true onely of things in the second Table but not of worship in the first for there All worship is unlawful that is not commanded He blames the practice of Casuists in reducing all sins to some of the ten Commandments of the Decalogue here and all not commanded is forbidden And his reason added to that proposition Else there were no universal truth in that Maxime that sin is the transgression of the Law will twice rebound upon himself 1. That he himself hath shaken the universal truth of that Maxime in this very Section pag. 35. n. 11. I leave it to prudent consideration what necessity there is that all Lawes natural and positive Divine should be reduced to one or more of the ten Commandments If no necessity of this certainly there may be some sins which are no transgressions of the Law of the Decalogue for of that the Apostle spake but of that by and by 2. The next concernment is his He sayes uncommanded worship is forbidden and so a transgression of some Law by what Law of the Decalogue is the question which will come presently into consideration p. 34. n. 8. But as for those sayings of some of the Ancients That some men do exceed commands It unseasonably comes in here and we shall meet with it hereafter All I say at present is this 1. That they must be understood to mean it of particular not the general command of loving God with all the heart and strength or 2. Of commands of the second Table not commands of the first or 3. Of some Circumstances of worship not worship it self worship not commanded for then the Doctor himself would oppose them as Adders of New worship And therefore this Instance is far from conviction of what he was to prove My first proof of his contradiction in adjecto n. 10. was this It 's expresly against the 2. Commandment which forbids all worship not expresly commanded by God I must to use the Doctors words here not complain of my eyes because they are the best that God hath given me but I am sure the second repetition of expresly is not to be seen in my words But let him put it in if it may give him any advantage For I think he will not deny the latter part that God forbids all worship not expresly commanded by himself It is the former that he quarrels That uncommanded worship is expresly forbidden in the second Commandment The word expresly was added with respect to the Judgement of our most and best reformed Divines who understand the second Commandment in the Affirmative part thus God must be worshipped with his own prescribed worship the Negative whereof is All unprescribed uncommanded worship is forbidden Little did I dream of the Doctors Gloss of the second Commandment which is purely his own for ought I ever read or heard of which by and by For he sayes What is expresly against the second Commandment should oppose some express words in it If it oppose the express or truely expressed sense of it methinks it should be sufficient Let 's try that his words are these My Optick glass will not afford me any such prospect in the second Commandment What prospect does it afford him All sorts of graven Images and such like but for all kindes and Circumstances of worship nothing First kindes and Circumstances of worship are ill coupled together for Circumstances are no where forbidden in any Commandment but kindes are surely forbidden in some Commandment 2. When he sayes All sort of Images and such like He might have seen all kindes of worship like unto Images the imaginations of men there forbidden had his Optick glass been made of the same Christal that other Divines are And I wonder how at first view he espied such like there when as at his second review See p. 43. n. 4. Append. on 2. Commandment he saw no more but a prohibition of Idol-worship p. 44. n. 8. Yet in a former view saw cleerly this truth That God must be worshipped in a manner peculiar to him and appointed by him And yet more The very use of any other thing in the service of God which is by others worshipped and by which we are in any eminent danger to be corrupted as we are by any new devised worship is to be conceived to be forbidden to all Christians by the force of that second Commandment And yet hear how he concludes this Number As for any general comprehensive phrase that can rationally contain a prohibition of all worship Sir which is not commanded I can say no more but that the first verse of Genesis or any other in the Bible hath as much of this to my eye as the second Commandment What a vast difference there is between an eye calm and clear and the same eye overdrawn with a cataract of prejudice What other men see in the second Commandment we shall hear anon We now go on The Doctor hath spied by his Optick glass something more then other men do or can see the cause of my mistake in this matter It is p. 35. n. 11. the solemn practise of some Casuists to reduce all sins in the world to some or other of the Commandments of the Decalogue wherin I am not sure that they have aim'd aright c. Truly I must profess that I have believed since I knew the Commandments and what sin is that all sins are reducible to some or other of the Commandments of the Decalogue Sin sayes Saint John is the transgression of the Law which the Doctor calls an universal Maxime above and if it be not some way a transgression of that law it is no sin So here 's another contradiction in adjecto to say a thing is a sin and no transgression of the Law Herein the Doctor is singular again and runs gross to all Divines that I know of but not without a shew of reason For separate gluttony and drunkenness as they may and yet be sins from some accidentall consequences of them and you will hardly tell whether to reduce the Intemperate use of the Creature This is pretry untempered mortar for first those sins of gluttony and drunkenness cannot be separated from some accidental ill consequences or other wasting of health is but one of them Yet he sayes they may 2. It is an old Rule in interpreting the Commandments That where any sin is forbidden all the causes effects degrees c. are forbidden with it But the Doctor regards no such old Rules 3. Though it be hard to which Commandment directly to reduce some sins yet it 's possible and easie upon the former Rule to reduce some sins to many Commandments As ergo drunkenness and gluttony as they are means to self-murther and murther of others sometimes are reducible to the sixth Commandment As Incentives of lust to the seventh As wasters of a mans estate to the eighth And some say The Intemperate use of the Creatures is reducible
there neither can any man reduce Instituted-worship thither Will it follow because I must have the Lord for my God therefore I must Worship him with Sacrifices as of old or with Sacraments as now Indeed Natural-worship belongs to this Commandment to love fear trust in our God c. but as the matter of it flowing from the principal object God alone for our God and thus Divines distinguishing of Worship into natural and instituted do reduce the first sort to the first Commandment the latter to the second but still making the first Comandment principally to respect a Right object Hear some of them speak their own sense The first Commandment hath three things in it 1. We must have a God 2. Him for our God 3. Him alone and none else Sure this is some new Casuist and Ordinary Divinity as the Doctor calls all but his own No it is the Learned Renowned Bishop of Winchester in his Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine on the first Commandment pag. 141. I shall adde to him another very Pious Learned in the Doctors own Judgement the Archbishop of Armach Here is commanded 1. The having of a God 2. One onely God 3. The true God and no other for our God c. Body of Divinity p. 214. But hear his own gloss What is the general importance of that 1. Precept That we must acknowledge the God of Israel to be God and resolve there is no other God before or beside him But see the force of Truth Dr. Hammond Pract. Catech. Append. on 1. Command compelling her adversaries to confute themselves Hear what the Doctor sayes here The Superstition forbidden in that Commandment is not any extreme or excess of worshipping the true God but the taking in other rivals to that Worship which belongs to the true God incommunicably and so is the matter of the Negative part not the nimiety of the Affirmative Is not this to confess 1. That the principal matter of the first Commandment is a right object God alone without any rivals 2. That there may be Superstition and excess in that Commandment if not in the Affirmative part yet in the Negative part there may yet the Doctor would acknowledge no excess to be Superstition or Superstition to be excess in Religion In the second p. 43. n. 4. there is not sayes he a word to determine the matter of it to Commanded worship as hath been evidenced beyond all question Let him look back to what I have said already to it and he will finde his evidence to be very questionable if not none at all ad pag. 34. n. 10. Having there glossed that Commandment thus God must be worshipped in a manner peculiar to him and appointed by him I suppose the Doctor intended it of instituted Worship whereof God himself must appoint the Materials and is not that to determine in general the matter of that Commandment But if that be not what is the Subject of the 2. Commandment in the Doctors new Divinity It is the prohibition of Idol-worship and bending the knee to the true God and none else observing of Christmas c. are remote enough from that guilt Oh! how Jealous is the Doctor lest his Christmas should suffer as superstitious by the second Commandment Truly he needed not to fear it if he do not make it a part of instituted Worship by the will of man But let that pass Is the prohibition of Idol-worship onely the Subject of that Commandment that he must say or he says nothing yet that he cannot well say without contradiction to what he said afore that part of the sense and scope of that Commandment was That God must appoint his own Worship which sure is not onely in prohibition of Idol-worship And yet see the luck of it his own words the Doctor askes n. 8. p. 44. what is the Affirmative part of the second Commandment or how can it be evidenced that there is any or any more indeed than a probibition of Idol-worship appendant to the no other Gods in the first Commandment c. But first the Doctor gave us the Affirmative part of it just now God must appoint his own worship And 2. if there be no more in it then a prohibition of Idol-worship let the Doctor do himself so much favour as to reconcile himself to himself for