Diatribist it is most evident that Religion and Superstition were by them who were guilty of daemon worship or when used of them by others taken as exactly Synonyma words importing the same thing But against this the Diatribist conceives himself out of these very Sections to have gained somewhat to object It seems saith he the heathens did oft take the word in an ill sense and branded Religions which they did not like by that name Plutarch taxes the Jewes for their Superstition in two things remarkable 1. That when invaded they would not rise from their seats on the Sabbath day which was excess against the 4th Commandment and gross Superstition 2. Their killing and sacrificing their children to Moloch which being an horrid Superstition was as the former intended as a worship to the true God and yet was interpreted no better then sacrificing to devils Psal 106. 37. which though in other respects it was against the first Commandment gross Idolatry so in making it a worship of the true God when he commanded it not neither came it into his heart as somewhere he sayes it was a kind of Superstition against the 2d Commandment concluding in a word that the Etymologist speaks fully his sense the word among the heathen is taken for a good thing but among Christians for impiety How solid this way of objecting is will now soon be discerned 1. By remembring in the general that at the beginning of the § the testimonies brought by me in those Sections were judged to be to little purpose but to cloud the business and lead men away in a mist and yet now he can express kindness to some of the testimonies as thinking they may be usefull to his pretensions which assures me all the other might have been capable of the like favour and friendly reception from him if they could any way have been perswaded to do him service 2dly To the heathens taking the word in an ill sense the answer is most obvious so they did Religion too and indifferently either when either they that spake were Epicureans enemies to all Religion or when the Religions they spake of were disliked by them and so sure that proves nothing for the Diatribist 3dly This is the answer also to what is observed from Plutarch for he speaks of the religions which he disliked the Jewish was one of them and particularly their observation of Sabbatick rests to the ruining their City which he thought their Religion had bound them to and never dreamt that they had mistaken their Religion or that their 4th Commandment allowed them greater liberty 4thly That Plutarch mentions the killing and sacrificing of children he took that also for a part of some mens Religion and thought he had reason to be dissatisfied with it and to make it an instance of the Quantum Religio potuit how much evil Religion did in the world still making no distinction betwixt Religion and Superstition But here by the way the Diatribist hath a little mistaken in thinking that this bloody worship in sacrificing their children to Moloch was as the former i. e. as that of the strict Judaical rest in time of invasion intended as a worship to the true God Certainly Moloch was no true God but a false the abomination of the children of Ammon 1 Kin. 11. 7. and 2 Kin. 23. 13. thought by learned men to be a deified King of the Aegyptians and so a daemon placed among the starres the same that others make the planet Mars see Kircheri Prodromus Coptic 1. 5. and that sacrifice was the giving their seed to Moloch that false God Lev. 20. 2 3 4. or the making their sonnes and daughters pass through the fire to Moloch Jer. 32. 45. and so no way intended to the true God And whereas he saith this was interpreted no better then sacrificing to devils Psal 106. 37. t is strange he should not see or acknowledge that it was a downright sacrificing to Moloch a Daemon and not as to the true God but then he could have had no pretense to make it an act of uncommanded worship and so such a kind of Superstition as is chargeable on our Christmas Festival and then he had lost all the advantage which this instance was to bring in to him Toward this he thought to reap some benefit by that text of Scripture He commanded it not neither came it into his heart as he somewhere sayes But why did he not tell us where God saith this If his memory had failed his Concordance would soon have helpt him to set down the place But it was not for his turn it should be examined The place is Jer. 32. 35. and again Jer. 7. 31. and truely belongs to these sacrifices to Moloch but then God's not commanding c. signifies not onely uncommanded worship but by the figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinary in the Scripture worship directly forbidden under threat of excision Lev. 20. 2. Whosoever he be that giveth any of his seed to Moloch he shall surely be put to death the people of the land shall stone him with stones and I will set my face against him and cut him off from among his people v. 3. And if the people of the land do any way hide their eyes from the man when he giveth of his seed to Moloch and kill him not then will I set my face against that man and family and will cut him off and all that go a whoring after him v. 4. and accordingly we see it in the Execution Jer. 7. 31 32. The valley of Tophet where they burnt their sonnes and daughters in the fire shall be called the vally of slaughter for they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place And sure this was not the manner of proceeding against those that observed any feast or sacrifice to the true God which was not commanded or prescribed by God they that kept the Encaenia were not thus judged and therefore this was very little to the Diatribist's advantage as now appears by examining the place it is pity Mr. C. would not consider it Lastly For the words in the Etymologist which he saith are fully his sense t is again a mistake they are directly the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It must be known that the word Superstition is among the Graecians or Gentiles taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a good thing but among us Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for impiety i. e. evidently the heathens and the Christians use it for the same thing the worship of daemons but that the Gentiles commend and account good who use it but we Christians justly deem it the greatest impiety Agreeable hereto again is that of Phavorinus a Christian also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstition is the worshipping all things even those which ' are not to be worshipt and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that is dubious concerning faith as the Israelites betwixt God and
