ancient Canons for standing at the reading of the Gospel, but offer us nothing which we shall need to quarrel with. He that is not satisfied with this account which I have given him of this place, I shall desire, will consider whether it be probable that the sitting at the reading of the Gospel should go for a fault, only because the Scripture commands it not. This I am confident will not be affirmed by the adversaries of my present assertions, who for the most part choose to sit at the reading of the Gospel, upon this very ground because standing at that time is not commanded in the Scripture. The case I conceive so clear that I shall not farther enlarge upon it.

[§ 20] A third ground or occasion of this abuse of the word I suppose to be the affinity of the 18 verse of that chapter to the Coloss. [Let no man deceive you in a voluntary humility, &c.] to this now in hand. For I am persuaded many men have not observed the great distance between them, and for want of doing so, have thought 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here subject to all the same charges which the worship of Angels is there guilty of, and so particularly of that crime of Superstition, which the worshippers of Angels cannot be freed from; especially seeing that they, like the Dogmatizers here, did teach that worship to be the will of God, and that God was honored in the worship of those Officers of his; the error which, as Maimonides observed, hath brought the greatest part of Idolatry first into the world, existimando hanc varietatem esse Dei voluntatem, when men conceived and taught that these vain idolatrous or superstitious worships were the will and pleasure of God.

[§ 21] For the clearing of this matter, and rectifying the mistake I shall not doubt to affirm, that the prohibition in the 18 verse (though in some translations it seems to belong to this matter of Will-worship, and consequently to set an ill character upon it, and although Clemens Alexandrinus compound both these verses together, reading thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet) will be found not at all to belong to it, if the Greek text in that chapter be consulted with, and the Hebraism in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be taken notice of

[§ 22] To which end you may observe these two things. 1. That the words are not in the original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath in the Septuagint's translation of the old Bible, (and by proportion may have also here) a sense which Atticall writers have not taken notice of, and it will by Analogy be fittest rendered thus [pleasing himself, or delighting in humility and worshiping of Angels.] (or as Saint Jerome explains it, Superbus fictâ humilitate, proud of a feigned humility) as 1 Sam. 18.22. The Septuagint read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the English out of the Hebrew render [The King delighteth in thee, ] and so 2 Sam. 15.26. and very often in other places, upon this ground or Original that the Hebrew signifies both acquievit, and voluit, to delight in, and to will; and so in the Old Testament is rendered promiscuously, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I am well pleased, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will, and one sometimes used when the other would be more proper, (which custom is not unusual in the New Testament, for thus you shall find it, Mat: 27.43. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which though we there render, ( Let him deliver him if he will have him, inserting the word [have] and by that indeed somewhat changeing the sense,) yet Psal. 22.8. (whence 'tis apparent the words are taken, and where the Septuagint's render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) we render it, let him deliver him, if he delight in him.

[§ 23] But besides, as this delight or will in this 18. verse is fastened on an unlawful thing, to wit worshiping of Angels (a thing not only not prescribed, but prohibited by God) and includes such an impious kind of mistaken humility that takes in others either as mediators to God, or as to be adored beside him (as the Angelici in the Christian Church, and the Esseni among the Jews did) so and in this sense this worship (if you would from hence style it Will-worship, or what you please) shall be without any difficulty acknowledged by me to be an unlawful thing, as being the willing of that which God forbids; which though it be readily granted, yet it will remain true nevertheless, that voluntary worship, where the matter is perfectly lawful, not forbidden, nay approved by a General (though not commanded by any particular) precept, is far enough from having any Tincture of evil in it. But this would deserve a larger discourse by way of Comment on that verse. In the mean while, this may serve to show how groundless the mistake is that ariseth from hence.

The 4. and last occasion of this mistake which I shall observe, is the use of a word in Epiphanius (which I perceive to be taken notice of by learned men) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which being attributed to the Pharisees there, (who, saith he, were so called for that reason, the word Pharisee coming from an [§ 24] Hebrew primitive, which signifies separation or discrimination, and so denoting some performances in them, wherein they exceeded other Jews ) may perhaps seem to be taken in an ill notion.

[§ 25] To which I answer 1. that if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were a denotation of some ill, it would not yet necessarily prejudice 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which we speak of; because the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 added in •… hat word, noting abundance or superfluity (which perhaps may refer either to some unlawful, or at least vain luxuriant matter, taken into that worship, as for example either prohibited objects, or noxious, at least burthenous in the number, or in the quality ridiculous ceremonies ) might turn that into evil which the voluntariness or uncommandednesse of them were not able to do.

