were the Commandements and Doctrines of men as the next words following are and herein the Doctor places the danger Sect. 6. as we shall see Just as that Doctrine ver 18. concerning worshiping of Angels in a voluntary humility c. was the Doctrine or command of a man vainly puft up in his fleshly mind but could not be pretended much lesse imposed as a Divine command So the Doctrines and Traditions of the Pharisees were not pleaded to be the Commandements of God but expresly called the Commandements of men Math. 15.9 and opposed to the Commandements of God ver 3.6 And in this Chapter ver 8. Those Doctrines are called the Traditions of men and rudiments of the World 4. I would ask the Doctor whither the placing of the worship of God in observation of those Ordinances of Abstinence though not taught nor imposed as Gods Commands upon a mans selfe or others were not an abuse of them and being a self-devised Willworship were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as destructive as the urging them still as Gods Commands His great mistake is that this was the onely abuse of them and that otherwise they were innocent things for so he sayes which now he may see they were not And lastly the following words ver 23. seem to imply the abuse to have beene not that they imposed them as Divine Commands but as parts of Divine worship which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports in a pretended humility and not sparing of the body c. For he saies they have a shew of wisdome not as the Commands of God but in Will-worship c. § 6. Yet let us hear wherein the Doctor places the danger and destructivenesse of them That they were after the Commandements and Doctrines of men which words point out that wherin the danger doth consist to wit imposing on men humane Ordinances or Doctrines Stay there a while Then say I they did not impose them as Commands of God nor did the danger lye in that But I desire to know what it was that they imposed by those Ordinances and Doctrines was it not a way of worshiping God by those Abstinencies touch not c. The abstinences they teach Sect. 7. I think the Doctor will not deny it For it is not to be meant of imposing of Humane Ordinances about indifferent things by the Magistrate he hath cautioned against that Sect. 3. 4. but of Teachers imposing them as Ordinances of worship in Religion and therein the danger did consist because they imposed on men humane Ordinances and Doctrines to worship God by The Doctors glosse of his own former words will now prove his own that is singular when he addes i. e. those things which though they were not commanded by God are yet by men affirmed pretended and taught though without proof to be so commanded The danger and destructivenesse rather consisted in this that they were but the Commandements and Doctrines of men placing the worship of God in those observances which either he never Commanded or were now outdated § 7. And now we are come to the 23. Verse which the Doctor makes to be A description of the doctrines themselves or the abstinences they teach abstracted from all such accidental abuse But this may prove a mistake for the words rather contain a description of the reason of that danger and destructivenesse in them viz. because they were no other no better than Willworship wâ—th a fair pretence of Wisdome because the Worship of God was lately placed in them and they carry a great pretension of Humility and Selfdeniall in abstaining from things pleasing to the body which they thought no doubt would be pleasing unto God and an acceptable service The words indeed may be variously rendered by Interpreters but without any great difficulty or difference For the most part they agree in the sense though they differ in words And I beleeve the Doctors Interpretation of it is singular without any precedent either Antient or Modern Protestant or Papist Thus he paraphraseth the words Which things have some true at least appearing notion of wisdom in them wisdom in Scripture signifying piety i. e. have either some reall matter of piety in them for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies and this would be more clear if we should read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in two words thus which things have somewhat of piety in them or being considered in some respect have piety in them or as the Fathers rather understood it some colour some appearance of piety to wit in voluntary worship and humility c. But this is a strange Liberty in Interpreting scripture not onely that it waves the Interpretation of all our own Translators of all the Antients and even of Papists themselves for the most part whom this glosse would much please but also that he doth not bring his mind to the Scripture but straines the Scripture to speak his sense and meaning To examine it a little 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies some reall matter what ever it doth elsewhere is gratis dictum and against the stream of Interpreters Some render it Imaginem as Jerome some speciem some pretextum And the Greek Fathers oppose against it truth and power what is it then but a shew or appearance 2. That hee renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by piety is as strange in this place however in these Proverbs and elsewhere D. Davent in locum it may signifie so when most interpret it 1. by Wisdome that is a shew of some excellent doctrine rather brought from Heaven than found out by men Which to be the sense here is most probable upon these grounds First from the context ver 8. the Apostle calls it Philosophy and ver 18. hee saies the Worshiper of Angels was puffed up in his fleshly mind that is in a carnall conceit of his own wisdom in finding out that way of worship For Superstition and Willworship ever pretends to Wisdom Vid. Irenaeum lib. 3. c. 2. to bee wiser than God in prescribing his worship and this makes it so dangerous and destructive that men set their wisdom against and above Gods Secondly it may very well be parallell to that place 1 Cor. 2.4 5 6. where the Wisdom of God and men are so flatly opposed in preaching of the Gospell Not with entising words of mans wisdom but in the demonstration of the spirit and power the wisdom of God c. And this pretext of wisdom in Willworship arises from a double ground 1. From the fraud of Impostors who alwaies boast that their Traditions proceed from the Spirit of wisdom as the Pharisees and Montanus did 2. From the carnall minds of Superstitious men who are much pleased to seek for righteousnesse and salvation and to put holinesse in externall rites and exercises as that learned professor on the place hath well observed 3. To assert that those things those Abstinences as a worship of God have
Revenge 2 Cor. 11.7 In praepostera in solita quadam obstinenti◠afflicticne corporis ibid. Will deserve to be numbred among the effects of godly sorrow But to this we say again there may be such a punishing not sparing or mortifying of the body and selfdenyall which hath a shew of wisdom or piety but is not onely a counterfeit but an impious mistaken mortification or selfdenyall viz. when this punishing of the body is made a part of the worship of God What thinks the Doctor of the Baalites launcing and cutting themselves What of all the Romish ridiculous pennances pilgrimages fastings c. Does he not justifie them in all their Wilworships and that from this text have they not a great shew of Wisdom Piety Devotion of selfdenyall and mortyfication of the body are these acceptable to Christ Are their selfpunishments worthy to be numbred with that Revenge or accounted among the effects of godly sorrow If he say not I ask what is it that makes them impious mistaken mortification c. Hee cannot say because they held those forth as Commands of God for that they deny then it must be because they make them worships of God Voluntary worship yet that the Doctor endeavours to justifie by this text I shut up this thus These two virtues as hee calls them are there so far from justifying Willworship to which they are associated that they fare the worse for it and are made unchristian and impious by its company For though Humility and selfdenyall in the commanded worship of God be excellent virtues yet when they precede or accompany the constitution of false that is devised Willworship nothing is more impious and abhominable to God § 12. The second reason of his good sense is this Because these Doctrines are here said in respect of the VVillworship to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somewhat of wisdom or piety in them which somevvhat if reall then it is paralel to that of 1 Tim. 4.8 bodily exercise is a little profitable still or profitable for a little Before I adde the rest I say to this 1. This somewhat reall matter of wisdome in willworship in the judgement of most Interpreters is nothing but a meere shew and appearance and indeed reall folly and impiety as was manifested on Sect. 7. And for the parallel place the gloss corrupts the text when he thus expounds it Bodily exercise profiteth a little or for a little For the Apostle opposing bodily exercise to Godlinesse which is profitable to all things he means that such bodily exercise abstinence from marriage and meats made a service or worship of God is profitable for nothing or rather by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is hurtfull and abhominable and so is the VVillvvorship in this place The Doctor seemes to place the illness of those bodily exercises in this when they are taught as necessary to the defaming of marriage and meats he means I suppose necessary as commanded by God But say I if they taught them as they did some of them onely as Commands of men not necessary no defaming marriage c. but as an acceptable worship of God would the Doctor say they were not hurtfull and abhominable but profitable a little I think not or if he doe he justifies some Papists who make them a speciall worship of God not necessary c. But we said afore the words here signifie onely a shew of wisdome or piety