kneeling any or all of these or any fourth superadded to these If the Rule have prescribed none then according to his doctrine again any of these must be criminous additions to the Rule abominable c. If the rule have prescribed some one then all others beside that one must fall under the same severity that that one had done if it had not been prescribed and if all three are under several precepts and so the whole Rule obeyed by retaining these three then still I shall mention a fourth that of prostration whether will the old penitents in the porch or on the pavement every man in his closet and recesse and still the question returns whether this be criminous and by what part of the rule of worship it appears to be so Necdum finitus the enumeration of the Diatribists inextricable difficulties is not yet at an end but infinitely multipliable by every act of Religious Fast and of Almsgiving the two other sorts of Gods worship as Aquinas owned here by the Diatribist hath defined from the sixt of Matthew the proportions or degrees of each of which are yet no where defined in the Scripture But I suppose it cannot now be necessary that I farther confirm what is so evident already Else I might yet farther proceed from the duties of the first to the second Table and demand whether any thing that is done out of the service of God for which there is no command be a criminous excess Certainly the Analogy will hold God having given the Rule for justice and charity as well as worship and then whatsoever of any kind is not under precept must by this argument be under interdict and so there will be nothing left indifferent in the world A conclusion that some men which have held Mr. C. his hypothesis have rationally inlarged to finding it necessary and unavoidably deduced from thence But I discern not yet that Mr. C. hath thus improved his principle though sure whensoever it is for his turn it is thus improvable But Mr. C. hath added three proofs to his affirmation and how unreconcileable soever with common notions that is yet those must deserve to be heeded And his first proof is this If a man or Church may adde to the Rules of Religion then be or they may be too Religious But Ergo. Here it must be remembred that the thing which he had proposed to himself to prove was this that in uncommanded worship the least addition to the rule of worship is too much and such a man may be said to be too religious And this saith he I prove 1. If a man or Church may adde to the rule of religion c. Of this 1. I desire to be told whether it be not a meer idem per idem a proving a thing by it self and whether that be not contrary to all rules of syllogizing where the medium of probation is never to enter the conclusion as here most evidently it doth Having said this to the form t is not needfull that I say any thing to the matter of this proof it being the very thing that I have spoken to all this while and by that distinction of the sorts and circumstances of worship I have competently shewed that it hath no force against me that indeed he that introduces any new part of divine worship is a presumptuous assumer doth more then he should because that which he should not do and so that the Major is false instead of clear he that thus addes and imposeth on God and his word is not hereby too religious but too bold and was never pleaded for in the least by my treatise of Superstition The inconsequence of this Major will more appear by considering the proof of the Assumption which he annexes The assumption saith he is proved by Deut. 4. 2. where all additions to the word are prohibited But I pray doth he that prostrates himself in prayer adde to the word of God then sure he that walks in the garden doth so too much more he that makes any such deductions from Scripture as this Diatribist here doth for not onely the analogie enforceth this but it is also to be remembred that the laws which had here been given by Moses were all sorts of duties of common life towards our selves and our brethren as well as of worship toward God and so this Text must exclude all other uncommanded actions as well as worships The words in Deuteronomy are these Ye shall not adde to the word that I command you neither shall ye diminish from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad custodiendum and in the same sense the Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to observe or that ye may observe that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you The meaning is most evident that they were to perform uniform obedience to God not to make any change in Gods commands either to pretend more liberties or fewer obligations or again more obligations and fewer liberties to be delivered them by God then those which he had then delivered by Moses but to set themselves humbly to the performance of his precepts and accordingly the Septuagint renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to keep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye shall keep the Latine custodite keep and the Syriack sed observate but keep the commandments by that opposition shewing that to be the meaning of not adding or diminishing viz. paying an obedience to Gods commands And the same sense in the like words we have again Apoc. 22. 