they are at a vast distance For the Affirmative part he hath found it upon a second reveiw If an affirmative part be to be understood must it not be howing down to the true God c. Be it so though that as part of natural Worship may fall into the first Commandment yet that 's not all but also that God must appoint every part of his own Worship as is confessed But 3. One thing must not be forgotten That he makes Idol worship here forbidden An appendant to the first Commandment no other Gods And if so the Doctor hath lost the second Commandment as well as Papists have by joyning it to the first as an appendant to it For he told us but a little afore num 3. The Superstition forbidden in that Commandment is the taking in other rivals to that worship c. And now he sayes The Prohibition of Idol-worship is an appendant to that no other Gods in the first Commandment But say I an Idol or Image worshipped is a rival to that Worship which belongs to the true God incommunicably ergo Idol-worship is forbidden in the first Commandment and so our Catechist hath joyned with Papists and lost the second Commandment I adde for a close of this The Doctor hath assigned the Affirmative part of the second Commandment to be That God must appoint his own worship Now I demand as a Disciple or Learner of the Doctor what is the Negative part that answers to that Affirmative must it not be this No man must prescribe or Worship God by any kind of Worship but what he hath appointed That very gloss of the Doctors I put in my Margine in Will-worship sect 1. p. 45. I turned to the place in this Account to see what he said to it and he wisely waves it infra pag. 99. n. 15. Onely he forgot what he had said here and contradicts himself by yielding an Affirmative and Negative part of that Commandment which he here denied but of that more when we come at it But because this Divinity of mine is too old or too new for the Doctor That the Subject of the second Commandment is a right matter of Worship Of which the Doctor cannot see one word there I shall gratifie him with two eminent Catechists Judgements of the sum and scope of that Commandment whom I hope he will not undervalue The first is the Bishop of Winchester who thus instructs his Catechumene in the sense of this Commandment Pattern of Caâ—e Chist doct p. 196. on 2. Commandment The precept prescribeth two things 1. That for his honour in outward Worship he will have
place attending on any Act of it they will never be called Justice with any propriety Where 1. he leaves out whether negligently or willingly the other word Ceremonies For there may be some Ceremonies also in Publique Justice the Formalities of the Judges and Court c. He should have told us whether those may in any propriety be called Justice as Ceremonies in Religion are by some called and made Worship 2. He should now apply this distinction and illustration and tell us what now he meanes by Worship whether the vertue or some Act or degree frequency of it or the Ceremonies that is the circumstances of time and place if he mean the latter onely Circumstances of time and place as it is not comprehended in the word VVill-worship so it is not controverted between us as hath oft been said in the other Tract If he mean the former let him consider that he confutes himself from the beginning of this Discourse who maintains VVill-worship Uncommanded-worship men Devised-worship not VVill-ceremonies or VVill-circumstances of VVorship time or place which can with no more propriety be called VVorship then the same or the like Ceremonies or Circumstances in exercising of Justice can be called Justice But he is no less confused in the next for he says Secondly for the other part of the word will or choice of man it may be of four sorts distinguishable by the matter willed 1. When it is forbidden by God 2. Commanded but not ad semper 3. Left free 4. When though not indifferent nor forbidden but good in an high degree yet not under particular precept and so omitted without sin c. But here 's confusion enough 1. VVho ever distinguished the faculty of Will which is but one into four sorts according to the objects or matter of the things willed 2. Will in this word must be referred onely to Worship Will-worship which is either commanded or forbidden there 's none left indifferent 3. That there should be any thing which is neither indefferent nor forbidden nor commanded and yet good in an high degree is to me a mystery and some of the Doctors new Divinity It helps him not to say It is not under particular precept For if it be under a general precept it is under precept and so pro hic nunc as they say cannot be omitted without sin and if then done how it can be highly rewardable by God eo nomine because not under particular precept I am yet to seek of which more hereafter 4. His particular instances are nothing to the present purpose which is of the Will with relation to Worship and none of his instances are of Worship but other things We enquire what Will signifies in the word Will-worship whether it import willingness in commanded Worship or willing and instituting Worship not commanded To which all that distinction and discourse of the Doctor sayes nothing Onely he takes occasion from the last part of his distinction to empty his Note-book of what he had read of that notion of things good in an high degree neither indifferent nor forbidden nor commanded and yet highly rewardable by God wherein I shall not now follow him but consider it in a place more fit for it where we shall meet with it again We shal attend his application of that distinction n. 6. for the 5. p. 96. n. 6. is lost or rather his no-application of it for he tells us nothing in which of those four senses he takes the word will but comes presently to the word in composition the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will-worship to distinguish of that and then tell us in what sense he does not or does take it And to confound us the more hath found out six wayes or things which it may denote 1. The performing any sort of worship to God forbidden by him which yet is not truly but equivocally called Worship c. Where I observe first That any sort of Worship forbidden by God is Will-worship and consequently Superstition and so Worship of Daemons is not the onely Superstition which the Doctor was very loath to grant in his former Tract 2. How warily he speaks which yet is not truely Worship but equivocally It 's sufficient first that the offerers think it truly Worship and then I would ask is not false Worship truly called Worship if Worship be properly distinguished into true and false as several species thereof as it is by the Doctor hereafter But we go on 2. The using any Ceremony in Gods Worship which is forbidden c. Now for these two the Doctor sayes He must readily acknowledge p. 97. n. 8. Was not the Worshipping of Angels a Wil-worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and forbidden they are criminous and he pleads not for them nor are they capable of that title of Will-worship But first Worship forbidden by God and devised and instituted by the meer Will of man may well be capable of the title of Will-worship but forbidden Worship is Worship devised instituted by the meer Will of man s 1. may well be called Will-worship 2. Worship not commanded by God or uncommanded Worship is forbidden by God as hath often been said proved ergo all uncommanded Worship that is set up by the meer will of man is criminous may well be called Will-worship 3. Ridiculous and unprofitable Ceremonies which though no where forbidden severally by God yet by their multitude become an hinderance to devotion a yoke too heavy for Christians What thinks he of these He professes his dislike of them p. 97. n. 9. yet thinks it not applicable to the notion of the word in the Apostle but rather to that in Epiphanius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superfluity of Will-worship where still the fault is the superfluity c. and not the Vncommandedness of them Enough hath been said to this in the former Tract But I adde first The multitude orsuperfluity of Ceremonies made parts of Worship by men as they were by the Pharisees and are by Papists may well be capable of the title of Will-worship 2. The fault is not then onely the Superfluity for any one Ceremony made Worship by the Will of man Ceremony in common acception signifies external VVorship and being appointed by men any one is a Nimiety and Criminous as was said above is a Superfluity and too much and so criminous as Will-worship 3. Epiphanius taxes the Pharisees not onely for their superfluity of Ceremonies but for their Will-worship in them The Doctor then must not beg and take the word will-Will-worship in a good sense and talk of Superfluity of will-Will-worship 4. If these superfluous ridiculous Ceremonies be not applicable to the word in the Apostle Col. 2.23 Why does he make this one sense or one species of will-Will-worship Surely superfluous Ceremonies are one species of Superstition in the judgement not onely of others but of the Doctor himself in the former Tract and being imposed by the