Then saies hee the argument will be still of validity For can any thing be said to have so much as a shew of Wisdom in respect of VVillworship in it if that Wil-worship passe confessedly either for foolish or impious Let him aske all Interpreters who render the words a shew of VVisdome in Superstition or affected Religion how this can be But I cannot but wonder at the Doctors question For cannot a thing have a shew of wisdome or piety which is confessedly foolish or impious and if so may it not be so in respect of the VVillworship in it The Baalites launcing and cuttiug themselves in their devotions had it not to them at least a shew of piety and yet that worship was confessedly impious say the like of the Papists whipping themselves and other ridiculous and heathenish pennances have they not to them and others of their superstition a great shew of wisdome and piety and yet to us are confessedly foolish and impious Cannot doth not the doctrine of False teachers hold out a shew of wisdome and piety in their worship and yet to all orthodox known to be foolish and impious Does not on the one side the Wisdome of God in the Gospell hold out a shew of foolishnesse to naturall wise men and yet is the wisdome and power of God to salvation on the other does not is not the wisdom and piety of Hypocrites and Idolaters folly and impiety to God But saies the Dr. Can any thing be represented to me as having so much as a shew of piety in respect of rage or lust discernible in it This comparison is ill laid For rage and lust are for kind confessedly wicked things But worship may be true or false and so as true worship may have a shew of folly to natural men so may false and the refore impious worship have a shew of wisdome and piety in it to the same men And the one though it have a shew of folly yet may have none in it but is the very wisdome of God So the other though it have a shew of wisdome or piety in it yet hath none but is both folly and impiety Let me put it a little more home to him May there not be zeale which may be nothing but rage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint James which may have a shew of true zeale and yet be nothing but rage and madnesse must I needs suppose somewhat really of wisdom or piety in that passion or else it cannot have so much as a shew of wisdome or piety To conclude may not the Divell himselfe transferre himself into and so have a shew of an Angell of light Vid. Append and must I suppose necessarily that there is somewhat really of light or piety in him or else cannot hee have so much as a shew of them To conclude this argument let the Doctor note it once for all that the words are not Which things have a shew of wisdom and of Willworship and of Humility and of not sparing the body For then as wisdome was good and taken in a good sense so might the rest be taken and the fault be that they had onely an appearance not the truth or power but the words are They have a shew of wisdome in Willworship and in Humility c. And if they were faulty because they had onely a shew of wisdome they wil bee more faulty that they had but a shew of piety or worship or Humility So that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. doe no more
enforce us to take it in a good sense than when we say Judas made a shew of love to his Master in his traiterous kisse and the Papists devotion in bowing to stocks and Images In both which sayings love in the one and devotion in the others are taken in a good sense but the ones traiterous kisse and others bowing to Images are not at all taken in any better sense for that shew or appearance of love and devotion but are rather so much the worse And this shall suffice for his second reason § 13. A third reason is because the Greek fathers though they interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely of appearance as contrary to power and truth yet they paraphrase Willworship c by words of Good Savour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. First this is well that the Greeke Fathers agree with us or we with them in exposition of the first words a shew not as he somewhat reall of wisdome or piety Nay they expresly oppose against it power and truth and can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worship of God be taken in a good sense And do not the Fathers imply as much Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee seemes to be Religious but is not so Oecumenious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretending as Hypocrites Religion in worship and is there any gooduesse in Hypocrifie But the interpreter of Clemens Alex. renders the word in Religion Why is not Religion it self of various senses The simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often signifies false Religion and superstition as well as true But the composition makes it worse and alters the sense because it addes the worke of mans Will to Worship which is abominable to God Doe not all Idolaters pretend wisdom in their Inventions Piety in their Devotions Ps 106.39 Went a whorâ—ng with itheir own inventions and does not this pretence make it more odions to God as taking upon them to be wiser than he and more Devout than he requires But why did not the Doctor tell us how the Latine Fathers and other later Interpreters render the word Ambr. Simulatam Religionem Hierom Superstitionem Theodoret a Greek Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proâ—eo quodest proprium decretum introducunt non legis scopum institutum sequuntur Vulgar latine and all Popish Commentators take it thence Superstitionem Salmeron Estius omnem affectatam voluntariam Religionem significat cum quis fingit sibi cultum ex cerebro suo volens videri Religiosus It signifies all affected and voluntary Religion which a man forges out of his own braine willing to seem Religious I spare our owne Divines In locum In a word Estius gives this interpretation of the words out of Augustine and Thomas VVhich have a shew of wisdom not true but such as is placed in Superstition and humility which is false wisdome I leave all to the Doctors consideration § 14. The fourth reason because by this way that very obscure place may be conveniently understood which hath posed so many viz. That such Doctrines are destructive of Christian Religion in obtruding humane out daded judaicall constitutions for Divine precepts as still obliging and yet in some respects have piety in them at least a shew of it to wit in Willworship c. To which Interpretation of his enough hath been spoken before on Sect. 7. but we adde First for my part I have not observed amongst Interpreters any such difficulty or obscurity of this text I dare say the Doctors exposition makes the greatest obscurity that ever I met with They generally agree in the sense of the words taking them in an ill sense Onely himselfe and some Papists Bellarmin and and some others take them in a good sense 2. That such Doctrines as he speakes of are destructive to Christian Religion is true but not such onely nor are such onely meant in his text viz. outdated Iudaicall constitutions obtruded for Divine precepts still obliging but all Humane Institutions of worship though never known before are equally destructive to Religion though they pretend not to be Divine precepts or prescriptions The Apostle therefore brands them as destructive because they are but Willworship not because they are outdated or Iudaicall And those as well as these however they may have a shew of wisdome and piety to carnall hearts yet to understanding Christians have not in any respect piety in them but are vaine and sinfull Inventions of men that is Willworship § Vide Append ad sect 15. 15. A fift reason because Hesichius renders the word by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary Worship the very notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary gifts or offerings as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That he renders the word so is no advantage to his cause for the words may both signifie the same thing viz. Will-devised worship in an ill sense And though it be true that in humane Authors the derivatives and compounds of this word do expresse the Freewillingnesse of the person as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. yet that will not help the Doctor Any thing else beside what God hath commanded Sect. 16. who doth not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with respect to the willingnesse of the person in a commanded worship of God but voluntary Worship that is Worship not Commanded by God but offered to him by the Freewill of man as wee shall see anon And it is as true that though the word bee taken in other Authors for voluntary worship and be but once used in the Scripture yet the spirit of God the Master of all languages does use words whither once or oftner in a sense clearly different from other Authors and I think the Doctor makes use somewhere of such a Criticism As for instance the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture is taken for a vice Eph. 5.4 which in Aristotle is used for a virtue And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so taken in the best judgements Nor is this the notion of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the 72. for Freewill-offerings voluntary gifts c. as shall appeare in a place more convenient § 16.6 Reason it self assures us that things done in the service of God are not therefore ill because they are spontaneous but on the other side when a man shall out of a pious affection doe any thing 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 c. Before wee go any further we must remember the distinction of voluntary worship which the Doctor confounds voluntary may be applyed to worship in a double sense First as it is a a modus or manner of worship that is it is willingly performed and so it is necessary not arbitrary attendant upon worship or secondly