18 19. to shut up the great prophecy in the New Testament And then I pray is he that offends against either of these two texts too Religious Is it not more true on the contrary that he is a false Prophet and a sacrilegious person that pretends the word of the Lord for that which God hath not spoken to him But this crime I hope every man is not guilty of that bowes or kneeles or prostrates himself in prayer by such outward gestures both signifying and inflaming the inward fervor of the heart but not inserting any precept of doing thus either into the book of Deuteronomy or the Apocalyps And this may suffice for his first proof His second proof is from the saying of the great School man that Religion is a moral virtue or very like it and stands between two extremes Ergo a man may be too much religious as well as too little First I answer to the antecedent that if it be remembred what the two extremes are between which religion in Aquinas stands the consequent will never be inferred from it The extremes are on one side Superstition on the other irreligion superstition is again saith he of two sorts either 1. the worshiping of a creature of false Gods or more Gods then one as in Tertullian adv Marc. l. 1. c. 5. speaking of the worshiping of two Gods Vererer saith he ne abundantia officii superstitio potiùs quà m
Baal or as Tertullian saith if there were conceived more Gods then one cultura ejus in anceps deduceretur he should not know whom to worship whether one onely or both adv Marc l. 1. c. 5. or he also that fears or worships daemons as the Assyrians in Samaria that feared the Lord and served their own Gods And so still this is as contrary to the Diatribists pretensions as might be And so much for that Section Sect. 8. Superstition always ill but not always excess Probations from the use of words among heathens The Quaere of Divorce vindicated Superstitions not reprocht in the Romans by Polybius Ignorance not presently Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. The Israelites worshipping the Calfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstitiosus noting excess THe 22d. § makes a leap from the 14th to the 27th over 12. not very brief Sections I suppose it is because he hath no least objection to make against them being not else very sparing in this kind and yet in them is contained my enumeration of all the notions wherein the word Superstition is or can be taken in the antient heathens Scriptures and Christian glossaries and the premises on which the subsequent conclusions are founded and cannot be denyed while the premisses are granted and the whole matter made clear that none of the notions of the word is applicable to the benefit of the Diatribist's pretensions Now in § 27. it seems some flawes are to be found as 1. When I say t is inconsequent that Superstition simply and absolutely taken should be resolved in all Authors to signifie somewhat that is ill particularly false worship this saith he is not the question but whether in Scripture and orthodox Divines it do not always signifie something evill particularly excessive and false worship To this the answer is easie that I am far from doubting that Superstition is an ill thing and therefore never meant to make that the question This appears of me because I every where acknowledge the word Greek and Latine to signifie the worship of daemons or false Gods onely I could not but observe in the first place that the heathens who are known to worship such daemons and not to think that a fault in themselves did mean no new ill by that word whether excess or other the like either more or worse then they ordinarily meant by Religion this being indeed their Religion to worship many Gods This they must have done if they had by that word understood an excess of Religion and by their taking it in a good sense as Synonymous with Religion it appears that this of excess was not esteemed the due notion of it This I thought usefull to be said that the very title of Superstition might not defame every thing as an excess in Religion and criminous to which it was affixt unless it might otherwise appear that there was really any such evill in it and this I said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew the absurdness of their concluding who taking the word Superstition for a word of an universal ill savour as signifying excess of Religion first affixe it to innocent ceremonies and institutions to which it no way belongs and then infer them nocent as being Superstitions without proving any charge of malignity against them and as preparative to the discovery of the following mistakes rather then that I ever imagined Superstition truely so called to have no ill in it And therefore of this any otherwise then as I now say and then meant I shall make no question and on condition he will never apply the word Superstition any otherwise then the Scripture and antient Christian writers apply it i. e. to daemon worship or to undue worship of the true God in the notion of indebitus or illegitimus cultus in Aquinas not to each such Super statutum as he will call an excess the using of each uncommanded ceremonie and the like I shall acknowledge the word always to signifie that among all good writers heathen or Christian which we Christians justly deem evil and that was clearly the Etymologist's meaning as we shewed in the last Sect. and against that there is no colour of argument offered in all this long Sect. For what if the vulgar translation which he sets as the onely instance of Popish Commentators render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Superstitio what if the Papists pretend it not to be taken in a good sense whom I suppose far enough from yielding themselves to be Superstitious doth that prove that Festus meant any excess by that word or indeed any more then Religion Next when he makes his observation that in all my large discourse I bring onely heathens to shew the meaning of the word and not one Divine Greek or Latine Father c. who take it in a good sense this is neither true in the affirmation for I bring the Scripture and the Christian glossaries to testifie all that I pretend to nor yet in the application for I do not pretend the word to signifie that which a Christian counts good but among the heathen the worship of many Gods which none but heathens can think to have no ill in it and consequently I pretend it onely of them and of those that set down the use of words among them and of S. Paul when he is not a finding that fault in them Act. 17. 