imposed to foretell Christ to come did now pertain no longer to the Law of God but to the doctrines and precepts of men who teach them still to be observed So Chrysost Theophyl and others 3. The Greek Interpreters give another That the Apostle hath respect to the humane Institutions and Traditions of the Pharisees mixt with the Precepts of God For the Apostle says not only touch not but handle not which because it differs from the former seemes to be referred to some other things the touching whereof was forbidden not by the law but by the tradition of men And to this last he rather inclines But he never took the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie things imposed as commands of God but as the commands of men Cur sinitis vos regi praeceptis doctrinis humanis As touch not c. But if the Doctor had considered my question what it was they imposed by those ordinances and doctrines was it not a way of worshipping God by those * Abstinences and false worships p. 111. n. 10. They commended them as acts of voluntary worship and so to be acceptable to God p. 123. n. 3. Abstinences touch not c. He would have given an answer or an evasion and have said yea or no If he should say no they did not impose those Abstinences as a way of Worship or as worship the text would confute him for all those legal abstinences were parts of worship to the Jewes which these false teachers would have so continued If he should say yea they did so impose them then it 's evident that though they might impose them as Divine Commands yet the main crime would be their setting up or continuing a worship of God which Christ had abrogated therefore the Doctor overlookt it and said nothing The danger therefore was that they were but Commandments and Doctrines of men or if held out as Gods placing the worship of God in those observances which either he never commanded or were now out-dated Yet the Doctor is at his old fence p. 113. n. 6. If they placed worship in them in this sense that they did or taught them as parts of Gods commanded worship 't is the very thing I placed the danger in If they delivered them as their own doctrines they did not then place any part of Gods commanded worship in them Enough hath been said to this in the former Section I onely ask what makes the word commanded here Let him propound it thus as I did If they placed worship in them whether commanded or not commanded is not material was there no danger and destructiveness in them for that But the second part is false upon a false supposition that a man cannot place worship in things but he must teach them as commanded by God But here 's one thing new If they taught them as such things which though not commanded by God would yet be acceptable to him still after abolisht by Christ then they taught that which had no truth in it for such kindes of abstinencies are not now valued by God To which I say 1. This will recoil upon himself For he hath said the danger was onely that they taught them as Commandments of God which otherwise had been innocent things in sect 5. of VVill-wor but now he sayes they had taught that which had no truth in it though they taught them as such things as would be acceptable to God though not commanded by him And is it no crime to teach untruths 2. It falls on him once more For he doth teach many things his will-worship to be acceptable to God which he hath not commanded yea the more acceptable because not commanded then he teaches that which hath no truth in it for such abstinences of worship are not now * But more real acts of self-denial mortifying of lusts set up in their stead as here he sayes yet he highly values those very abstinences as after Infra pag. 129. n. 8. See p. 119. n. 15. valued by God who will be worshipped with his own commanded Worship If he will say he does not make them worship that shall be tried hereafter Sect. 7. And now we are come to the 23. verse c. NOt to trouble my self or Reader with every minute exception and his flashes of wit I shall speak onely to the main differences And 1. a word in vindication of those pious men that opposed some not all Ceremonies of our Church upon these two premises p. 114. n. 1. 1. That will-worship is a sin 2. That the using of Ceremonies not commanded by God was will-worship For the first of these that will-worship that is worship devised by men is a sin and a great one I know none Protestant or Papist that deny it except the Doctor and perhaps not he For the other those men that said Ceremonies not commanded by God are will-worship they meant it onely of such as they thought were made parts of Gods Worship and in this sense I believe the Doctor will call them superstitious though he will not allow them to be Will-worship 2. He opposes onely the possibility of the word used onely in this text to be taken in a good sense The task lies upon me the opponent he sayes to prove my Affirmative that will-Will-worship is criminous But I having made it visible that the word is not taken in a good sense here both by the judgement of almost all Divines and some reasons beside I may now at least charge him with begging the question still to plead for a good sense This discourse will make it more improbable if not impossible to be taken in a good sense in due time 3. In the mean time we shall consider his Interpretation of the verse Which things have some true at least appearing notion of wisdom in them I proved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signified not a reality but a shew of wisdom by the Authority of all Interpreters and I believe the Doctor in his own conscience did believe or now doth that it doth not signifie any reality or truth of wisdom yet how willingly would he have it so signifie Hear first his confessions p. 111 n. 10. p. 117. n. 10. See p. 120. n. 19. Will wor. s 7.12 p. 103. n. 3. shew or reality c p. 115. n. 3. He sayes it twice It was but a shew it was but a shew no reality of wisdom And hereafter p. 117. n. 10. I acknowledge it was but a shew of wisdom And in other places the like why then did he put in some true We have his excuse and his willingness yet to have it so the better to make Will-worship seem to be taken in a good sense In case it should here signifie the former some true notion of wisdom then 't is unavoidably evident that Will-worship must be taken in a good not ill sense But what if it signifie the latter as he sayes he acknowledges it
day to be no sin I intended it ad bominem to the Doctor supposing and making the day to be an Holy-day and part of Worship as the Sabbath and Paschal day were wherein to mistake the day was criminous Yet let the Doctor consider how near he and others have been to sin upon the mistake of the day in the Collect for Christmas day they used to pray thus Almighty God which hast given us this day thy Son to be born of a pure Virgin c. If Christ was not born on this day as it 's very uncertain is not this a manifest untruth telling it not onely to men but to God too in their holy Prayers But enough of that The Superstition and Will-worship are the crimes that were charged upon his observation of the Festival oftentimes before and here more fully and directly but the Doctor will take no notice of it but leaps over five or six leaves together p. 264. n. 14 And mark how he excuses this omission What Superstition is charged by Chemnitius on Papists observation of their Holy-dayes is all answered before it be produced by this consideration that Chemnitius allows this and other Festivals which is all he contended for who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of Papists But first though Chemnitius did allow of his Festivals yet not of his Superstition in the observation of them any more in him then in Papists 2. The Doctor hath taken upon him to be advocate for some Festivals which are in the Papists Calendar at least as well as in ours in England and pleads for them with the same arguments that they do 3. The same Superstitions charged upon Papists observation of their Holy-days are by me there charged upon some yea many amongst us in some of those particulars and the instances are all taken out of the Doctors Tract of Festivals and so intended him for one of the guilty persons but because it seems I did not name the Doctor he takes no notice of all this I shall therefore now charge home and lay it so in his way as between two walls that he cannot avoid the seeing of it unless he will tergiversari turn back or else fly over all as formerly he hath done or rather which I wish fall down before the Truth and give Glory to God But before I come to demonstrate that the Doctor is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned of those two crimes I desire it may be remembred first That I having set down several Species of Superstition p. 6. s 5 c. and most of them taken out of the Doctor himself in his Tract of Superst he puts in no exception against them but seemes if silence be consent to grant them all Some at least he assents to in this discourse p. 30. n. 30. 32. 2. That here again I having shewed the several ways of the Superstition charged by Chemnitius on the observation of Holy-days by the Papists and applied them in particular to himself he neither gives consent to them by his silence or willfully declines to vindicate himself from the charge For if he could not assent unto them it concern'd him to have denied and opposed them in both the places as dangerous grounds to conclude against his own opinion and practice and had given me occasion thereby to confirm them by Reason and Testimonies of Orthodox Divines which being not by him done I might the rather take them as granted and onely borrow the propositions from him and leave him or the Reader to make up the conclusion as thus first To place more holiness in days then God hath placed in them is superstitious So Chemnitius asserts so I laid it down Superst Sect. 10. and it is generally the judgement of our Divines upon this sufficient reason because God onely can Sanctifie things or times for the Sanctifying of those that use them This is thus far yeilded by the Dr. himself That to place more holiness in them then is due to them is faulty Superst s 50. If I count it holy in that degree then I offend not implying if he did more he then offended and being there provoked by me to shew what degrees of holiness a Church or Person puts upon things or times he again waves it in his last as able to asign none and then the proposition is undeniable To place holiness or more holiness in dayes then God hath placed in them is Superstitious But the Doctor and his Symmists places holiness in days where God hath placed none and more then God hath placed in them That God hath placed no Holiness in his Festival is confessed by denying Christ or his Apostles to have instituted it Of Fest Sect. 28 77. That he places holiness in it appears by his own words when he says The day is to be esteemed above other days of the year Lords days too it seems consecrating it from common to sacred uses Ibid. s 59. that for his opinion and judgement And that in practice he placed more at least equal holiness in it with the Lords day he confesses That the day hath been observed if not much more certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year c. Sect. 24. Yea more strictly said I with more solemn services with stricter cessation from sports then on the Lords day on which sports were permited but no touching of Cards or Dice that day Ibid. The Assumption then is justified the Doctor does place more holiness in his Festivals then God hath placed in it Therefore he is Superstitious 2. To esteem the observation of that day and the services done on that day to be better more pleasing and acceptable to God than the observation of any other day the Lords day it self and then the services done on other days is a superstitious vanity So Chemnitius So I asserted Superst s 13. to which the Doctor enters no discent or if he should I would thus confirm it because it fastens some promise on Christ which he hath not made in the Gospel The Drs. own words in a like case Superst s 45. But the Doctor esteems the observation of that day and the services done on that day to be better more pleasing and acceptable to God then c. For the observation of the day he makes it a Free-will-offering to dedicate and consecrate the day to God and asserts of the Institution of it See this account p. 197. n. 4. p. 229. n. 14. more and greater acceptance c. It is more then lawful pious in it self Sect. 77 And the services to be more acceptable to God then on other days results from his frequent assertion That such services being not commanded are the more acceptable because voluntary So he says When in the service of God a man out of a pious affection shall do any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept this action of his is to be accounted so much more