the Lawes of the Church and so it proceeds from obedience to superiours Vid. Append a dutie of the 5th Commandement But to the particulars we say many things Pract. Catech on 4. Commandement 1. Did he not a little before found the Times or daies designed to publick worship upon the equity or morality of the 4th Commandement Hear what he saies of the Importance of that 4th Commandement It is a designation of Time for the speciall performing of Gods publick worship and again It is not onely lawful but necessary to set apart some times for Gods service he means by that Commandement Then say I if the 4th Commandement do necessarily require a designation of some Time for worship private as well as publick for so hee resolves in answer to the next question there does not the same Commandement as necessarily require the observation or sanctification of that Time but it must be reduced to the 5. Commandement Let him remember what he saies in his Treatise of Will-worship Sect. 4. If the matter of the command were before commanded by God 't were then no longer obedience to the Law of the Magistrate but onely to God The application is easie and I adde must God be beholden to men either for the designation or observation of his due Time by a duty from the 5th Commandement What if Superiours be so prophane See Sabbath Redevivum at large these things as to set apart no time for Gods worship or not to enjoine and require the observation of that Time is every man free to observe some or none at his pleasure what if there be no Publick Worship what if a man be and live in places where neither Time nor Publick Worship is appointed by Superiours is hee now at libertie to take all Time as his own so it seemes by this Doctrine if men observe Times Lords day and others onely as a dutie to Superiours in the 5th Commandement 2. He takes for granted that the Designation of the sufficient Time due and necessary by the 4th Commandement is in the power of men Church or state which we say belongs onely to God 3. He also supposes that the Church or State hath power to Sanctifie a Time so that it must not ordinarily be mixed with prophane and common uses which wee think God onely can doe 4. He also takes it as granted that the Church may designe as little or as much as few or as many Times or Daies as they shall think fitt and that ordinarily in every week or month or year without Sperstition as an act of piety which we suppose they cannot do without prejudice to the 4th Commandement and to Christian liberty seeing the burden of Jewish Holydayes is taken off by Christ and we reduced to the 4th Commandement as for one day in seaven to be holy so for our allowance of six daies for our own works The result of this answer is this that they that retain this usage of the Festival as a day made Holy by the Church or state are both injurious to God in usurpation upon his prerogative in the 4th Commandement and also guilty of Willworship in holding up a Worship not commanded by God against the second Commandement 2. In respect to those who first instituted it without command from others in whom onely it is called Will-worship they are free from guilt too 1. because among the Jewes some Feasts were instituted that of Purim and of the Dedication without command c. 2. Freewill-offerings of this Nature are to be the more not the lesse acceptable for being voluntary To this we say in generall it may be Will-worship to observe what is commanded by others as well as to institute worship without a command In speciall to the first reason the Feasts instituted by the Jewes we shall speak anon here sect 29. To the second of Freewill-offerings wee say 1. These Holydayes of mens Institution are not like those Freewill-offerings of the old Law as we have shewed upon his Treatise of Willworship sect 29. 2. We add it is not in the power of men to institute any worship not commanded by God and is flatly against the second Commandement But these Holydaies are by him made parts of Worship 3. Suppose the Jewes should have made more Holydaies yearly than God commanded would they have been accepted should they not have heard who required these at your hands wee may guesse by their Fasts which they appointed God instituted one Fast onely once a year upon the Expiation day They in their captivity appointed more in the 5. and 7. month yearly but what acceptance found they see Zech. 7.5 when yee fasted and mourned in the 5. and 7. month even those 70. years did yee at all fast to me even to me And may not Papists who have a Saint and an Holyday allmost for every day in the year be justified by this arguing Hath it not a great shew of wisdome Piety Devotion to devoâ—e most of their time to God Are they not their Free-wil-offerings the more acceptable because voluntary and uncommanded Let no man say they dedicate those daies to Saints and Invocate the Saints c. and that makes them abhominable But suppose none of those but the Holy daies be as the Church of England expressed herself devoted onely to the honour of God but yet esteemed as more holy aad as a Worship of God and more acceptable to God because voluntary even these and that other that it s done without command of God will denominate them Will-worship and so odious to God And so much for that Secondly he comes now to vindicate it from Superstition and saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Supestitum cultus worshiping of Daemons or soules of dead men but its little lesse then blasphemie to number Christ with them c. To which we say For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Superstition wee have considered it in his Treatise of Superstition and have found him granting the sense of them to be farre larger than the Worshiping of Daemons And wee have proved it rather to signifie any false Superradded worship not commanded of God A Nimiety or excesse of Religion as Super statutum above the Law of God In a word any false worship of the true God which is exemplified in many particulars there amongst which this is one In placing the worship of God or more holinesse in things times places c. then God hath placed in them Wee shall consider what he saies to vindicate this Festivall from it 1. The Birth of Christ is a mercy of such excellent quality that it can never be overvalued c. This is granted But to Institute a day as Holy without command of Christ for an Annuall commemoration of this is above the power of any Church and a Superstitious presumption and withall needlesse considering that the Lords day which includes the commemoration not onely of his Birth but his Resurrection and the
at most but a priviledge rather than any state of perfection § 12.6 When men think by their owne uncommanded worship and services of God either to merit pardon of their sinnes against other Commandements as shee Pro. 7.14 c. I have peace offerings with me this day have I paid my vowes which were free willing offerings as not commanded Come let us take our fill of love c. q. d. though I have runne into debt by my former whoredomes I have now satisfied God with freewill-offerings and have quit the score Or to purchase Glory at least a greater degree of Glory for themselves and to supererogate for others by doing something not commanded as Papists plainly do How near the Doctor comes to this kind of Superstition we shall shew anon VVillworship Sect. 50. c. § 13.7 When men place more pleasing of God and expect more Acceptation from God for services or worship uncommanded than for those cōmanded by God The Apostle intimates some such conceit in men 1 Cor. 8.8 when he saies meats commend us not to God for neither if we eat are we the better in our selves or better accepted with God neither if we eate not are we the worse or are lesse and lesse accepted with God yet such as abstained from some meats had such thoughts of themselves And this shall be manifested to be the opinion and expectation of the Doctor for his voluntary worship worship not commanded by God to be better pleasing and to find better Acceptance from God Tract of Willworship Sect. 16.19 and here Sect. 52. § 14.8 Lastly to adde no more the placing of more virtue and efficacie in things than either Nature or the Institution of God hath placed in them This is acknowledged to be an Excesse and so Superstition by the Doctor sect 45. The placing of more virtue in some things than either Naturally or by the rule of Gods word or in the estimation of purer ages of the Church may be thought to belong to them is guilty of a Nimiety His instances given are very pertinent and considerable 1. Placing virtue or force in the signe of the Crosse which is done not onely by Papists in crossing themselves to scare away the Divell but also by many ignorant and ill-taught Protestants who require crossing of their Children in Baptism as thinking them not well baptized without 2. The womens parvula evangelia 3. opus operatum the common Superstition of all naturall men and Hypocrites Concerning which his judgement is good The doing of which is either groundlesse and then it is folly or else it fastens some promise on Christ which he hath not made in the Gospell c. But why he should add See infra sect 34. In the estimation of the purer ages of the Church I do not well understand but shall consider in its place § 15. Having thus made way for our debate with the Doctor by shewing the Nature of Superstitiion we shall now enter the lists Sect. 1. and consider what he saies about it And to his first Section wee say It may be true that some may unjustly be charged with the crime of Superstition by ignorant or malicious defamers of others best actions But it is as true that some that think themselves assured in conscience that they are farre enough from the guilt of it may justly be charged with it Commonly those that are most Superstitious are most confident of their Innocency and piety Many of the Romish Proselytes doe think they are farre enough from this crime in their highest will-worships and rather to deserve Commendation from men and more Acceptation from God than blame from any And no marvaile if they understand Superstition in the same sense that the Doctor does in this discourse That is § 16. Superstition in latine is most clearly Sect. 2. superstitum cultus the worship of some departed from this world supposed to have life in another Sect. 2. That the Heathens so defined it is true and that the worshiping of such then and by Papists now is one kind of Superstition So the Dr in sect 3. we have already granted as being the Worshiping of Creatures with and besides the Creator which is Idolatry against the first Commandement But the Doctor will not say I think that this is the onely superstition to be found in the World either then or now For he grants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Excessive fear of the Deity to have been another kind of Superstition amongst the Heathens and other kinds also among Christians as wee shall heare anon Some there are and they no mean ones that derive it from super and sto or statuo as supra statutum some worship instituted by men above the statute law of God But wee rather rest in the definitiion of the Schoolman Superstition is a vice contrary to Religion in the excesse which may extend to the other Commandements whereas this limits it to the second § 17. The Greek word for Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it seems to come nearer the Doctors sense of superstitum cultus yet the Etymology of the word does not import so much but rather a slavish fear of a Deity by imagining it Cruell Tyrannicall c. as the Doctors words dreading the Gods as so many Tyrants sect 13. a cowardly trembling fear a care fear of evill spirits sect 9. For though the latter part of the word signifies daemons or Spirits departed yet the former part does not signifie worship but fear not that fear which in Scripture is often put for the whole worship of God but a slavish fear of that God whom they worship whereupon they not knowing or not contented with prescribed worship devise some way of worship of their owne heads For fear of vengeance as sect 24. to please and propitiate their God which may well be called Superstition or willworship the one against the first the other against the second Commandement § 18. The Doctor from the 4. Sect. to the 10. having delivered the many senses of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referres to the three first Poeticall Gods Angells or Dead-men or indeed any thing but the one Supreme God This clears what I said before that this word and worship is rather Idolatry against the first Commandement which forbids the worship of any God but the one true God or any others with him which is Polytheism than that kind of Superstition which is the giving of false that is uncommanded worship to the true God against the second Commandement § 19. But he adds Sect. 11. VVhen Paul tells the Athenians Act. 17.22 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee meanes they worshiped more Gods or Daemons than the Romans c. or were more devout more pious in their worships than any others If say I they were so called because they worshiped more Gods then they were Polytheists against the first Commandement If
because they were more devout or pious impious rather in worshiping the true God ignorantly in a false manner then their sinne was against the second Commandement and in both it was Superstition in severall kinds § 20. What Festus meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 25.19 is not much materiall its like he spake it with scorn enough not of Pauls onely as the Doctor seems to limit it but of the whole Jewish Religion Sect. 12. for so the words may import and are so translated by ours But to make the latter part of the verse to expound the former of one Iesus that was dead putting him under the vulgar notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dead Heros and so meaning the worship of him by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is I doubt a strain of the Doctors Criticism compounding things which are in the Text distinct For Festus saies they had many questions both concerning their own Religion Superstition and also concerning one Jesus which was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive but not a word there of worship of him as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Heros which may the better be beleeved because hee was accused of questions of their Law cap 23.29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chap. 24. where Tertullus laies in his charge against Paul there is not one word of this but other grievous crimes Sedition Seducement profanation of the Temple c. v. 5.6 But the Doctor having taken liberty as oft he delights to doe to vary from the common Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their rendring it by his and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reading Religion to qualifie at least Superstition he goes on to make his Comment sutable that Pauls Religion was in worshiping of Iesus as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dead Heros Whereas Paul affirmed him to be alive not in part as those departed Daemons were supposed but in the whole man as raised from the dead § 21. What Epicurus Doctrine was or what Heathens thought of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee are not much Sollicitous The Doctor having shewed a great deale of Reading and Learning for many sections together from the 14. to the 27. to little purpose except to cloud the businesse now in hand to lead us away in a mist of his owne making from the true and proper sense of the word Sect. 17 18 19. amongst Christians Yet it seemes the Heathens did often take the word in an ill sense branded Religions which they did not like by that name Plutarch taxes the Jewes for their Superstition in two things remarkable 1. That they were tyed by their Superstition as with a net that when they were invaded they would not rise from their seates on their Sabbath day which was an Excesse against the fourth Commandement and grosse Superstition For necessity was priviledged to break the Sabbaths Rest 2. Their killing and sacrificing their Children to Moloch which being a horrid superstition was as the former intended as a worship of the true God and yet was interpreted no better than sacrificing to Divells Psal 106.37 as all Idolatry was by the Apostle 1. Cor. 1◠12 which though in other respects it was against the first Commandement grosse Idolatry so in making it a worship of the true God when hee commanded it not neither came it into his heart as somewhere he saies it was a kind of Superstition against the second Commandement And in a word the Etymologist speakes fully our sense The word among the Heathens is taken for a good thing but among Christians for impiety Sect. 23. cited by the Doctor § 22. From that large discourse about the word at last Sect. 27. the Doctor comes to apply it to his purpose and to discover three inconsequences in our customary use of the word Superstition Sect. 27. First that it is inconsequent that Superstition simply and abstractly taken should be resolved in all Authors to signifie somewhat which is evill that since particularly which is false worship But with his favour this is not the question between us but whither in the Scripture and Orthodox Divines commenting upon that word it doe not alwaies signifie something evill and particularly excessive and false worship What the Etymologist thought of it as the common opinion of Christians wee newly heard And this is the more probable because even most of the Popish Commentators doe take the word in an ill sense Vulg. superstitiones Act. 17.22 and render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Superstition without any pretence of a good sense of it which no doubt they would be glad to hear to colour and cover their own Will-worship and Superstition The Doctors reasons for his opinion have been considered afore but briefly now again 1. Those that use the word to expresse their owne worship conceive it to be a creditable word or else would not call it by that name No doubt but Heathens did think well of their own worship But it being a false worship it was never the better for that See Quaer of divorce sect 58. Blaming this in another And it is observable that in all the Doctors former large discourse hee brings onely Heathens to shew the meaning of the word bad enough sometimes but not one Divine Greek or Latine Father or any Moderne writer Papist or other who take it in a good sense which was not I believe for want of good will but something else 2. His next reason is when Saint Pauls Religion was called by that name Act. 25.19 it appeares not that Festus did use that word as an accusation or in an ill sense but in generall to signifie Pauls Religion c. Something hath been said to this above Sect. 20. and now we adde It appears rather to signifie something ill in his opinion For Festus was not a man of so much Religion or had any such esteem of the Jewish Religion as to give it any credit and therefore spake of it Superstition was made matter and reproach to the Romans sect 22. as of a Superstition as men use to call all not of their own Religion by way of defamation as the Doctor saies Sect. 24.3 The third reason is Saint Paul himself Act. 17.23 saith of the Athenians they did worship the true God though ignorantly taking him for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And is not worshiping of the true God ignorantly with their own devised worship a Superstition justly to be condemned was it not grosse Idolatry and sinfull Superstition in the Israelites to worship the true God in the Golden Calfe 4. Than other men is the Doctors gloss it may as well signifie more than is meet and that 's too Religious in the excesse He calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more Religious than other men not in relation to any vitious rite but to their worshiping the unknown God which worshiped others not But this as it begges the question so is it