[§ 26] But then Secondly, I cannot acknowledge, that that word is by Epiphanius there taken in an ill sense: all that the context enforces, is but this, that that is the meaning or interpretation of their name, and sure it is not necessary, that because the Pharisees were evil men, or had some great faults, therefore their name signified some ill thing, for sure if their name was assumed by their own choice, they would not be such ill carvers to themselves, (I am sure other Heretics were not, as the Novatians called themselves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pure, and the Montanists 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the spiritual &c.) and that it was imposed on them by other men 'tis not affirmed: and besides I remember that some other ancient writers interpret that name by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 separate or set apart to God, and no man will think there is any hurt in that, save only the vanity of usurping that title, and inclosing it from all others.

[§ 27] The truth is, that was the main crime that defamed the Pharisees, their censorious proud despising of other men, whom they thought not so godly as themselves; and therefore I remember 'tis Saint Chrysostom's advice, that when the Pharisee and the Publican are compared by Christ, and the Publican prefer'd, we should be careful, not to prefer the Publicans sins before the Pharisees good qualities, before his fasting, and tithing &c. but only the Publicans humility before the Pharisees pride, the Publicans judging himself, before the Pharisees fastidious contemning of others. For the Pharisees exactness in those particulars neglected by others, or not observed in that height, is so far from being reprehended in the scripture, that 1. 'tis distinctly said, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or oportuit [these things ought ye to have done] belonged (to the doing of those other things omitted by them, judgment, mercy, and faith, and) not to the leaving those undone, which they did observe. 2. Saint Paul speaking not contumeliously or sarcastically, but sadly of himself, calls that Sect of the Pharisees by an honorable title 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Act. 26. a way of the greatest strictness in religion. Which though it excuses not the Pharisees other faults, yet is far from being it self any ill character, or leaving any blemish upon their voluntary religious performances, wherein their superlative strictness consisted.

[§ 28] To these I shall add a third answer, which the learned critical writers concerning the Sects amongst the Jews will authorize, that the original of these Pharisees was from the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Hasidaei, who were so called for their excess of piety and charity, their voluntary performances above what the law required of them. These are mentioned 1 Mac. 2.42. and defined to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we render it voluntarily devoted to the law, but the phrase signifies those that in their obedience performed voluntarily some things which the law required not, and so differed from the Karraim or Karaei who did that only which was commended by law. Of both which compared together 'tis the learned and the Protestant Scaligers observation Elench Tribaeres, cap. 22. that as no man is required to do more then is commanded him, (and so the Karraim are justified) so no man is to be quarrelled with for doing better, when he is bound to do well, or for performing much when a mediocrity is required of him, and so the Hasidaei justified also, and with them the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we speak of. But when that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) became 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when those voluntary free-will-offerings began to be formed into precepts, and entered into books, then from Hasidi •• or pious men, they became dogmatizers, laid obligation upon all to do as they did, and then being not obeyed in their severe presciptions, discriminated themselves from all others, as the only obedient servants of God, and so called themselves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pharisees, divided not only from the rest of the profane world, which did not as they did, but from the very H • sid ••• themselves, who performed as much as they, but thought not themselves obliged by law to do so. Which being the notion of the Pharisees, may by Epiphanius be expressed and censured by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as they, that in G • l •• , offended not in the Will-worship, did yet in the dogmatizing, and so the Hasidai we may justify, though not the Pharisees, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 though not the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 All this I thought not amiss to add ex abundanti, more then the necessity of the present disquisition required of me, that I might have my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or voluntary oblation to present to the Reader also.

[§ 29] Now for the third and last thing proposed, concernnig those voluntary oblations under the law, it will be worth observing, first, that they were a part of the worship and service of God when they were performed, and therefore avowed by those General precepts which respect that worship of his. 2. that they were not commanded particularly by any particular command of God's in the law, but were left to every man's liberty (except it were in case of vow, which yet it was free to him not to make,) & so were Spontaneous, not necessary. & 3. that Lev. 22. there is a law, by which he that offers them is forbid to offer them maimed or blemisht v. 20. from all which together it appears, that they were voluntary, and yet allowed by by God and accepted. And then I cannot see why there may not be somewhat in Christianity of the same constitution also, voluntary and not particularly imposed, and yet allowed by (and acceptable to) God, Nor why he that doth any such thing, may not be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the oblation or action it self 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Under which head or title I should place whatsoever may by the doctrine of the Gospel appear to be acceptable to Christ; and yet is not commanded by any particular command; or which is commanded for the act, but not for the specification of it to time, or place, or degree, &c.