of worshipping God that is not delivered from God nor from the holy Ghost by the Church but is invented by the will of man is superstitious Now if we take out but those words by the Church which is the very question betwixt them and Protestant Divines betwixt the Doctor and me whether the Church hath such authority to institute Ceremonies unless the Doctor will agree with them that the Institutions of the Church are from the Holy Ghost and Divine which yet he hath not asserted though he comes very near it as we shall hear below the former part of those words will conclude him guilty of Superstition in the judgement of a Jesuite Every Rite of worshipping God that is not delivered from God but invented by the will of man is superstitious Let the Doctor himself then state the question p. 99. n. 5. The controversie belongs onely to the Circumstances of time place gesture of the Churches appointing or voluntary observing thus he does it p. 85. n. 7. Whether every devised Rite or Ceremony not commanded by God be superstitious The affirmative whereof a Jesuite hath asserted for me and unless the Doctor equivocate in the words Ceremony or Rite and say he understands it of a Circumstance onely he cannot possibly escape the guilt of Superstition And this I foresee will be the onely Loop-hole whereout he will creep either making all Ceremonies but Circumstances of worship or all Circumstances of worship to be Ceremonies partly because it 's true that some in themselves considered Circumstances were by God made also Ceremonies or part of their Ceremonial worship as the Temple and Festivals and partly because I finde him thus evading hereafter p. 87. n. 13. The time or place when instituted by God himself is as truly a Circumstance of worship as when instituted by man c. Of which more in it's place at present I say Time and Place in their own nature are but meer Circumstances it 's the Institution of God that makes them Ceremonies or Ceremonial worship but I think the Doctor will not say so of the Institutions of the Church or if he do he will be self-confuted grant them that some Ceremonies are also Circumstances of worship yet are not all Circumstances also Ceremonies which they must be if the Doctor take them both for the same thing and this discovers his Ambiguities Equivocation and confusion in the several terms by him used of Rites Ceremonies Circumstances as Synonyma's in this discourse A second miscarriage here is that he takes for granted by his Adversaries That the use of Ceremonies when they are Significative may be allowed among Christians For so he sayes p. 7. n. 5. If the Disputers will but yield this that even when they are significative the use of Ceremonies may be allowed among Christians I shall then give my vote that they be paucae salubres c. Which he knows or may know they peremptorily deny except in such cases as I expressed sect 29. of Superstition To which the Doctor sayes just nothing having so fair an occasion offered him And if he take the word Ceremony for a Rite of worshipping God that is in the ordinary language of Divines for a part of worship as any one instituted by men will prove a Nimiety Excess and Superstition and not the multitude onely as he often asserts so in that notion by a part of worship himself hath renounced every Ceremony of mans devising and adding 3. n. 6. By granting they ought to be few one would think he granted there may be too many Ceremonies in a Church in Religion and then an excess in Religion and so the observers too Religious No sayes be this is no way a yielding a possibility that a man may be too Religious but when too many Ceremonies are accompanied with inward neglects there is not too much but too little Religion c. And why not both too much Religion in multitude of Ceremonies contrary to the Simplicity of Gospel worship too little in the neglect of inward duties certain it is those many Ceremonies are made Religious and are used in Religion the worship of God therefore the observers are too Religious and there may be and is an excess in Religion as his insectile Animals have too many legs but too little blood and so no calumnie proved For for want of a distinction he hides himself in equivocal termes in one sense he cannot be too Religious in another he may 1. To which purpose p. 8. n. 1. I gave a double distinction which he calls rather a perplexing then clearing the way I wonder with what eyes the Doctor looks upon other mens distinctions do's it not seem a paradox that a man may be too Religious in his Service of God to whom all is due needs it not an explication or distinction to clear it Did not the great School-man distinguish upon this proposition That Superstition is an excess in Religion Is not my first the same with his at least in sense A man cannot give God more worship then he deserves but he may give him more then he requires and his Will is the Rule of our worship But he excepts The two last members of both his distinctions are the same so too much a Tautology n. 2. and that is a Nimietie The Doctor was disposed to be merry and to shew his wit but sure there 's no great wisdom in this exception For 1. Are not both the distinctions true in themselves considered assunder if the former parts of them be distinct and not the same as they are not the distinctions are distinct and clear enough 2. The second proceeds by way of gradation upon the former that worship which God requires is either natural and there a man can hardly be too Religious or Instituted and there a man doing more then God requires may be too Religious that is In uncommanded worship the least addition of worship is too much and such a man may be said to be too Religious which are my words is not this plain enough The third and fourth number are spoken to already The next exception is His difference betwixt natural and instituted worship p. 9. n. 5. in this respect of Nimietie is perfectly vain and useless c. I pray why so is there not a difference between Natural and Instituted worship As also in respect of Nimietie that there can be no excess or very rarely in natural worship as in love filial fear trust in God c. but in Instituted there may a man may adde worship of his own to that which is commanded by God But his exceptions are useless and needless being but a strife of words First he sayes n. 6. Prayer is as properly a branch of natural worship as love or fear or trust being first inseparable from trust 2. A necessary and natural means of acknowledging Gods fulness and our wants 3. Containing under it thansgiving
service of God thinking he shall do God good service is not this an excess in Religion and doth not such a man serve God too much as well as too little exceed and yet come short and so in one sense too Religious The second ground of the Doctors miscarriages I said was That he is of opinion that excess in Religion p. 20. n. 2. is not well called Superstition c. To this charge he cryes not guilty and consulting his 27. sect and not finding it there disclaims it But he might conceive an error in the figure 27. for 30. or that I meant not to limit my speech to sect 27. putting an c. after it which might reach further yet that the Doctor is unwilling to grant An excess in Religion to be Superstition or Superstition to be an excess in Religion may reasonably be collected thus 1. Because he denies peremptorily and that often any excess at all in Religion how then can Superstition be an excess in Religion c. 2. That he defines Superstition by Superstitum cultus sect 2. Superstition in Latine is most clearly the worship of some departed from this world c. As if this comprehended the full and whole nature of Superstition which I opposing we shall see anon what he answers to it 3. Yea more then this at his 30. sect having himself started the objection That Superstition may and doth in some Authentick writers signifie a nimiety or excess in Religion He makes his return by way of opposition in four particulars the second whereof is this For Christian writers the use of a word in this or that sense is so slight and casual that not sufficient to fasten an ill character on it The third is this That those Authors who seem to come home to the point are so few or so modern and of so small authority that scarce worth producing The 4. calls it This supposed nimiety or excess in matters of Religion Would not any Reader conclude from hence that it is the Doctors opinion That Superstitin is not an exeess in Religion nor excess in Religion Superstition Opposing herein the School-mans definition He therefore now will do that which he should have done before distinguish upon excess in Religion and promises to deal plainly p. 21 n. 3. and without all ambiguity Which belike he did not before Thus he sayes If by excess of Religion he understand the doing of any thing in the worship of God which Gods word doth not command the onely thing in controversie then I stick not to deny that this is Superstition or that Superstition imports this excess But he knowes he varies the question this is not the controversie Whether the doing of any thing in the worship of God be Superstition c. What then If he shall flic to any other sort of excess and contend that to be it it is the fallacy of ambiguities c. He should have said If he understand the adding of any worship not commanded to the rule of worship Then I grant this to be Superstition and excess but he hides himself in that ambiguous phrase Of any other excess and tells not what it is n. 5. nor yet admits of my sufficient expression what I mean by it appearing by my proofs viz. Addition to the Rule of worship that is Addition of worship not commanded To which he sayes nothing but cavils at the form of my first proof and then runs to catch at a flie