against the text it selfe I perceive that in all things you are too Superstitious both in their worshiping of so many false Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a God in their ignorant worship of the true God and in their vitious rites of worship And this sense the Doctor himselfe gave Sect. 11. I consider and behold you in all things or in all that I see in you as men more superstitious than others though the word imports too Superstitions too Religious which is a Nimiety or Excesse in Religion and so justly called Superstition in an ill sense unlesse the Doctor thinke that to worship many false Gods and to worship the true God ignorantly be worthy the name of true Religion which the Apostle there censures by the name of Idolatry ver 16. Hee saw the City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given to Idolatry or full of Idolls And the vulgar rendring the word ver 22. by Superstitiosiores too Superstitious cannot intend it in a good sense yea the Doctor Sect. 31. grants that Superstitiosus in the Positive signifies Excesse more then in the Comparative § 23. The second Inconsequence hee saies is this Sect. 28. That the use of Ceremonies or rites in the worship of God if not distinctly prescribed either by the example or precept of Christ should be called Superstition and for that condemned But I beleeve this is a mistake None that I know make such a consequence but rather thus That what rite or ceremony soever is made a part of worship without such example or precept of Scripture is Superstitious and therefore condemned § 24. The third inconsequence Sect. 29. is a worse mistake That men on pretence and in the name of Piety should abstain from some observances indifferent as Superstitions either because commanded by lawfull authority or abused by Papists For the first charge I beleeve hee cannot give an instance of any one understanding Christian that ever did abstaine from observance indifferent because commanded by lawfull authority but rather because they were thought not indifferent but obtruded on them as parts of worship For the other that they have been used by Papists is not all but that by them they have been abused and accounted parts of worship and may easily return to be so accounted by others § 25. We acknowledge this assertion Sect. 30. 31. that Superstition may and doth in some authentick writers sacred especially signifie a Nimiety or Excess in Religion What saies he to it First he confesses Superstitiosus may denote such excess but so also doth Religiosus but then Superstition denotes it no more than Religio Agreed for Religion it selfe is sometimes taken for Superstition when it is applyed to a false Religion And all such Excesse in worship not prescribed is a Nimiety and culpable what ever A. A. Gellins Sect. 32 Gellius dreamed as an ill Judge of Superstition § 26. If so used by some Authors yet hee can say much against it Sect. 32. as 1. That some not of the meanest antient Heathens did it on the ground of Epicurean Divinity Wee professe we regard not what the best of Heathens say in matter of worship who never knew what true worship of God meant 2. For Christian writers the use of a word in that sense is so slight and casuall that not sufficient to fasten an ill character upon it c. It is no slight or casuall thing as hee makes it for all Divines that speake of this matter do generally condemn it as a thing of ill name and fame even Papists themselves and it s proved by this Topick by most of them because it is an Excess in Religion and illegitimate worship 3. That those that come home to the point are so few and modern and of so small authority that scarce worth producing with slighting and skorne enough spoken But why then doth not the Doctor in all this discourse give us the names of those many Antient Authentick Fathers c. that take it in a good sense Hee uses not to be so sparing where he hath such plenty of Authorities 4. The last is something nearer the question which supposing it to be taken in an ill sense for excesse c. saies Then it must be reduced to these two sorts as consisting either in the degree or in the number of Actions in quality or quantity wee consider what hee saies to both § 27. First in the first kind Sest 33. hee denies there is any such excess There is no possibility of being Religious in too high a degree praying too fervently too often c. But what saies hee to the arguments of the great Schoolman Aquin. 22.9.92 a. 1. who proves Superstition to be an excess in Religion and withall shewes how he meanes it Not because Superstition does yeeld more to divine worship than true Religion but because it exhibites Divine worship either to whom it ought not or in that manner it ought not We say as afore in prescribed worship there can be no Excess of degree The want of the highest degree there is a Defect A man cannot pray too earnestly what ever he may doe too often for that is naturall and prescribed worship But if a man shall tender to God devised worship the least degree here is too much As for too often praying the Euchitae were unjustly condemned if this was not a fault Yes saies he their fault was not their excessive practice but the laying that obligation upon themselves and others And why not both these For God having prescribed all men Callings to be waited on hee that shall pray continually to the Interruption thereof sinnes as well as he that prayes not at all But saies hee the fault is the neglect of the duties of our calling not the excesse of devotion We say the neglect of their Duties is caused by the Excess of this constant uncommanded Devotion and so one sin is the cause of another As for their laying it on themselves or others as an obligation its true that 's a fault but suppose they had layd no such obligation but onely thought it a matter of greater perfection more pleasing and acceptable to God had not this been Superstition also His supposition of separating that Excess from these neglects or omissions and then it would not be criminous to pray continually is not feisable in this life unlesse hee could find a man that had no Calling to labour in If any man might have been allowed to pray or serve God continually Adam in innocencie might have been the man and yet he was set to a calling to dress the Garden That the frequency of prayer could not be Superstitious unless the worship and institution it self were Superstitious which he collects from Saâ—nt Austin shall give us a double inference First that an institution of worship by men may be Superstitious 2. That hee seemes to contradict himself For in worship commanded as prayer is a man may be Superstitious
somewhat of true and reall wisdome or piety in them is a plain begging of the question now between us For we say as allmost all Interpreters doe they have onely a shew of wisdome but no truth nor reality and that the Apostle condemnes them as Willworship which yet the Doctor onely denies by asserting the contrary but proves not 4. what presum ption is this to read the words asunder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to all Greeke copies and Latine Interpreters onely to make out his own glosse And yet let him take his choice and read as he please it will not advantage him at all for still it comes but to this which things have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some shew of wisdom or piety not somewhat of wisdome much lesse some true reall matter of wisdome in them The Apostles scope being as we think and hee must not begge the contrary not to hold out somewhat of wisdome or piety in them but rather of folly and impiety as we shall shew hereafter Lastly as to this Section he leaves out the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem Estius inlocum which is â—n extenuating particle They have indeed a shew of wisdome but not the truth Or they have indeed a shew of wisdome but in Will-worship and Willhumility c. It 's true Interpreters differ about the placing of the Adversative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some understand it to be understood before Willworship as afore some at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have a shew of wisdom but are yet of no price or worth Beza Herome thinkes the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is redundant others think something is wanting thus after the manner of the Hebrewes which things have a shew of wisdome but not the truth Much like that place 2 Tim. 3.5 Having a form of Godliness but denying the power of it However the Doctor did not well to conceal this particle and to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by voluntary worship having not yet told us what he meanes by it of which anon § 8. That the last part of the verse not sparing of the bodie not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh is added to shew that there is somewhat of true or pretended piety in those former Doctrines by the contrariety to that tending and filling of the flesh which is so unlike piety is another gloss like the former an assertion without proof For the neglecting or punishing of the body as the Doctor phrases it by Abstinence from things allowed by God they placing the worship of God in it hath indeed a shew of pretended wisdome or piety as preferring the worship of God before the belly or body but no truth and is equally condemned as a Will worship by the Apostle At least this is the question and must not be begged § 9. Yet this the Doctor doth For hee takes it as granted with not a little confidence That this interpretation which he hath given is the most prompt proper and genuine rendring of the verse that will be met with and thereupon inferres and resolves that there is no ill character set upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Willworship by the Apostle in this place which wee shall examine when we have heard what in his judgement is noted by it which is this That voluntary Worship or acts of Religion which the Hebrewes call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nedabah the Freewill-offering 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 But there is a great mistake in comprehending these Abstinences under the Freewill