22. and so still this is sufficient to prove that the word originally signifies not any excess of Religion or any other evil abstracted from that of the Daemon worship c. which was all that I had in design to conclude And in making this use of heathen Authors sure I have done nothing which I ever blamed in any man else as the Diatrihist's margent accuseth me citing the Quaere of Divorce § 58. where I thought it unreasonable that all the antient Christian writers should not be as competent to give us the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Demosthenes and Philo and yet made no scruple to acquiesce in the notion which either Demosthenes or Philo gave us § 57. For if he pleased to mark there is here no difference between the heathen writers and others Scripture and antient Christians concerning the meaning of the word Superstition all yeelding it 〈◊〉 to signifie the worship of many Gods whereas there that other person whom I opposed profest a contrariety and then preferred the one before the other To which yet it is necessarily consequent that in another inquiry whether Superstition were among Authors taken in a good sense some difference should be observed between Authors heathen and Christian because it is certain the heathen worship is by us Christians most justly lookt on as an ill thing being the worship of creatures but by the heathens thought well of as the Diatribist here confesseth practised and commended and so not lookt on any otherwise then Religion it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Etymologist used for a
only of impiety in Idolatry And thus I hope I have at length vindicated this 2d argument for the good sense of the word from all the evasions and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and truly there have been good store of them and I believe this Section his masterpiece of dexterity and therefore I have so punctually and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insisted on it from all the subtile refuges of this Diatribist Sect. 11. The Greek Fathers acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An argument of goodness that 't is pretended by hypocrates Religion in a good sense Will-worship not worse then false worship not abominable All devised worship is not Idolatry doth not pretend to more wisdom then Gods The Latin Fathers cited by Mr. C. The vulgar Translator and the followers thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the vulgar rendred decernitis The authority of Bellarmine and Daillé for the good sense The testimonies out of Ambrose Theodoret Salmeron Estius Augustine Thomas examined MY third reason being taken from the Greek fathers understanding of the place who though they interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only of appearance yet paraphrase Will-worship by words of good savour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pious religious c. The Diatribist begins with a triumph and ovation First saith he this is well that the Greek Fathers agree with us in exposition of the first words a shew not as he somewhat real of wisdom nay they expressely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he seems to be religious but is not so Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretending religion in worship And is there any goodnesse in hypocrisie 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 incourage and ingage him to a more familiar conversation with them and then I am perswaded no body will have reason to repent of it All that I am to complain of at the present is first that their interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shew should be deemed an agreement with him more then with me who he knowes have produced them and never exprest any dislike to that interpretation All the difference between us being but this that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being capable of two rendrings rationem and speciem I that desired to proceed on sure grounds proposed them both and which soever should be adhered to shewed the necessity of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taken in a good sense T is true indeed if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be there taken for ratio the argument for the good sense would proceed most irresistibly But supposing it with the Fathers to signifie species a bare shew or appearance yet the argument holds very firmly thus also the Gnostick doctrines cannot have so much as a shew of piety in Will-worship unlesse Will-worship real be piety real and the appearance of Will-worship a foundation of an appearance of piety And this being the sense of the Fathers which rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bare shew this sure was fit to be confronted to the Diatribist's pretensions as a third argument And is it not now a strange way of answer to this argument to ask as he here doth Can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worship of God be taken in a good sense I reply by demanding what it is of which the Fathers say that it hath neither power nor truth Sure the doctrines of abstinence and not the Will-worship And yet his answer proceeds as if they supposed it of the Will-worship