an advantage of my words of super statutum n. 6. above what is commanded As if I supposed that was the notation of the word Superstition And here playes with his own shadow to make me ridiculous if he could but rather himself I onely say It is an Addition to the Rule of worship and so an excess as super statutum And is not an Addition of worship to the Rule super statutum But I added to prevent this cavil Though the original be heathenish to signifie Superstitum cultus yet it 's well applied by Divines and they learned to make no comparison to Additions to the Rule of worship c. And this is sufficient to mar the Doctors sport But if I listed to make him work and my Reader merry I might call him to account for his Etymology both of the word Superstitio from Superstitum cultus and also of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the same For first where is cultus to be found in Superstitio Superstitio cannot by any Rules be deduced from any word in the Latine but Superstes p. 22. n. 7. Then not from Superstitum cultus From Super sto not super cultus p. 57 n 4. The Orator he knows fetches the first Origination of it from the custom of some Parents who night and day prayed that their children might be Superstites that is live when they themselves were dead and that practise of theirs was called Superstitio which might have been though the opinion of the Heroes living after departed this world had not arose yea supposing that opinion that such did live were Superstites in their spirits yet they were not presently worshipped but in process of much time among the Heathens And where is now his Etymology of Superstitum cultus Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he renders also Superstitum cultus which is not to be found in the word but Daemonum timor * sce p. 30. n. 30. from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a trembling fear a slavish fear of the Gods or Daemons that it seems was the prime use of the word which after ages applied to Religion in general and others used it for Superstition But see the luck of it they are oft his own words he presently confesses That M. C. p. 22. n. 8. Yet several times he regests this false notion p. 55. n. 4. p. 57. n. 3. 4. p. 91. n. 8. p. 258. n. 2. confesses that the original of the word was Heathenish to signifie Superstitum cultus To what purpose then was all his vagary why I adde that it was well applyed by Divines to those Additions c. He asks What can be tollerably mean by this can Divines do well to apply Superstitio to super statutum when that is no way the nature of the word perverse pen I meant and said the word Superstition was well applyed by Divines not to super statutum but to those Additions to the Rule and surely they may well be said to be super statutum above the command of God But one thing more Can any proof be brought hence to conclude Superstition to be an excess because it is super statutum when no affinity betwixt them what is unreasonable if this be not Good words I pray what more reasonable then this argument Every Addition of worship to the Rule of worship is an excess supra statutum But Superstition is an Addition to the Rule of worship ergo Superstition is an excess Supra statutum
is the Judgement of Scripture and the best Divines That said I which the Scriptures of the Old Testament call Additions the New calls Superstition will-Will-worship c. But I must not scape so n. 9. In those few words named last there are many infirm parts 1. That additions to the word are in the New Testament called Doctrines He cuts of my words I said Doctrines Traditions of men and so they are Matth. 15.6.9 By your Tradition opposed to the Commandment of God and In vain do they worship me teaching Doctrines the Commandments of men He flies to his old Muse Their teaching their own Traditions for Doctrines is adding them to the Scripture c. But then is it not evident 1. that their Doctrines and Traditions were Additions to the word 2. That these Doctrines concerned the worship of God and so Additions to the Rule of worship in vain do they worship me and are not these Additons excesses what sense then is there in his new coin'd gloss Doctrines thore simply signifying not that addition but that to which the addition was made What means he that Doctrines signifies the Scripture for to that the Addition was made so he sayes Adding them to the Scriptures what their own Traditions Then their Doctrines were added to the Scripture but were not Scripture and if not Scripture Additions to the Scripture 2. But my next infirmity is that I say Those Additions are called Will-worship The contrary whereof he sayes is proved in the Treatise of Will-worship I shall not anticipate the place All I say now is but this If it be Will-worship to devise new sorts of worship and to offer them to God for worship as the Doctor confesses it is pag. See p. 10. n. 11. p. 15. n. 24. 96. n. 6. Then those Additions may well be called Will-worship and such Will-worship may very well be called an Addition to the Rule of worship 3. This is yet another of my mistakes That additions to the rule of worship are any where in the New Testament called Superstition I desire he would shew me one such place for my concordance will not afford it me Let him not evade by those words Called Superstition That is in so many words and I will shew many places where the thing is apparant that Superstition is an Addition to the word and Additions to the word are Superstition But in stead of all I shall produce his own words Sect. 46. of Superst To affirm God to command when he doth not is Superstition under the notion of nimiety or excess because that man addes to the commands of Christ Which place will shortly come to be considered He sayes Those Athenians Act. 17.22 sure p. 23. n. 10. never medled with and so added not to the true rule of worship any otherwise then as all that abandon it adde to it live by some other false rule and minde not that and if they are for so doing to be stiled adders to the rule of worship adulterers are so in like manner and so every sin in the world is Superstition This is a strange gloss 1. Do not Idolatres Polytheists such as these Athenians were meddle with and adde to the rule of worship surely then none in the world do Is it not a moral Law written in the hearts of all men though blotted much that God alone is to be worshipped do not they that worship other Gods with or without him meddle with and adde to this rule of worship 2. Does it become the Doctors Learning and Divinity to make adulterers and so every sinner in the second Table to be with them afore stilled Superstitious when worship and so Superstition is onely in the first Table let the Reader judge Against my second proof exception is taken p. 23. n. 12. 1. Because I use the same medium as in the former proposition An heavy charge as if the Doctor did not know that one medium may prove several propositions The question is whether it proves the present proposition or no 2. Then he undertakes to put my argument into form but that I refuse and renounce his whole Syllogisme as none of mine upon this ground because he hath changed the question from uncommanded worship to uncommanded ceremonies and then playes his feats onely I shall remind him what he grants in his proposition 1. That worshipping of the Daemons is an excess opposite to Religion ergo Superstition is an excess 2. So also is the worshipping the true God after an undue and unlawful manner an excess ergo Superstition is of larger extent then the worshipping of Daemons which both the Doctor seems to deny Now I shall put my argument into form If profaneness the one extreme of Religion he a defect of Religion then Superstition the other extreme is an excess of Religion but the first is true and cannot be denied ergo If the Doctor did not intend to decline the force of this proof and to make a diversion to his Reader he would not have started a new Hare that himself might escape My next proof was from the Doctors own concessions p. 24. n 13. See p. 227. c. the numb 13. twice where he first espies a Numeral fault a figure of 4. twice Whether this was mine or the Printers fault he hath no cause to complain having 6. for 5. But that 's a trivial excursion yet ordinary enough First the Doctor grants Superstitiosus may denote such an excess an excess of Religion n. 16. What excess in Religion the super statutum every addition 1. Every uncommanded circumstance or ceremony in the worship of God thus he must mean if constant c. No such matter but every Addition of worship supra statutum above the command of God The question was of worship it self from the beginning not of Circumstances of worship If Superstitious signifie such an excess will it any thing help the Doctor to say so did Religiosus sometime signifie too Yes 1. Superstitio and Religio were among Heathens the * They were not the same see ad p. 70 n. 1. But one a vice the other a vertue same and 2. All such excesses are not culpable in their opinion If they once did signifie excesses in Religion and culpable it matters not what their opinions after were who were ill Judges of Superstition and Religion And what ever Religiosus may signifie let the Doctor shew us any Protestant Divine that ever took Superstitio or Superstitiosus in a good sense But what is the meaning of those words n. 17. My pretensions in that place were onely this that Superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess Does he mean that Superstition never in any Authors signifies a criminous excess That he cannot say or that all Authors do not take it for a criminous excess the words may bear both senses that 's too dilate for the Doctor to affirm It 's enough for us if in