offerings For both the Freewill offerings were something Positive and these Abstinences were Negative rather not-offering than offering Touch not tast not c. and also these Abstinences were commanded by speciall Lawes but Free-will-offerings he saies were not required of them by obligation of particular Law This difference is enough at present wee shall say more hereafter And now wee attend his discourse consisting in three things § 10. First hee saies he will give his reasons for his first Assertion That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used in a good creditable sense which he endeavours by 6. Arguments Sect. 11. Because Willworship is here joyned with two not onely lawfull but laudable Christian virtues Before I come to the particulars I cannot but note in generall that taking the word here in a good sense the Doctor complies too much with Papists most of them taking it in an ill sense who use to take off the force of the Objection by protestants from this place against their Willworship in their many Traditions of worship by answering that it is taken here in a good sense and that as the Doctor does for voluntary Religion Panstrat l. 1. c. 6. sect 5. or worship Which good sense the very learned and acute Chamier professes he never saw in any Interpreter of the place Onely he saies he found Justinian the Jesuite distinguishing the word to signifie as the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does sometimes Superstition and Impiety and sometimes pious and religious worship voluntarily undertaken but yet in this text asserting it to signifie Superstition or as Ambrose saith counterfeit Religion But hee shakes this distinction as groundlesse as we shall hear anon And now to the Doctors Arguments to prove it taken in a good sense First because it is joyned with Humility which being by Calvin a man not much regarded by the Doctor in other things interpreted in this place the Reverence both of God and men is no doubt a Christian virtue and cannot defame the Willworship to which it is associated c. But by his favour In affectâtaque humilitate quae affectatae Religioni conjuncta est Estius in locum Humility here is not that true and laudable Christian virtue but a meer counterfeit a pretended Humility fit for a pretended Willworship For the first words signifying onely a shew not any reality of wisdome exemplifies it first by Willworship which is affected Religion having a shew of piety but not the substance and then in an affected and counterfeit Humility And the Doctor may remember the same word is used in the 18. ver Sect. 23. of which he saies hereafter it was an impious kind of Mistaken Humility and why may not this be so too being both alike pretended in a Will-worship not commanded by God but invented and imposed by men And sure such impious mistaken Humility is no Christian or laudable virtue But of that place more anon 2. The next Pretence for his good sense is Because it is joyned with punishing or not sparing or as Calvin mortifying the body which as an act of selfdenyall cannot be acceptable to Christ and as a species of of
Voluntarium cultum non mâ—ndatum a deo sed illi oblatum humama voluntate c. D. Davent in loc Deus amat cultorem voluntarium sed odit cultum voluntarium Ide vide plura as voluntary implyes the efficient cause constituting the worship viz. the Will of man as contradistinguished to the Will of God In short there is a vast difference betweene voluntary worship and Willworship the one presupposes the Worship commanded by God the other constitutes the worship out of his own brain Now its true Worship of God commanded is not ill because it is spontaneous that is willingly performed but ill if it be not spontaneous or voluntary because in all service God requires the Will or heart But in worship devised by man the Will beares all the blame and the more voluntary in that sense the more abhominable and herein contrary to what the Dr. here asserts the voluntarinesse of it defames the worship it being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the irregularity of it and imputable to the action it selfe Math. 15.9 In vain do they worship me c. Again when a man out of pious affection shall doe any thing beside what God hath commanded in such worship as is invented by himselfe or other men this action is to be accounted so much more not commandable or acceptable as the Doctor but odious and abhominable to God But the Doctor addes there being no universall negative in Scripture prohibiting all things and degrees of things besides what are in particular commanded Yes we say there is an universall negative prohibition in the Scripture beside speciall ones in the second Commandement forbidding all things that is all worship and all degrees of that worship besides what are particularly commanded Hence it followes that there is no generall command or doctrine of the Gospell which is another caution of the Doctors to which such Willworship can hold conformity Nor will it salve the matter which he brings from an Heathen or the Apocrypha that piety is one of those virtues which have such a compass that the larger they be they are so much more commendable and the more spontaneous the more acceptable For this must be meant onely of commanded worship and the degrees or intention of the Will in those services therein you cannot exceed the generall command to love the Lord and so to serve him with all thy heart and strength But in Willworship that is of mens owne devising the first step in it and least degree of it is far from commendation or acceptation because you are so farre from being obliged to to doe it that you are strictly obliged not to do it § 17. We have done with the first undertaking wee are coming to his next to point at the cause of the mistake of the sense of the word which hee supposes to be § 18. 1. That the vulgar Latin renders it Superstition annd Calvin and Jerome follow them whereas the truth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word for Superstition and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies it no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used in a good sense But might not a man say as much for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self as the Doctor saies for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and bring the Doctor himself for his voucher Does not hee tell us in his other Tract that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes is taken in a good sense Of Superstition Sect. 22. For Religion or worship of God without any marke set upon it of true or false and rendred by Superstition Religion c. It seemes then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Superstitio are both taken in a good sense sometimes for Religion and in a bad sense other times and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and they agree in an ill sense sometimes and this helps not at all to vindicate the word Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it selfe is taken sometimes in an ill sense as the Doctor knowes as well as a good why then may they not both equally signifie Superstition especially when applyed to false or mendevised worship 3. The worshipers of Angells cannot be freed from the crime of Superstition saies he Superstition or Will-worship is more generall than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's but one species of Superstition if taken as the word imports for Daemonum cultus But all false worship is Superstition and the rather because it is Spontaneous voluntary that is Will-devised Worship Le ts try the next § 19. Another reason is that among the Jewes all was to be done according to the pattern in the Mount so some have resolved that no rite or circumstance no degree of worship may be used in the Christian Church but what hath Christs example or particular precept to authorize it c. But the Doctor much mistakes the question himselfe while hee is labouring to shew others mistakes For 1. it is not about a rite or circumstance or degree of worship commanded as Time Place Gesture not prescribed but of the Worship it self and herein we say we are equal with the Jewes and all the people of the world we may not vary from the prescription on the mount in the second Commandement to constitute any part of worship but what wee have the authority of Christ for in the new Testament And we do say and that truly that what ever worship is not commanded by Christ or justified by his example is censurable under the title of Willworship though otherwise in respect of the matter of it it would not be censurable And we have for our ground both the second Commandement in the old and this text beside others in the New Testament to justifie our assertion 2. That saying of the Doctor We may justly conclude those actions justifiable because not prohibited and not onely so but also acceptable and the more acceptable for the voluntarinesse c. is most unsound For in worship it will not justifie a man that it is not prohibited in particular but rather it is condemned because it is not commanded though all VVill-worship in our sense is prohibited as wee often said As for his gloss upon the words of Photius I say little I onely note that he seemes to make it a fault to sit at the readding of the Gospell which the Ecclesiastical Canons did not command and yet makes it no fault to adde a VVillworship of a mans own which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine lawdoth forbid § 20. A third ground of the abuse of the word is the affinity of the 18 verse of this Chapter and so the VVilworship here is guilty of all the same charges c. The distance pretended between them is so little that they may easily be reconciled That respecting a new devised worship onely and this the reviving of an old outdated worship as we shall see I onely observe what Maimonides observed That the errour that brought the greatest part of Idolatry into the world