and without that hath no appearance of force in it And is not this a strange perverting of plain words Chrysostome saith the false teacher seems to be pious but is not and Oecumenius that he simulates piety and from hence Mr. C. concludes that Will-worship is not taken in a good sense But I pray is not piety taken in a good sense even when the hypocrite simulates piety Nay would he pretend to it if it were not good Doth a hypocrite pretend to that which is acknowledgedly ill This were sure to appear what he is and that is contrary to his being an hypocrite The product is plain Will-worship is rendred by piety not by appearance of piety unless piety it self can be taken there in an ill sense Will-worship must be taken in a good sense Certainly I need adde no more 't is pity I should be required to say so much of this matter But on occasion of the interpreter of Clemens who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in religione from whence I thought I might conclude it that mans sense that Will-worship signifies religion and so that it was not taken in an ill sense he is pleased to ask Why Is not religion it self of various senses The simple word signifies false religion as well as true but the composition makes it worse and alters the sense because it addes the work of mans will to worship which is abominable to God What depth there is in this question will soon appear For 1. What if both religio and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be of various senses and signifie false religion as well as true heathen or Judaical as well as Christian Is there any appearance of reason to determine it to the former in this place or in that interpreters acception of it If there be then there is an account of the words being taken in an ill sense without any influence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mans will upon it if there be not as he is obliged to affirm there is not saying p. 69 that the Apostle brands them as destructive because they are but Will-worship not because they are outdated or Judaical much lesse then because they are any more dangerous sort of false worship such as was used among the heathens then what matters it what in other places it signifie whensoever the adjuncts or context so determine it unlesse it do or can be pretended to do so here This being premised that which follows is yet more strange that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying false religion as well as true the composition makes it worse worse then what then false religion This is fairly to resolve that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of the true God is worse then false religion indefinitely i. e. then Idolatry or Superstition and the reason annext is of the same temper adding the work of mans will is abominable to God Here indeed is a foundation of charge of Idolatry or whatever is most abominable on this poor Church of ours for the bare using of any most innnocent ceremony
free it is t is so much the more commendable Now it is of lawfull and Christian worship that we here speak as he knows well enough or else it were not imaginable we could take it in a good sense and of this he must needs understand us also or else he could not make all the blame of it in mans will or devising as he doth And that a worship in itself and materially lawfull i. e. whilst it is abstracted from the consideration of Gods commanding it or not should by not being commanded by God become unlawfull this is to confound things most distant forbidding and not forbidding For the Law and Will of God being the rule in agreement with or opposition to which lawfull and unlawfull consists it is as impossible that any thing should be unlawfull in respect of Gods Law which is not forbidden by it as that any thing should be lawfull which is forbidden When therefore he proceeds affirming but offering no proof that the voluntariness of an action is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or irregularity of it first this is a begging the question 2. 'T is set in such terms that it hath not the least appearance of truth in it for how can the voluntariness be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or irregularity unless the Law forbid voluntariness which certainly it no way doth as was formerly evidenced from hence because there is no universall negative command in Scripture prohibiting all acts and degrees of acts beside what are in particular commanded That there is no such sufficiently appear by the one instance which here he thinks fit to mention that of the 2d Commandment which saith he forbids all things i. e. all worship and all degrees of that worship besides what are particularly commanded Which though it be as far from all appearance of truth as any thing affirmable by any for what word is there in that Commandment which can sound that way Certainly none unlesse every ceremony devised by man and every degree whether of charity or devotion which is not particularly under precept be presently metamorphosed into a graven image hath not yet any the least proof to back it and so still is the meanest begging of the main question imaginable And so having more largely spoken of this before this is sufficient also to be said here in the vindication of my last reason Sect. 14. The first occasion of mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ill The vulgar translator and Mr. Calvin The Diatribists three exceptions to this shewed to be of no force Will-worship distant from Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only in a good sense among Christians Three mistakes of the Diatribist All uncommanded is not forbidden HIS next post or Stage is made up of an examination of those things to which I conceived the mistake and abuse of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imputable The first of which I assigned to be the vulgar translations rendring it Superstitio that