[§ 30] Of which kind there be many particulars incident, both in the worship of God, and in actions of common life, if it were seasonable to insert them here. I shall only mention one or two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . God commanded not David to build him a Temple, nor to make tender of that service, as will appear 2 Sam. 7.5. &c. Nay professes himself content to live in tents and tabernacles. And yet David's intention to build a Temple for God, that magnificent design of his, though never so much exceeding God's command is very acceptable to God, as appears by Nathan's message to him in that place and Solomon's comment upon it, 1 King. 8.18. Thou didst well that it was in thine heart. In like manner Saint Paul might have received hire for his labor from the Corinthians, but would not, he made the Gospel chargeles to them, and counts and calls this matter of boasting, 2 Cor. 11.9.10. This was a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that Apostle towards his Corinthians.

[§ 31] So again he might have abstained from going up to Jerusalem, Act 21. a Prophet told him that b • nds expected him there, if he went, v. 11. and in that case to fly was justifiable by Mat. 10.23. yet Paul would need go up, v. 13. that was his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 again.

[§ 32] Thus works of mercy or Alms-giving are commanded by God; liberality and largeness of hand and heart commended and promised a liberal reward, 2 Cor. 9.6. Laying by us weekly in store, as God hath prospered us, is by Saint Paul appointed, 1 Cor. 16.2. But then for the quotum, how much every rich man should set apart for this purpose out of his yearly revenue, what proportion of the whole, whether a thirtieth, twentieth, or tenth part, is not at all particularly defined. Or supposing that one of these proportions were defined, namely the thirtieth part every year, (equivalent to the 10 ^th every 3 ^d year, which among the Jews was designed for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the second or poor man's tithing ) yet if I acknowledging this my duty, should yet resolve to exceed this proportion, and set aside a twentieth, or tenth, or fifth part of my estate, this must be acknowledged more then what I am particularly obliged to; and then so much of it as is more, will be my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or free will offering, that now I speak of. Just as among the Jews, that proportion which they were by Law obliged to, was called their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , their righteousness, which he that performed, satisfied the obligation of the Law in that behalf; & that which exceeded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 abundance or excellency of goodness, or mercy, or piety.

[§ 33] In like manner prayer is a Christian duty, part of divine worship; Oral prayer a part of that, and that in the Closet as well as the Congregation.

In the performance of this duly qualified, there is no doubt; but the adjoining of bodily worship, whether of the eye, or hand, or knee, is not only lawful, but acceptable in the sight of God, yet these not commanded particularly by any particular command of Christ, but only avowed by the General commands of glorifying God in our bodies as well as spirits, by the example of approved presidents in the Scripture, &c. Or if any shall conceive these to be under any particular command, then instead of disputing against him, I shall suppose it, and proceed, and instance in prostration as a lowlier and bumbler act of bodily worship then kneeling is, and this not affirmed to be particularly commanded, and so voluntary, yet sure acceptable to God, if it flow from that vehement zeal of spirit and dimission of mind, in confession and sense of sin, that I shall hope it doth, and be not polluted by any appendant vanity, or corruption, more then kneeling might be supposed to be, and then this is a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 again, a free will offering of the same kind also.

[§ 34] So again prayer is a duty commanded and for the frequency of using it incessant continual prayer, i. e. say the learned in proportion to the continual or daily sacrifices among the Jews, prayer morning and evening every day, (or as the word used by Saint Paul, 1 Thes. 5.17. [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] is used by the Author of the first Book of Maccabees, c. 12.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We remember then that every season incessantly, (i. e. as the rest of the verse explains it) both in in our feasts and other convenient days, in the sacrifices, and in our prayers, &c. Not ommitting the daily constant times of prayer and sacrifice.) To these two David and Daniel added a 3 ^d time, and a Christian now may sure do well to improve it in public and private to six or seven times a day; which number though countenanced by David's resolution of [seven times a day will I praise thee.] Yet being not prescribed by Christ will be his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 free will-offering again. The matter of it commanded, to wit, prayer, but not the frequent reiterating of it daily. For if it shall be pretended that the precept of praying incessantly doth particularly design this frequency, I shall answer that the [incessant] so interpreted, doth either require an interupted continued prayer, in that sense as Paul in preaching, continued his speech till midnight, Act. 20.7. (which to affirm is the heresy of the Euchitae; and that which the objector cannot in earnest think himself obliged to; For then ever to give over or intermit, or do anything else, must be acknowledged a sin) or else denotes particularly that definite number of seven times, which if it shall be affirmed, will first be proofelesse, and denied as reasonably as demanded: and then 2. I shall add one time more to my supposition, (and yet so as not to neglect the other duties of my calling) and that will be the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I speak of.