conceived by these things 1. That having acknowledged the word Superstition to be capable to signifie the giving of false Worship to the true God pag. 59. n. 3. as well as Worship to false Gods In all his discourse of Superstition afore and his vindication now he never exemplifies any Species of the former amongst Christians 2. Nay professes That he believes there is onely one Special kinde of Superstition whereof any Protestants are guilty except that of making observations of ominous things Surely the Worship of Daemons cannot well be charged upon any Protestants though upon Papists Nor are there many Protestants that dogmatize or impose as necessary such things as the Law of Christ hath not made necessary And so it will be very hard to finde a Superstitious Protestant which was the designe of the Doctor when he took upon him to vindicate the Church of England and himself from the guilt of Superstition But if there be one kinde of Superstition to Worship the true God prout non debet in a manner which he might not as Aquinas or with false Worship as the Doctor sayes surely many Protestants and the Doctor for one will be found guilty of more Superstition then he is willing yet to acknowledge and so he may keep his wit to himself numb 2. That the Heathens took the word sometimes in an ill sense he cannot deny but sayes p. 67. n. 5. So they did Religion too That 's rather to my advantage but I let it pass taking his confession I therefore did appeal to Christian Authors and amongst them I believe it will trouble the Doctor for all his great reading to finde one Greek Author that ever used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a good sense for true Religion or any Latine Author excepting but some Papists that ever used Superstitio in a good sense for true Religion some Etymologists and Glossaries that speak of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have an eye to the sense of it amongst Heathens who took the thing in a good sense but profess that Christians take the word and thing in an ill sense The rest of this Chapter is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so I pass it by Section 22. From that large discourse about the word at last Section 27. the Doctor comes to apply it to his purpose c. FOr my leaping from this 14. to the 27. s it was p. 70 n. 1. because there was no matter of controversie in them nothing but what I yielded to be the Heathens sense of the word But that being granted the subsequent conclusions are not firmly founded upon those premises if the Doctor will but take in the sense of Christian Authors also as he ought when they speak as Christians Amongst them Superstition is generally taken in an ill sense yea sometimes also amongst Heathens Superstition is opposed or contradistinguished to Religion and consequently taken by them in an ill sense I shall make this manifest when I have onely made bold to ask the Doctor one question why he never gives us their words when they speak ill of it but sets the best face upon the word when he knows the thing meant by it is so bad * Not only signifying Worship of Daemons but false Worship to the true God which here he waves n. 2 and abominable What chaste man would take pains to paint a filthy strumpet Does Superstition deserve so much from the Doctor to hide rather then to acknowledge her deformity but I forbear and now shall shew him and his Reader what he could have said out of some Heathens and many Christian Authors for the word Superstitio if he had been pleased to disgrace it As 1. From the Heathen Orator the master of Romane Eloquence and well skill'd in their Antiquities who hath these words noted no doubt in the Doctors Common-place book distinguishing Superstition from Religion Lib. 2. de nat Deorum Non enim Phisophi solùm verùm etiam Majores nostri Superstitionem à Religionem seperaverunt c. And by and by after Ita factum est in superstitioso religioso alterum vitii nomen alterum laudis And in another place Lib. 2. de Divinat ad f. Nec verò id enim diligenter intelligi volo superstitione sublata Religio tollitur 2. From that learned Philosopher and Moralist Seneca whose words are these Superstitio error insanus est amandos timet quos colit probat Quid enim interest Epist 1 24. utrum Deos neges an infames that is by dreading them as so many cruel Tyrants as the Doctor expressed it from others But these sentences of Seneca were not then produced yet are now set in his Margine pag. 28. As a testimony against himself 3. From Plutarch a Greek Author who not onely distinguishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstition from Religion but also makes it a vice contrary to Religion in the excesss Some of his words to this purpose were cited above ad p. 47. n. 20 But Plutarch writ a whole book of Superstition which the Doctor cited once or twice in his Tract of Superst But to hide the ugliness of Superstition in that Heathens Judgement tells us onely this s 18. It goes indefinitely for Religion but particularly for some fearful apprehensions of the Gods Therefore not onely for Superstitum cultus But this is a palpable disguise of Plutarchs notion of it as any that read that Tract will quickly discover For 1. From the beginning he opposes Superstition to Atheisme as the two extremes of Religion one in the excess the other in the defect for so he sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I wonder at those that say Atheisme is irreligion and say not the same of Superstition 2. He describes the superstitious person with such black Characters that no man can well speak for it such as these beside others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It must needs be that the Superstitious person both hate and fear the Gods * In the 2. Commandment they that Worship the true God with any but his own prescribed Worship which is Superstition are said to hate him And a little after Hating and fearing the Gods he is an enemy 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There is nothing of Superstition in an Atheist but the superstitious is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Atheist by choice 4. To omit much more there spoken he concludes as he began but more plainly making Atheisme and Superstition the two Extremes and placing true Religion in the midst 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Many flying Superstition fall into Atheisme passing over Religion lying in the midst Did not the Doctor know all this shall a Christian a Divine Learned and Pious defend or palliate that which an Heathen so condemnes see what he sayes for it Infra ad p. 72. n. 7 9. c. 4. De Oratione From Tertullian one of our
prove because he is on the Affirmative part and must not beg the question He again varies the question when he reads n. 26. Piety for VVisdom here How can a thing have a shew of Piety in respect of that very thing which is impious The words should be thus how can a thing have a shew of VVisdom in respect of that thing which is impious changing Wisdom into Piety and putting in in respect makes all this difficulty For mark his next question Can any thing be represented to me n. 27. as having so much as a shew of Piety in respect of lust or rage discernible in it He should first have said a shew of wisdom not of piety and in lust and rage not in respect of them can a thing have a shew of wisdom which is but lust and rage And then I would answer first it may and secondly the question is well laid For lust and rage are confessedly for kinde wicked things but VVorship may be true or false c. He asks whether VVill-worship may be so true or false p. 136. n. 28. that 's the word we contend about What if we say it may not but is always false Then it is directly parallel with lust and rage they always ill and this also Why that 's it we assert but then see afore how he altered the question I said VVorship not Will worship may be true or false The truth of Worship consists in the Institution or Command of God the falshood in the Institution of men Now that 's VVill-worship and therefore it is always false We do not say nor can with reason say VVill-worship is true or false but is always false and therefore the Doctor begging this distinction is far enough from a demonstration pretended When I said The words are not p. 137 n. 31. which things have a shew of wisdom and of VVill-worship c. but in VVill-worship and if faulty because they had onely a shew of VVisdom they will be more faulty that they had but a shew of VVorship I said in the last clause too little for here was more then a shew of VVill-worship and VVill humility c. even a reality of them Now VVill-worship being Worship devised by the will of man not Commanded by God which onely makes true VVorship it must necessarily be False-worships and so ever unlawful as was said above He may compare this verse with the 18. There was in the worshipping of Angels a shew of Humility and a shew of Worship but there was more a reality of voluntary humility and a reality of voluntary Worship and both of these mistaken and impious so in these abstinences there was also a shew of Worship and a shew of humility c. but there was more a reality of Will-worship and of will humility c. and all these impious Worship humility and self-denial being all devised by the will of man not commanded by God This may satisfie any reasonable man VVill-worship then is not taken in a good sense here because it is joyned with humility and self-denial but contrarily they are here both taken in all ill sense because they are joyned with VVill-worship VVill-devised VVorship which is alwayes false both because it is not commanded but forbidden by God and also because invented and instituted by men And now the Doctor may see that VVill-worship is parallel to Judas traiterous kiss p. 138. n. 32. and Papists bowing to stocks and stones And that uncommandedness of Worship makes it ill is not onely supposed but proved in the former Tract I say uncommanded VVorship not uncommanded Circumstances The Doctor may now consider how well he hath vindicated his second argument for the good sense of the word and I leave him all that wholesome heap of Rbetorick n 34. to enjoy himself who best deserves it Sect. 13. A third reason is because the Greek Fathers c. THe Doctor here begins with some of his flowers of Rhetorick a scoff and a jeer much learning puffing him up p. 140. n. 2. Here truly it is not to be reprehended but cherished in the Diatribist that he is so very much rejoyced to hear the newes that the Greek Fathers and he are of a minde in any the least particular I hope it will engage him to a more familiar conversation with them and then I am perswaded no body will have reason to repent of it This hath been the Doctors language formerly not onely in slighting all our Modern Divines not of his opinion Of Superst s 32. Those Authors which come home to the point in hand are so few or so Modern and of so small authority that they would be scarce worth producing But also to undervalue their learning and reading witness that speech of his VVill-wor sect 19. The words in Latine which is the language which those that are most subject to be abused in this matter will be most likely to read it in A pretty piece of scorn cast upon his Adversaries as though none that were of a different judgement from him in this particular were able to read a Greek Father or a piece of Philostorgius in Greek but must onely be beholden to the Latine