But as to our present case, I must thus resolve the Question, Whether one can be religiously wise and righteous overmuch? And I Answer, That we must distinguish between, 1. Material and Formal Righteousness. 2. Between Objective and Subjective measures of it. 3. Of the good and bad consequents and effects. And 1. no man can be formally and properly too wise or too righteous. Else it would charge God with Error: ⟨p. 72⟩For formal proper Righteousness is nothing but our Conformity to God's governing Will. And if our Obedience were too much, and to be blamed, God's commands were to be blamed, that required it. But very strict actions are commonly called Righteousness, as a written Prayer or words are called a Prayer, though properly wanting the Form, it is not so. And not only a good Object, but a right End, Principle, and Mode, and Circumstances, go to make an Action righteous. 2. That Action which compared with the Object cannot possibly be overwise and righteous, yet as compared with the Agent, or Subject, may be too much: No man can know, believe, or love God too much, nor answerable to his Perfections. But one may possibly be transported with so earnest a desire of God, Christ, Christian Society, Holiness and Heaven, as may be more than Head and Health can bear: And so it may be too much for the subject. 3. Therefore the probable effects must be weighed. He that should meditate, read, yea love God so intensely as to distract him, would to it overmuch. He that would do a good work precisely, when the exactness would hinder the substance of another, perhaps a better, would be righteous overmuch. And I thought this the case sometime of my dear Wife; 1. She set her Head and Heart so intensely upon doing good, that her Head and Body would hardly bear it. As holy set Meditation is no Duty to a Melancholy person that cannot do it without confusion and danger of distraction; so many other Duties are no Duties, when they will do more harm than good. 2▪ And a man is limited in his Capacity and his Time: No man ⟨p. 73⟩can do all the good he would; and to omit a greater for the better doing of a lesser, or to omit the substance of the one for exacter doing of another, I thought was to be unrighteous by being righteous overmuch. She (and some others) thought I had done better to have written fewer Books, and to have done those few better.
But as to our present case, I must thus resolve the Question, Whether one can be religiously wise and righteous overmuch? And I Answer, That we must distinguish between, 1. Material and Formal Righteousness. 2. Between Objective and Subjective measures of it. 3. Of the good and bad consequents and effects. And 1. no man can be formally and properly too wise or too righteous. Else it would charge God with Errour: ⟨p. 72⟩For formal proper Righteousness is nothing but our Conformity to God's governing Will. And if our Obedience were too much, and to be blamed, God's commands were to be blamed, that required it. But very strict actions are commonly called Righteousness, as a written Prayer or words are called a Prayer, though properly wanting the Form, it is not so. And not only a good Object, but a right End, Principle, and Mode, and Circumstances, go to make an Action righteous. 2. That Action which compared with the Object cannot possibly be overwise and righteous, yet as compared with the Agent, or Subject, may be too much: No man can know, believe, or love God too much, nor answerable to his Perfections. But one may possibly be transported with so earnest a desire of God, Christ, Christian Society, Holiness and Heaven, as may be more than Head and Health can bear: And so it may be too much for the subject. 3. Therefore the probable effects must be weighed. He that should meditate, read, yea love God so intensly as to distract him, would to it overmuch. He that would do a good work precisely, when the exactness would hinder the substance of another, perhaps a better, would be righteous overmuch. And I thought this the case sometime of my dear Wife; 1. She set her Head and Heart so intensly upon doing good, that her Head and Body would hardly bear it. As holy set Meditation is no Duty to a Melancholy person that cannot do it without confusion and danger of distraction; so many other Duties are no Duties, when they will do more harm than good. 2▪ And a man is limited in his Capacity and his Time: No man ⟨p. 73⟩can do all the good he would; and to omit a greater for the better doing of a lesser, or to omit the substance of the one for exacter doing of another, I thought was to be unrighteous by being righteous overmuch. She (and some others) thought I had done better to have written fewer Books, and to have done those few better.