If to all or any of these instances it be excepted or opposed that these may be supposed in Saint Paul, &c. to be incitations and motions of the spirit, disobedience to (and resisting of) [§ 35] which would have been a sin; I answer first that every such free-will offering is not a particular incitation or motion of the spirit, such as was observable in the Prophets of old, or indeed any farther then that signifies an act of a soul first renewed then assisted by the spirit of God. That spirit is a soul to the soul, and is to that as the soul to the body; the body having a soul, and animated by it, moves and works by that principle, and so the soul animated and strengthened by Christ and his spirit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is able to do all things, and actually doth them by the same strength.

[§ 36] Not to enter any deeper into that question, then to this prepresent matter is necessary, that which I mean will be best understood by noting the difference between the grace of sanctification, and the spirit of prophecy so vulgarly known; and I desire it may be extended no farther then one example of David will explain and justify, set down by way of narration, 2 Sam. 7. but repeated more clearly to our purpose, 1 King. 8.17.18. It was (saith Solomon) in the heart of David my father to build an house for the name of the Lord God of Israel, and the Lord said unto David my father, where as it was in thy heart to build an house unto my name, thou didst well that in was in thine heart, Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house. On occasion of this passage I shall ask: was this which was in David's heart, by the incitation of God in the sense that the objector understands incitation, or was it not? If it was, then God incited him to do somewhat which God had determined he should not do; as 'tis plain by the last words, Nevertheless thou shalt not build. 1. I shall in charity hope the Reader will not affirm this that God incites, or inwardly moves to that which he will not have done; therefore the second must be resolved on, that he did not incite; and yet the thing which was in David's heart pleased the Lord, [Thou didst well that it was in thy heart] and thence it follows that what is in good men's hearts, what they resolve and do, may be without this incitation of God's, and yet be acceptable to him, which is the sum of the first part of my answer.

[§ 37] But then 2. I answer that if it be still called an incitation of God, yet having expressed what a kind of incitation it must be, the non-obedience to it will not be a sin; for to make it so, it will be required, 1. That it be expressed to come from God. And 2. That it comes from him sub ration praecepti, under the notion of a precept; whereas this incitation being supposed to be an inarticulate silent motion, not revealed in Scripture, or by voice from Heaven, or as the Prophets were, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , moved or carried by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. 2.21.) or by any other extraordinary way, so as to be clearly intelligible or discernible, whether it be from God or no, much less that it is a precept of God's, it cannot be thus obliging as a precept would be, to which obedience is so due, that non-obedience would be sin.

[§ 38] In brief this voluntary oblation, as every good gift or Christian action, I shall acknowledge to descend from above, from the father of lights; and thereupon David put it into his Thankesgiving or Magnificat, 1 Chron, 29.14. (blessing God that the people offered so willingly. ) But this will not conclude the particular, to which he or they were thus enabled and thus moved or inclined by God to be less, but rather more voluntary, the action being the action of the man, thus willingly doing what he is by God enabled and moved by the spirit, (God working in him both to will and to do, the first by his renewing, the second by his assisting grace) and voluntary working or operating upon that strength and motion, and then all that this infers is the obligation to gratitude, to humility, and not boasting in them that have thus received, but not any kind of obligation to that particular action, for that must suppose a particular command.