was that men conceived and taught that vain worships and superstitions were the will and pleasure of God that is pleasing and acceptable unto God This is exemplified aboundantly in the Church of Rome whose Superstitions are grounded upon this that they are very pleasing to God let the Dr. take heed he do not justifie or imitate them 21. But he goes about to make good this distance between the verses onely he forbears not to weaken his following proofes by the Interpretation of Clem. Alex. who compounding these verses reads thus Let no man beguile you of your reward in VVill-worship of Humility and in neglecting of the body c. and makes it very certaine that he understood them both as one and very suspicious that they are at no such distance as the Doctor pretends § 22. You must saies he observe these two things 1. That the words are not in the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Now the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath with the 70. a sense which antient writers have not taken notice of viz. pleasing himselfe in worshiping of Angells or proud of a feigned humility as Hierome c. But this comes to nothing for 1. the sense is the same whither the words be joyned or parted a voluntary humility as the ground of that worship of Angells They good men were so modest and humble they would not rush upon God immediately though he Command it and so it was grosse pride masked with humility but they would go by Angells as Media tours Is not this the very plea of Papists at this day for their Invocation of Angells and Saints 2. Take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asunder and for pleasing or delighting In iis quae non vidit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 festuosus incedens Eras in v. 18. Qui jussa tantum facit nihil agit non vulgare qui transcendit praecepta hic Angelus est c. hic Deum sibi obaeratum facit D. Davent in loc Vid. Append s 23. or proud of a feigned Humility Did not these false teachers do the same were they not much pleased delighted proud of this new-old-revived worship as applauding their own wisdome in the Invention of this worship and their Humility and devotion in their abstinence from such meats c. Did not Jeroboam think you much please himself and pride himself in his politick Religion of the Golden Calves Are not all Superstitious and Idolatrous worshipers delighted with their VVillworship especially the first Devisers of it insulting not over others onely as more Religions then they Lo I thank thee I am not as other men c. I fast twice a weeke c. But also over God himself as making him beholden to them by going beyond what he commands 3. Why may not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Composition signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asunder self-pleasing worship or Religion His Clemens joynes them together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will worship of Humility That is observable which Estius notes on the place the 18. verse that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also volens in humilitate i. affectans humilitatem volens in Religione Angelorum 1. affectans c. a voluntary humility that is affecting humility and a voluntary worshiping of Angells that is affecting that worship For this the Apostle signifies in the 23. ver by composition of the words in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is as if hee had said let no man beguile you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Will-humility and willworship of Angells which the Doctor allowes us to call Willworship and an unlawfull thing a mistaken impious Humility Sect. 23. and Sect. 20. That crime of Superstition And so in this ver 23. wee may apply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all the 3. Willworship Estius in loc Wil-Humility and Wilpunishing of the body And t is very reasonable ro conceive that though it was praeter usum Greci sermonis so to place the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet the Spirit of God so directed Saint Paul to seperate the words in the 18. verse and to joyne them in the 23. on purpose that hee might teach us not onely what Estius observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 18. ver was to be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also but to teach us also how to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 23. ver viz. for Worship affected and sinfull and humility affected c. as well as in the 18. verse that is in the Doctors own words unlawfull Superstitions impious worship and Humility § 23. But he addes the second observation The will or delight in the 18. ver is fastned on unlawfull things viz. worshiping of Angels c. including an impious mistaken kind of Humility call this wil worship or what you please yet is it true still that voluntary worship where the matter is perfectly lawfull not forbidden nay approved by a generall command is far enough from having any tincture of ill in it But 1. its true the matter of these two worships differ considered in themselves but they differ not at all in the unlawfullness one being more expressely forbidden in the first Commandement the other by consequence or more generally in the second It is no more lawful to revive a Worship which God hath laid aside than it is to begin a worship which God never Commanded or forbad 2. The matter of this worship in the 23. verse was about meats which God had given precepts of before but now voided the matter was in it selfe lawfull they did but worship God in a lawfull matter why doth the Apostle blame them for this as he doth if the Doctors assertion be true That voluntary worship where the matter is lawfull is far enough from any tincture of ill It will not help him to say if not forbidden nay approved by a generall precept for let the matter be never so lawfull yet in Willworship it cannot have any generall precept to approve it Being the willing of that which God forbids his own words in this sect but rather hath generall and particular precepts to forbid and condemn it The Doctor still deludes us by the sense of voluntary worship which if he take for willingness in commanded worship wee shall not contend with him but if for worship invented and constituted by the will of man as he does not onely we but God himself observes it § 24. The 4. occasion of the mistake he saies is the use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius attributed to the Pharises This is generally taken in an ill notion yet finds a patron of the Doctor to defend or palliate it I shall not much labour about it but truly if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heare so ill the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superfluous to it will make it here worse Le ts hear what
he saies for it § 25.1 If it were a denotation of some ill it would not prejudice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the addition in the middle noting Superfluity perhaps some unlawfull or luxuriant matter Supervacaneam religionem sponte assumptum sive affectatam si◠Estius in ver 18 taken into that worship either prohibited object or noxious at least burthenous ceremonies in number or quality might turn that into evill which the voluntariness or uncommandednesse of them were not able to do To this I say The superfluity of them consisted not onely in the number burthen quality of them but even in the voluntary constitution of them as worship of God For so our Saviour charges them In vain do they worship me c. and that 's Superfluous worship And the uncommandednesse if there were nothing else in a matter of worship turnes them into ill and abhominable For this is the summe of the second Commandement God must be worshiped with his own prescribed worship and consequently all uncommanded worship is superfluous vain and sinfull as hath oft been said § 26. But secondly he saies I cannot acknowledge that word is taken by Epiphan in an ill sense though that was the Interpretation of their name they might be ill men yet the name might not signifie any ill thing c. who would think the Pharisees should find an advocate being such notorious Hypocrites The very name of their Religion argues them proud vain superfluous worshipers both for number and burthen of their ridiculous ceremonies and all of their own devising as parts of worship and yet the word cannot be yeelded to be taken in an ill notion Epiphan is describing the Heresie of the Pharisees awing others and calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as offending both in Willworship of their owne devising and also in the abundance and superfluity of them and yet the word hath no ill notion let him enjoy his own sense of it Sure our Saviour would not have condemned them so oft so sharply for both these if the words might have had a good sense or notion § 27. The truth is the main crime of the Pharisees was their censorious proud despising of other men whom they thought not so godly as themselves This is another of the Doctors mistakes Their main crime was that which was the occasion of that despising of other men Math. 23. which was their Hypocrisie which was cloaked with their mancle of Devotion in the Superfluity and Supererogation of their Traditions and Willworship which making them proud as all Willworshipers are with a shew of wisdom they despised others whom they thought lesse godly than themselves Luke 18. 1. trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others Their strictnesse in some particulars neglected by others was not so much in moralls as in ceremonialls of their own devising in washings and Fastings and placing the worship of God in them as Papists do and therefore the Doctor mistakes when he applies that Scripture to these these things ought you to have done for there it meant of things commanded by God but then their fault was that they were exact in the least commands and loose in far greater matters Or if they ought to have done their own Traditions why does our Saviour so bewoe them so often for doing of them And yet the Doctor saies Their strictnesse in Religion is far from being it self any ill character or blemish upon their voluntary religious performances wherein their superlative strictnesse did consist Their Superlative strictnesse consisted chiefly in the observation of their own Traditions even to the avoiding of the Commandements of God by them Mat. 15 6. and does this leave no blemish upon them I say no more let him consider it § 28. His third answer for the Pharisees is That the Originall of them was from the Hasidaei so called for their excess of charity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and voluntary performances above what the Law required of them and so differed from the Karraim who did that onely which was commanded by the Law c. It s likely to be so But when he saies these were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he renders such as in their obedience performed voluntarily some things which the Law required not and so differed from the Karaei I know not what he means for the word signifies onely such as were devoted voluntarily or as our English Translation reads it wellminded to the Law that is the Law of God But I think his intention is to fetch hence a colour for the Pharisees and his own voluntary worship whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies onely the freenesse or willingnesse of the Soul in the prescribed worship of God For all was to be voluntary and willing service and Gods people a willing people Ps 110 Populus volunta tum Now in this sense the Karaej were also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wellminded or voluntarily devoted to the Law But this word differs much from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a will-worshiper which signifies rather as wee have proved a Deviser of worship than one voluntary in gods prescribed worship Or if he take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for those Freewill offerings allowed in the Law as the 70. render the word yet in this sense the Karaej I doubt not were as well devoted and as wellminded to the Law as the Hasidaej The difference then between them was rather in this that the one in their worship kept close to the Rules of the Law the others would Supererogate and devise worship above or beside the Law and so the Doctor I think intends it Now I beleeve our Saviour would not have blamed the Pharisees for their Freewill offerings or voluntary performances in that sense because the Law allowed and approved them but he blames them for their Traditions their voluntary worship devised by themselves which the Doctor calls their voluntary performances above the Law And therefore however Scaliger may justifie the Karaei for doing onely what was commanded of them He can never justifie the Hasidaei for doing more in the worship of God than was commanded them unlesse he will condemn our Saviour for condemning them For the rest of the discourse in this Section I shall onely note the progresse of Willworship At first the Hasidaei afterwards Pharisees were onely men devoted or well minded to the Law it seemes in words of Charity Afterwards they finding applanse from men they began to perform some voluntary worship which the Law required not Then at last their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Scaliger saies came to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their voluntary worship came to be necessary and formed into precepts Then from pious men The sidem they became Dogmatizers laying obligations upon all to do as they did and not being obeyed discriminated themselves from all others as the onely obedient servants of God and so called themselves Pharisees c. The
application is very easie and very observable in the new Pharisees of Rome Testivalls of the Church sect 16. ad fin and all Superstitious Willworshipers as shall be exemplified in Hypothesi in another place Yet the Doctor thinks by this meanes to vindicate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from any ill sense as they that offended not in the Wil-worship but in Dogmatizing which yet is not imported in the word and he does indeed condemn it we may justifie the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I desire to know whether Will-worship I mean devised worship in any one man be not sinfull though he never come to Dogmatize or lay obligations upon others to do as he does But the mischiefe is that Willworship if not ever yet commonly ends in Dogmatizing especially in men of place and piety and learning as is evident in the Histories of the Church in all ages and places § 29 And now wee are come to the third part of his undertaking concerning those voluntary oblations under the Law to which he hath often paralelled his voluntary Worship by him understood in this text sect 9. c. wherein he propounds three observations But before we deale with those observations in particular we shall lay down the Nature of a Freewill-offering and shew wherein the Formality of it did consist which the Doctor hath neglected to doe A Freewill-offering may be so called two waies 1. In regard of the Freewillingnesse of the mind of the offerer Exod. 35.29 every man and woman brought a willing offering whom their heart made willing to bring it c. But this Willingnesse of the person was required in the most necessary commanded worship yea every act of obedience to God in both Tables is to be done most willingly by that generall Law Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy Heart c. And in this sense the Offering or worship is presupposed to be commanded by God This not here meant 2. With respect to some Liberty or free choice De Repub. Habr l. 4. c. 17 left to the Will of the offerer as standing in contradiction to such offerings or worship as they were bound to either by Law or vow as Sigonius well observes Though there was not so great a difference between a vow and a Freewilloffering but that an offering by vow might be called a Freewilloffering in this sense that it was free to vow See Ainsw in Levit 7.16 or not to vow though it was not free to pay or not to pay it And the same may be said of a Freewilloffering that it was not free t◠offer it or not when once it was promised though it was free to promise or not to promise it The difference seemes onely graduall a vow being a more solemne promise and a Freewilloffering voluntarily promised as the Hebrewes expresse it being a lesse solemn vow But this by the way The Libertie left to the offerer was of 2 sorts 1. Libertas specificationis as they call it when it was left to his choice what he would offer of severall things allowed by the Law Not an unlimited liberty to offer what kind of things he would a Bear or a Lyon of beasts or a Vulture or Eagle of Fowles But onely some one or other of those three kinds of beasts Beeves Goates Sheep Ainsw on Levit. 1.2 or of those two kinde of fowles prescribed by the Law Pigeons or Turtles which choice was allowed in other sorts of offerings as well as in those that were properly called Freewillofferings which is observable And this Liberty was not I say unbounded but much limited as in these particulars 1. It was not left free to any man in the least kind to appoint the kind of his own offering not appointed by God but to chuse amongst things instituted by God that which did best agree with his own condition and ability So that God it seemes had respect to the severall abilities of men some were rich and able to offer a greater sacrifice a Sheep or a Goat or a Bullock others were poor and had not any of those and then allowed to offer a pair of Pidgeons c. which is the expresse reason of that Law Levit. 12.6.8 A lamb was required for an offering for a womans Purification with one Pigeon or a Turtle dove But if not able to bring a Lamb then two Turtles or two Pigeons To teach us that if there be a willing mind it is accepted according to what he hath not what he hath not The widowes two mites accepted c. 2. There was a generall Law that the Freest offerings were to be according to the measure of Gods blessing Deut 16.10 whence it had been a sinne for any Israelite whom God had plentifully blessed to offer a pair of Pigeons instead of a Bullock upon his own meer pleasure And this law is renewed in the Gospell Act. 11 19. See sect 32. 1 Cor. 16.2 Let every man lay by him in store as God hath prospered him viz. for the poor 3. Where the choice was allowed and taken as of a Goat or a Sheep c. that choice was no formall worship but a circumstance in a commanded worship 4. It had not been lawfull in that choice for the Priests to require or them to offer necessarily one of them as a more speciall worship than the other e. g. when liberty was left to offer a Sheep or a Goat a Pigeon or a Turtle dove c. to make it necessary to offer a Sheep and unlawfull to offer a Goat c. had been plain Willworship So that here is little liberty left to man to appoint a worship of Ged which he commanded not and the Formality of a Freewill offering did not consist in that 5. In that liberty of choice yet God gave rules and directions how they should be ordered Levit. 22.20 not maimed or blemished c. And that of the first kind of liberty there is another 2. Libertas exercitij when it was left free in some cases for a man to offer or not to offer beyond what was positively required by the Law If thou wilt offer a Nedabah a Freewilloffering c. And herein onely or chiefly stands the Formality of a Freewill-offering as contradistinguished to those offerings which were commanded by the Law and the Leviticallnesse or Ceremoniality of them seems to lie here whereby they are now abolished God did than by speciall allowance give liberty for Freewilofferings not onely in regard of the Specification of the offering of this or that kind but also the Liberty of exercise to offer or not to offer excepting in cases commanded If they offered not they did not sin and if they offered it was the more accepted And of this kind of Freewillofferings the Doctor intends his discourse when he paralells his voluntary oblations with those of the Law and calls them voluntary worship not commanded by God and