being most probably S. Hieroms and his words being found agreeable to it in some places and from thence Mr. Calvin hath affirmed it Superstitio Graecis dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That this was fit to be insisted on as a first occasion of the mistake will be evident enough to any who considers how ordinary it is for the Romanists on one side without farther inquiry or consideration to follow the vulgar translation and for the reformed on the other to follow the steps of Mr. Calvin and not alwaies to examine his grounds of affirming which certainly were very farre from solid in this matter it being evident to all that know any thing of words that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Greek for Superstition and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being but once used in Scripture and not found in any author but such as may be resolved to have used it from thence Mr. Calvins words that Superstitio is called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot probably signifie any more then that the Greek word in that one place is by the vulgar translator rendred Superstitio And then this is an evidence of that which there I affirmed that the occasion of taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in in an ill sense which I must be allowed to deem a mistake is the vulgar translators rendring it Superstitio Now to this three things are here objected though not to the main of the observation for no word is replied to that yet to the mention of the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. First that a man may say as much for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it self as the Doctor saith for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and bring the Doctor for his voucher who saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes is taken in a good sense But I reply 1. that the Doctor never saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in a good sense among Christians who sure never allowed the worship of Daemons but only among heathens who do allow it 2. That if it were sometimes taken in good sense yet that were not sufficient to conclude that it were all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all good things are not the same no nor all ill and therefore in whatsoever sense the words are taken whether both in good or both in ill the one in good the other in ill sense yet still the nature and importance of the words is distant so ought not to have been confounded either by the vulgar translator or by Mr. Calvin and being so unduly confounded the Diatribist cannot from thence raise any more solid argument for the ill sense of the one then I can which I pretend not to do for the good sense of the other 2dly He objects that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Doctor knowes is taken also sometimes in an ill sense as well as a good why then saith he may they not both equally signifie superstition especially when applied to false or men-devised worship I answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when spoken of Christians is never taken in an ill sense unlesse by virtue of some Epithet joined with it which it self is ill as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. James vain religion and then also t is the vanity which hath the ill sense not the religion And again that vain or ill religion is not superstition neither but an unagreeablenesse of the Professors practice to his religion Now he knows it is of Christians that now we speak and so there could be no place for this exception nor for any thing to be founded in it nor plea from hence that either the simple or the compound should be rendred superstition As for the men devised worship that that should be synonymous with false that is the old artifice of begging the question in stead of saying ought for the gaining of it His last exception is that Superstition or Will-worship is more general then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 i. e. Will-devised worship Here is a fair proportion of mistakes without any tender of proof for any no lesse then three in these so few words First he begins with a presumption that Superstition and Will-worship are all one and that he knowes is now the one thing denied by him with whom he is disputing and he cannot be ignorant how illogical an argument that is we have oft minded him of that fallacy Secondly he affirms that either of these is more general then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas 1. Superstitio being superstitum cultus is directly all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is daemonum cultus the Superstites and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the same in several languages and the other notion of Superstition that in Aquinas for prohibited or illegitime worship that is but a branch of the former arising by analogy with it and is not any opposite Species to it and for Will-worship if that be more general then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that very thing will prove it 1. not to be all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a substance which is the more general is not all one with a body which is a Species of substance The truth is that the generical Will-worship as that comprehends all worship uncommanded by God hath several Species under it Jewish out-dated and so now uncommanded worship heathenish forbidden and so uncommanded worship and finally Christian acceptable yet not commanded acts or circumstances or degrees of worship And as the genus is not all one with any one Species so Will-worship in general is not any one of these but all of them together And 2. It implies the word to be capable of a good as well as of an ill sense and so indeed it is being taken in a latitude Will-worship or as he will style it men devised or Will devised worship may be of two sorts as