[§ 39] And there is great difference between these two, the precept, and the grace. 1. in that the precept belongs (because given) to all, the grace to none but him that hath it, (and not obliging him neither, unless the matter of it be sub praecepto already. i. e. unless the thing to which he is thus moved by the spirit of God, he were otherwise obliged to by some other command. (For in that case it is that Saint Stephens reproof hath place. Act. 7.57. [Ye do always resist the holy Ghost,] which in the case in hand we suppose him not to be) 2. Because it is the design of a precept to lay an obligation, and that sub periculo animae, if it be not obeyed; but of grace not so; but only to strengthen and incline, which he that makes use of as he should, is promised a reward for so doing, more grace here, (according to the parable of the talents concluded with habenti dabitur, ) and a richer crown or reward hereafter; And upon not using of it, threatened particularly with the withdrawing of the grace before given. Take from him the pound, &c. Luk. 19.24. and whereas in Saint Matthew 'tis added [take him and cast him into utter darkness,] 'tis clear by Saint Luk. that there was a precept of occupying. v. 13. to the neglect of which this punishment was apportioned. 2. I shall acknowledge, that the bringing God no return of all his grace, is a great and damning sin. But then thirdly, that comes not home to prove it a sin, to omit the doing of any one particular, in that degree which God's grace enables me to do, there being no obligation in this matter ad semper, or ad gradum to do it always, or to do it in such a degree; though ad speciem (or that the thing be done) there be. For in the parable of the Talents, though the bringing in no increase at all be punished, yet the bringing in increase in a lower degree is accepted, and rewarded according to its proportion; he that had of his pound made five pounds. Luk. 19.18. is rewarded with five Cities, as well as he that had gained ten pounds is rewarded with ten.

[§ 40] If again it be objected, that, all concomitant circumstances considered, nothing remains free and voluntary, and that affirmation proved by this, because in this case prudence added to other Christian rules of piety, mercifullnesse, &c. will require us to do that which is fittest to be done.

[§ 41] To this I answer. 1. That every man is not bound under pain of sin to be prudent, or pious, or merciful in such a degree; there is a great latitude in prudence, and in piety, and in mercifullnesse. I may give so much, as will denominate me merciful, and pray so often as to denominate me pious, and yet be capable of growing in each of these graces; nay I may in prudence give so much to such a man, and yet this not so consist in an indivisible point, but that if I had given less, or given more, it might have been prudent too.

[§ 42] It is, I confess, possible to offend against prudence in too prodigal a giving, as in too parsimonious against piety, and then I shall not justify that imprudence anymore, then excuse that unmercifullnesse, I desire my voluntary oblations may be free from both, but then still the possibility and danger of such faults in the extremes proves not either the unlawfulness or necessity of any other degree which is within those extremes, but still allows a latitude within which one may be more or less merciful, and yet merciful still, yea and prudent too. 2. though prudential considerations do always help to direct us, yet do they not always command or lay obligations upon us, and therefore are still compatible with voluntary oblations.

[§ 43] For if it be affirmed from prudential considerations, that a man (knowing the greatest perfection, to be most gloriously rewarded, and that reward far above all other designs, that to the neglecting of that he may fasten upon,) ought therefore, and is bound to aspire to perfection, and not to content himself with anything but the best. To this I answer, that this whole reasoning is false.

For 1. although prudence would advise one to this, yet doth it not lay any command which hath power of obliging so, as not to obey will be presently sinful; for if any such command be supposed, it ceases to be prudential, and becomes necessary, and mean while by being only prudential, appears to be under no such command.

[§ 45] 2. Though 'tis prudent to use those means which may advance us highest in glory, and though perfection will do that, yet 'twill not be always prudence to undertake the way of perfection, because that being to high steep, may be also a dangerous way, every man cannot receive it, faith the Apostle, and for him that cannot overcome the difficulties to resolve upon the course, may perhaps be precipitious. and even the precept of God may interpose sometimes, and trash us, and make it unlawful for us to aspire to the most perfect estate; as if the discharge of a duty of our calling should a wait us on one side, and an opportunity of Martyrdom on totherside, then in that case obedience will be better then that richest sacrifice; and as Cyprian, though most passionately desirous of Martyrdom, yet on such an occasion avoided it, when he was near it, and, (as Diaconus saith of him,) maluit praeceptis Dei obedire, quam vel sic coronari, he prefer'd the conscience of his duty before the glory of such a crown, so may it be resolved the Christians duty sometimes not to aspire to some perfection.

[§ 46] But then 3. the perfection that we are by Christ commanded to aspire to, is capable of degrees, for if you compare Mat. 5.48. where that precept is given [be ye perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect] with Luk. 6.36. where the same passage is recited, or if you consult the context in either place, you will find that perfection to signify mercifullnesse, and so Mat. 19.21. If thou wilt be perfect, sell all, and give to the poor] which is another argument that that is the meaning of perfection, and then the same degrees that are in mercifullnesse, will be in perfection also. Or if you will not admit of that sense, yet if it be any perfection acquirable in this life, 'twill be capable of degrees and growth also; or if it be not here acquirable, 'tis certainly not under Evangelical precept now, that light, i. e. supportable burden, that rode of not grievous, i. e. possible commands, which he and his grace brought into the world.