Translation Macte virtute All I shall return is but this that if the Doctor had either less conversation with the Greek Fathers or made better use of them then to follow them in their errours and * See p. 145. n. 19. How he throws off Theodor. and p. 165 n. 6. Clemens Alex. and Ambros p. 145. n. 18. p. 140. n. 3. See p. 146. n. 21. Specimen which is more then Speciem or bare shew some real evidence forsake them in their true interpretations I am perswaded no body nor himself would have reason to repent of it For let it be observed once again seeing it comes so often that though the Doctor durst not well contradict the Fathers sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a shew not reality of Wisdom yet how glad he would be if the latter might but by head and shoulders as we say be drawn in to be the sense of the word thus he says If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be there taken for ratio the argument for the good sense would proceed most irresistibly which is proved above irresistibly false And once more If species should prove a true one then c. pag. 147. n. 25. Other like sentences are noted above after he had disclaimed this sense of truth or reality which I leave to his consideration and go on The Greek Fathers rendred the word a shew without power and truth whereupon I asked Can that which hath neither power nor truth in the Worship of God be taken in a good sense He asks again n. 4. what it is of which the Fathers say that it hath neither power nor truth sure the Doctrines of Abstinence and not the VVill-worship This is a common Fallacy with the Doctor to say it
ad conversationem in eis Aquin. in loc ex Aug. cont Faust perfect or fill up the full sense of the Law and Prophets which the Pharisees had evacuated and voided by their jejune and empty glosses of the Law and Prophets and thus all Orthodox Moderne Divines understand it 2. Or to fill up the vacuities and to perfect the Imperfections of the Law and Prophets which is the gloss indeed of some Fathers the Greek especially who follow one another for the most part and of most Papists And why the Doctor should follow them having so many other senses Orthodox and refuse the senses of the Modern Protestants I know not but that he loves to run cross to our own and chuses often to follow the Ancients as the then Pharisees did their Ancestors into error rather then to speak truth with ours The second ground was the many express examples of his so doing in that fifth of Matth. his additions to the Law in so many particulars introduced with It was said of old But I say unto you But this ground is as unsound and fallacious as the former taking it for granted that those words you have heard it was said by or to them of old time signifie you have been taught and that out of the word of God or books of Moses which is the very question now in hand whether it do not rather signifie * Matt. 5.20 Imports he spake of the corrupt glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees except c. compared with the former and following verse you have heard it was said by them of old time the Pharisees and Scribes your Rabbies or said by them to your Ancestors for the Pharisees were of some long standing before our Saviours time They said thus and thus corrupting the sense of the Law but I say unto you this is the true sense of those Laws c. as the instances do make it appear Concerning the third Thou shalt not forswear thy self it is vindicated above ad p. 43. I shall clear the other two from his gloss not to be directly meant of the word of God or books of Moses but as perverted by the glosses of the Pharisees The first is evident thus it carries their gloss with it Thou shalt not kill and whosoever killeth shall be in danger of the judgement Now the first part is the Law of God by Moses there is no question of that but of the sense of it which they made onely to be actual murther as our Saviours Interpretation of it doth import and the punishment onely to be temporal death by the Judges Whereas our Saviour makes lesser degrees of murther guilty of eternal death But it 's worth the while to consider what the Doctor understands by killing in this Law 1. Pract. cat p. 99. 101. The principal thing is the shedding of mans blood 2. By way of reduction other things which are preparatory to that as 1. Mutilating 2. Wounding 3. Entring and accepting of Duels 4. Oppression of the poor 5. The beginnings of this sin in the heart malice hatred cursing c. all these reducible to this Commandment as it was given in the Law But if the Law prohibited these sure the Pharisees did not think nor teach it so And then Christ was an Expositor and not a Law giver and if malice and hatred were reducible hither as preparatories to murther why not rash anger and calling Racha or fool which are also degrees and preparatories to the main sin Yea these were expresly forbidden or condemned by Moses and the Prophets as were easie to instance and ergo Christ doth not give new precepts but expounds the old Law and vindicates it from their false glosses The like may be said of the seventh Commandment which they glossed onely of the outward act of adultery when as our Saviour shews Prov. 6.25 23.33 the Law extended to the lustings of the heart which are clearly forbidden in the Old Testament The third ground of his affirmation was the concurrence of some Greek Fathers in this gloss who in this as in other things not a few were confessedly mistaken and in other things rejected by the Doctor himself though herein embraced by him in opposition to Calvin as some Papists have acknowledged some interpretations of Scripture to be more proper and genuine but yet reject them because they hate Calvin who was of that opinion The arguments whereupon the Fathers built their Interpretation are of no strength 1. Because Christ under the Gospel gives either higher or plainer promises then he did before eternal life as those of a temporal Canaan As for plainer it may be granted but that makes no difference in the Law the Jewes being under clouds and shadows Christians in the Sun-shine And for higher there could be none higher then eternal life and glory and that was promised in the Law and Prophets onely not so cleerly and frequently as in the Gospel 2. Because he gives more grace to perform them then before he had done To this I would say 1. This makes no difference but rather seemes to imply that the precepts were the very same there was onely less grace dispensed to perform them 2. If he do give more grace yet if he lay higher precepts of greater perfection then the Law required a less strength to a lesser burthen might do as well as a greater to a greater yea no doubt some of the Saints under the old dispensation did perform them as exactly as any under the new then either grace was the same to both or the Law equally perfect to either They did I say perform those very duties which he says are required by Christs new precepts as exactly as any under the Gospel dispensation But the Doctor will perhaps evade or avoid this by saying as he does These were above that which the Law required and so were works of Counsels or supererogation more acceptable and more rewardable not necessary before Christ advanced and perfected the Law But though it concerned the Doctor rather to confirm his Affirmation which he hath not done in his Catech. or here then me to prove a Negative yet I shall propound an argument or two for my opinion That Christ did not give new Laws or perfect the old as being imperfect before but onely reduced the Law corrupted by the Pharisees to it 's true and genuine sense Or which will come all to one That the Law is in it self perfect without imperfection and consequently needed no Additions of Perfection 1. The Old Testament every where pronounces the Law to be perfect Psalm 19.7 Psalm 119.96 2. The sum of the Law and the highest degree of perfection is the same with that given by Christ in the Gospel Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart c. and thy neighbour as thy self * Ver. 33. This is more then all whole burnt-offerings sacrifices all Freewill-offerings there is none other Commandment greater then these
Canon of Faith from John the longest liver of the Apostles but submits to the Western custome and so subjects us to Rome which he so fears and warned me to be ware of I leave these to his resolution and come to consider what he sayes to my arguments against it 1. There is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture nor ground to found it on p. 244. n. 12 I said there was no ground in Scripture to found it on To which he says nouothing To this he hath three answers 1. There is small virtue in this from Scripture negative As little virtue as there is in this negative argument for me it seemes to be great for himself against me For here n. 17. he pleads thus against the institution of the Lords-day Sure the New Testament hath no where any Law-giving concerning it And again against the use of the fourth Commandment Where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment p. 263. n. 8. And once more p. 281. n. 19. Christ never reprehended the observation of the Feast of Dedication that we read of therefore he approved it But in the case in hand ad hominem I have argued strongly from Scripture negative Will worship is not commanded in Scripture therefore it is unlawful But this Festival with that of the Nativity is made a Will-worship by Papists and the Doctor ergo they are unlawfull and as such have no ground in Scripture 2. Answer The Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the Feast is some be it acknowledged a less weighty ground in Scripture for the observation This word of the Apostle in the judgement of all Interpreters hath nothing to do with his Festival The text and context are also against his gloss which makes it so light that it is not so much as some weight for the observation of it And I having said so much against this gloss in my 31 Section of Fest I wonder he should so confidently produce it here and say nothing to purpose to it in its own place All I shall say now is this that if this be the sense of it which the Doctor begs it hath not onely some but an exceeding weighty ground for the observation of his Festival a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law-giving an institution Divine which he will deny to the Lords-day and proves more then he intended not onely the observation and practice but also institution Apostolical But more of this below 3. Answ The mention of the Lords-day Rev. 1. is some farther ground if it