the generical word Worship may either true or false heathen or Christian and as the one is ill so the other is certainly good But then what is that to the Will-worship in this text which is not the generical as that is common to good and bad but that which is in the Diatribists understanding a wicked and false and in mine a good and a Christian Will-worship and which soever of the two it is it is certainly not both and so still but a Species of the generical Will-worship and so not the genus it self Lastly when he saith all false worship is superstitious and the rather because it is spontaneous this is a strange involution again For the whole truth of that proposition All false worship is Superstition consisting in this that all worship of false gods or forbidden worship of the true God is wont to be comprised under that name the former according to the literal sense of the word Superstitum cultus the latter as reducible or by analogy agreeable to that it is very unreasonable to superstruct upon this that that false worship is the rather superstitious because it is spontaneous It being certain that if it offend not some other way then by being spontaneous i. e. if it be not in respect of the matter of it false worship and so forbidden it is not superstition at all and if it be false worship in it self forbidden then sure it is more then spontaneous for so must all be that is actually forbidden So that there is not the least degree of appearance of truth in that last affirmation That which is indeed false worship is more then spontaneous the uncommandednesse of it is precedent and inferior in order of nature to its being forbidden and its being forbidden is an addition to its not being commanded the falseness consists in its being devised by mans will not simply but in opposition to Gods i. e. when t is forbidden and it would not otherwise be false worship if it were not forbidden either directly or by analogy with somewhat which is directly forbidden and what is forbidden is more then not commanded and so more then spontaneous and so the ill of it cannot be increased by being spontaneous and so it is not the rather superstition or any other kind of evil for being spontaneous On the other side that worship which is supposed not to be forbidden is consequently thereto to be resolved not to be false and if it be not false it cannot be Superstition for such onely is false worship and if so then again the voluntariness or Spontaneity of it cannot make it more false or more Superstition then before it was because it was neither false nor Superstition before and the bare uncommandedness cannot render it either Gods not commanding implying his permission and so a liberty allowed by God and that is so far from being all one with prohibited that it is in effect the very contradictory to it this being permitted by God whereas all that is prohibited is not permitted And so here is a competent number of infirmities in very few words And yet there is still one behind the great impertinency of this and of the two former answers to the point in hand the occasions to which it is imputable that Will-worship came to be taken among many in an ill sense which without question at least without any word of exception from this Diatribists three branches of this 18th § is the vulgars rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstitio and Mr. Calvin's following the vulgar Sect. 15. The second occasion of taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an ill sense vindicated The design of the Treatise of Will-worship onely for ceremonies not for new kinds of worship Whether all ceremonies be forbidden which are not commanded The various reading of Philostorgius Sitting at the Gospell forbidden Chrysostomes Testimonie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Ecclesiastical Canon pilpeoppunza Will-worship THe second cause of mistaking this word I had set down at large § 19. to be the reflexion on the Judaical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where in the building of and officiating in the Temple all was to be done according to the pattern in the mount from which some may have made a shift to conclude that so it must be in the Christian Church no rite no circumstance no degree of worship to be used there but what hath Christ's example or precept to authorize it To this he replyes 1. That I much mistake the question for it is not about a rite or circumstance or degree of worship commanded but of the worship it self and herein Christians are equal with the Jews we must not vary from the prescription on the mount in the 2d Commandment to constitute any part of worship but what we have the authority of Christ for in the New Testament adding the ground for this both the
by perfection according to the Commandments he will allow me to mean as the words literally import that sort and degree of perfection which the Commandments of the Gospel allow of very well though they require it not of every man or lay it under precept then I shall not doubt to approve the perfection which I instance in viz. that of martyrdome to be such unless when some discharge of known duty or yet greater good calls us another way and if this be the doctrine of Papists I hope yet that all Protestants are not therefore bound to disclaim it I never heard that our old English reformation which I thought had been sealed by the blood of many martyrs had lookt on martyrdome as a conceited Popish perfection And if this be the privilege of the present deformation to exclude martyrdome out of the catalogue of virtues as the Martyrs and Saints out of our Calendars if this Diatribist be now one of that Triumphant Church which hath thrown all cross from their shoulders and disclaimed all pretensions to this conceited perfection and resolved all to be Papists which shall thus communicate with the sufferings of Christ and observe this conformity with the image