[§ 47] As for that ordinary saying that seems so plausible, that every one is bound to do that which is best, it is most discernably false (and that which a world of falsities are built on) which to prove I shall need no farther testimony; then that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.28. (he that giveth in marriage doth well, and he that giveth not, doth better) nor argument then this, that the best being a superlative supposes the positive to be good; whereas if all were bound to do that which is best, that which were only good were evil, for so is that whatever it is, which comes short of what we are bound to.

[§ 48] Once more, if it be objected that whatever is thus performed, is commanded by those large inclusive words [thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, with all t • y soul &c.] nothing being of such latitude, as that the (with all) should not contain it.

[§ 49] I answer, that that phrase denoteth two things only, first sincerity of this love of God, as opposed to partial divided love or service. 2. the loving him above all other things, and not admitting anything into competition with him, not loving anything else in such a degree; and in neither of these respects excluding all other things from a subordinate place in our love; which being supposed, twill be easy to discern that this sincere love of God above all, is capable of degrees, and that it is very possible for two men to love God with all their hearts, i. e. sincerely and above all other things, and so both to obey that precept, and yet one to love him in a more intense degree, then the other doth. (Which may be observed amongst the Angels themselves, the Seraphin being so called, because they are more ardent in Zeal, then other Angels.) Nay for the same person constantly to love God above all, and yet to have higher expressions of that love at one time then another. Thus we read of Christ himself. Luk. 22.24. (who we know did never fail in performing what was man's duty, in prayer, or anything else. Yet) that he at that time prayed more earnestly; which is a demonstrative evidence, that the lower degree is not necessarily sinful, when the higher is acceptable to God. Which when it is granted, there is no doubt, but these free-will-offerings will be reconcilable with that command, and he that loves God withal his heart may have some • ossibility of loving God better the • yet he doth, and so some room left for a voluntary oblation.

[§ 50] I desire to foresee the worst that is imaginable, and therefore though in conscience very guiltless, and free from having any favorable thoughts of the doctrine of supererogation among the Romanists, shall yet conceive it possible for somebody to be so unwary as to add that objection to the former, that this may tend to the asserting of that doctrine, that if it be acknowledged possible for a Christian to do more then he is commanded, he may then supererogate.

[§ 51] To which I answer. 1. That there is great difference between affirming that a man may do more then is commanded, and that he may do something which is not commanded, the former supposes him that doth more, to have done all, whereas the second may be true, though in most or all other things he have been wanting. Now it is the second we assert, not the former; which being supposed,

[§ 52] I answer 2 ^lie . That to supererogate supposeth one of these two things, either that the person spoken of hath paid God all that is due to him, by way of perfect obedience, i. e. hath never sinned. Or 2. That having sinned and so become a debtor to God, he hath paid that debt by satisfaction, i. e. done something else which may satisfy God for his former sins, the latter of which is the way which the Romanists pitch upon, and not contenting themselves with the satisfaction wrought by Christ, teach doctrine of their own satisfaction, which, say they, they may perform so far, as not only to satisfy for their own sins, but also to do more then so, help toward the raising of a bank, or treasure for others also, and that is it they mean by superogating.

[§ 53] Now from either of these our present doctrine is perfectly free; for 1. it supposeth no perfect obedience, but willingly yieldeth as much of the corruption of our nature, and of our daily failings and trespasses, as ever any Catholic affirmed against Pelagius. And 2. Supposing every man to have sinned, it pretendeth not to the least degree of satisfaction to God for any the least • one to be wrought by any means, but only th • sufferings of Christ, and so is out of all possibility of thinking to supererogate, acknowledging so heavy an arreare of sin lying unremoveably upon every ones score, if God be not mercifully pleased to accept of Christ's sufferings for perfect satisfaction, that there is nothing compasseable by us, or within one reach; that can satisfy for any the least sin we have committed; and from thence 3. forbiddeth any the most justified man to pretend toward satisfying for others; but to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling, i. e. with all the humility in the world.

[§ 54] If I could foresee any farther scruples or difficulties in this matter, I should be as free in producing them, as in these I have been, and find no reason to fear, but that by God's help I should be able to satisfy them also. In the mean, till by the face of this paper I be farther instructed, I have no temptation to importune or detain the Reader any farther, then with my prayers for him, that the Lord give him a right understanding in all things.