be the annuall then there is a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days The Doctor is happy if all his suppositions might be granted him he knows the place is generally understood of the Weekly-day and what is then become of his clear evidence But hear again If it should be the weekly day yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day It is observable that in all this discourse of Festivals the Doctors great designe is to vilifie if not to nullifie the authority of the Lords day so to exalt above or equal with it his Festivals which if there were no other crime is sufficient to stir the indignation of any truly Religious man Here he does it and again presently n. 17. and afterwards often as I shall note as I pass on But this he here asserts is most incongruous Rather the weekly-day was the foundation of the annual day For first it s said Christ rose on the first day of the week often and thereupon It was designed to be the Christian Sabbath or day of Assemblies but never is it said he rose upon such a day of the moneth or year 2. If the Lords weekly day was not first instituted how came the contest between the Churches whether Easter day should be observed on the Lords-day or on the Jewish day which might and did fall on any other day of the week Tradition sayes that Peter and Paul observed the Festival on the Lords day at Rome does not this suppose the Lords-day to be instituted before the Festival of Easter Saint John and Philip it s said kept it on the Jewish day how then could that be the foundation of the weekly day And let the Doctor remember that his Mother the Church of England as she includes Easter day among the Sundayes making it no otherwise an Holy-day so she founds the Lords-day not upon the annual day but upon the fourth Commandment When she commands this prayer to be said after it Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keep this Law But the Doctor will either prove or illustrate what he said As it is evident that the weekly Friday fasts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great fast on the day of Christs death in the Paschal week As if the fast on Good-friday were of equal antiquity or authority with the Lords-day or humane constitutions were to be a foundation for a Divine institution That the Apostles did expresly repeal those Feasts n. 14. p. 244 hath not he says the least degree of truth in it as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4.10 Let the Reader turn to the place p. 3. n. 2. and see what he saith to that text all is but this It is peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Feasts but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly Feast of Christs birth then to the weekly of the Resurrection Even from the beginning to the end of this account his designe is to slur the lustre of the Lords-day levelling it to his Festivals But first the Apostle speaks indefinitely against observation of days as religious Paulus praecepit sayes Hierom. all beside the Lords day which he had there also established as the day of collection and first of Assemblies for that collection supposes the day before designed instead of the old Sabbath as well at Galatia as among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 16.1 Now concerning the collection for the Saints as I have given order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordered ordained to the Churches of Galatia even so do ye upon the first day c. Here 's an Apostolical institution for collections on the Lords day and presupposes the day before appointed in both those Churches 2. It is no wayes probable that the Apostle would cry down Jewish Festivals of Pasch and Pentecost and set up the very same again at the same time as Christian Feasts as I said above If they were abolished as parts of Ceremonial-worship how scandalous might it have been to change onely the name nay the name was not changed in other Churches and set up other Feasts in their stead as parts of Christian Worship for so they would be esteemed if the Apostle had set them up or brought them in The sestimony of Socrates the Historian he eludes by a distinction
Will of man may well be called will-will-worship the Vncommandedness of them as well as the Superfluity will name them so And if any one such Ceremony be lawful and so a second and a third c. The more the better and how then can there be a fault in the multitude when as the Doctor said If they be wholesome Of Superstition s 41. then there will be little reason to accuse them of excess for they will then more probably help the inner devotion then encumber it But of this afore sufficiently and we go on All Ceremonies in the sense above are forbidden n. 10. 4 Vsing or instituting one or more Ceremonies not forbidden yet not commanded but founded in some pious or prudential consideration c Of this he sayes It is not Worship in it self and I need not allow that the title of Will-worship Does not the Doctor in this and the next Tract plead for VVill-worship in Ceremonies and Uncommanded VVorship in Festivals c. and yet now will not allow them the name either of VVorship or VVillship n. 11. but refer it to those Circumstances of VVorship c. But suppose this one or more Ceremonies be made parts of Worship not meer Circumstances will he not them grant them Superstitious and so VVill-worship by the VVill of man as was said to the third sense afore 5. Offering to the service of God any thing which God hath any way reveal'd he will accept of and reward if duly performed c. But what means he by offering to the service of God that men may offer service or VVorship which God hath not commanded This I suppose he will not say yet palpably does it in his maintained VVill-worship what then will he say it is not VVorship but a Circumstance of Worship Then it cannot indeed be called VVill-worship for it is not VVorship at all yet to this the Doctor applies the word in the Apostle under the notion of voluntary oblations and as good and commendable no way vitious if it be truly such as it pretends to be So then he calls that VVill-worship which is no VVorship and yet with a limitation if it be truly such as it pretends to be So that if it be not truly such such what such VVill-worship as is good and commendable the Doctor begging that there is any VVill-worship good will not allow that the name of VVill-worship in the Apostle though it be instituted meerly by the Will of man There is yet one way more 6. Lastly when either for the degree or frequency of any known act of VVorship a man doth more then be is by Gods law strictly required to do prays or * Fasting is not an act of VVorship but an help to VVorship yet here and elsewhere made so fasts oftner c. But to this I say 1. This is impertinent to the point for we are speaking of VVill-worship not of Commanded Worship VVorship devised by the VVill of man not by God as prayer is 2. The degrees and frequency of these VVorships are under a precept if not particular yet general with respect to abilities and opportunities but the VVill-worship we speak against is under no precept at all unless by way of prohibition 3. He that will take upon him to Pray or Fast oftner then Gods law strictly requires of him must certainly know how oft Gods law requires him to pray c. and no oftner which the Doctor may do well to determine out of the chair 4. We speak not of degrees and frequency of acts of Worship commanded but of new sorts or kindes of Worship not commanded instituted meerly by the VVill of man And of such VVill worship the Doctor must speak or he sayes nothing Let him now consider whether by his sixth-fold distinction he hath not rather clouded then cleared the business VVill-worship cannot be imagined to denote any more then some one of these six things c. Whereof the four first are not allowed the title of VVill-worship The two last are not properly VVorship at all I mean He call them six species of VVillship n. 14. p. 98. n. 13. new sorts of VVorship and besides fall under Commanded VVorship But we speak of VVill-worship which respects the VVill and choice of VVorship by man without any necessity imposed by God as himself states it n. 13. Let him speak plainly What does the Apostle mean by VVill-worship In which of these six senses must it be taken Is forbidden Worship Will-worship no that 's not truly but equivocally Worship Are forbidden Ceremonies Will-worship no they are but Circumstances of Worship but no Worship and so of the rest I must profess I know not well what he resolves to be Will-worship but I conjecture he means it of the fifth and sixth part of his distinction See n. 11. 12. voluntary oblations which God by no law exacts from every man or Fervency and Frequency in commanded Worship Now if these two be either no VVorship or no new sorts of Worship instituted by the will of man then the Doctor hath denied that there is any such thing as VVill-worship at least sinful Will-worship in the world I will not anticipate but onely in a word or two The first sort of his Will-worship is voluntary oblations which God by no law exacts from every man But then I say To those of whom God does not exact it it is no VVorship at all and to those of whom he does exact it for of some the Doctor grants he does exact it it is VVorship commanded and so uncapable both wayes of the title of will-worship Nay if those of whom God does not exact it should tender it to God as new VVorship they would incur the censure of sinful VVill-worship But this is new Divinity to the Doctor though it is his own and must wait till it's time comes And I proceed with him to consider what he thinks of my distinction which was this The words in both languages may be taken in a double sense 1. For willingness and freeness in worship commanded by God 2. For worship devised by the wit and appointed by the will of man p. 98. n. 13. To the former part he says That can be no species of that will-worship which respects the choice and will of man c. I pray did I make it a species of will-worship to worship God willingly in commanded Worship And not rather make that one sense of the word as it is compounded with will of man mans will I hope may willingly perform commanded Worship and that may be one sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first part of the word And why does the Doctor refuse this sense Because he supposes that in the commands of God not onely the action but the chearfulness of this performance is in like manner commanded by God and so necessary and not voluntary Grant this true yet I ask may not a man do a command of God