of Gods son Rom. 8. I shall only tell him that I shall be very well pleased to be guilty of this piece of Popery and to suffer from this sword of the tongue till God please to call me to any higher tryals Mean while when the Apostle and the Church which hath transcribed his style have used the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being perfected by sufferings and called martyrdome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfection I cannot retract that style what envy soever fall on me for the using it What now followes in pursuit of this matter Does God call all men at all times to martyrdome Is there any command for all men to be martyred c. is directly the evincing my assertion against himself for upon that very foundation it is that I superstruct therefore Martyrdome which is the highest degree of perfection is not under any command Quod erat demonstrandum In my third answer which was that perfection here had degrees in it and consequently supposing men bound to be perfect Mat. 5. 48. yet it followes not that they are bound to the highest degree of perfection his answer is he will grant this and yet deny my voluntary oblations still But how can that be when that higher degree of perfection is supposed to be under no precept and so to be free and so when arrived to a voluntary oblation But his grant it seems was only conditional for it followes in his words For we say there are degrees of or rather to perfection here upon condition that he will grant that every degree even the highest is required by the law of God and what is short of that highest is so far culpable This condition I confesse I cannot perform and so must lose the advantage of his grant And truly to require it of me is to grant my premises and require me to renounce my conclusion For from that concession that there are degrees in perfection and there may be perfection where yet there is not the highest degree of perfection it infallibly follows that the highest degree of perfection is not under obligation of that precept which requires no more then that we be perfect as when the precept binds to no more then to be mercifull in some degree it is evident that it binds not to be mercifull in the highest degree and consequently that the highest degree of mercy shall be still free under no obligation of precept In this matter he desires to speak his own sense in St Hieromes words Charitas quae non potest augeri c. citing Ep. 62 for it But this citation is sure mistaken there is no such thing in that Epistle The place sure is in St Hieromes Epistle to St Augustine where he desires his sense of those words Jam. 2. 10. He that keeps the whole Law and offends in one point is guilty of all On which occasion he discourseth a great while how one virtue may be found in them which yet are guilty of other sins and so from one thing to another not by way of defining but by raising of difficulties to provoke St Augustines solution of them And on these termes he purposes his notion of virtue that it is the loving of that which is to be loved and is in some greater in some less in some none at all and then addes Plenissima verò quae jam non possit augeri quamdiu homo hîc vivit est in nemine quamdiu autem augeri potest profectò illud quod minus est quà m à ebet ex vitio est Ex quo vitio non est justus in terrâ qui faciat bonum non peccet c. But the most full virtue such as cannot be increased is in no man as long as he lives here But as long as it may be increased that which is less then it ought to be is faulty whereby it is that the Scripture saith that there is not a just man on earth which doth good and sinneth not and in thy sight shall no man living be justified and if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves c. By this view of the place it is evident that the virtue which on occasion of the place in St James he speaks of being an universall impartial observation of the whole Law and consequently every failing in that a vice for to that all the proofs belong that there is no man but sinneth sometimes there is no reason to extend his speech any farther then to this and then it will in no wise be appliable to our business which is onely of the degrees of this or that particular virtue which it is certain that man may have who yet is guilty of some sin in other particulars This therefore I willingly acknowledge that he that failes of any part of his duty is therein faulty or this is ex vitio in him and if of that onely S Hieromes words quamdiu augeri potest be understood as it is most reasonable they should whether wee judge by the occasion or the proofes of his speech or by the express words quod minus est quà m debet ex vitio est that which is less then it ought i. e. less then he is bound to do is faulty then as I fully consent to the truth of them so when that is granted no man can hence infer therefore every regular act of obedience which comes short of the highest degree of perfection is a sin for beside many other inconveniences formerly noted this fresh one will be observable from St Hieromes own words that then every act of virtue in this life is a sin for as for that fullest perfection which cannot be increased the beginning of this testimony acknowlegeth that it is not to be found in any man in
What excess Divines mean by Superstition What S. Augustine Obligation to performance without being parts of worship Observers of order more Religious more acceptable then others The reason why Jewish ceremonies are interdicted The Church of England sparing in ceremonies Ceremonies not foreshewing Christ lawful to be retained by Christians The abstinence from bloud long continued in the Church The Saterday Sabbath Negative wholesomness not sufficient to recommmend ceremonies All folly in worship is not Superstition The opinion of the antient Church worth considering No duties appointed for the circumstances sake Time or place instituted by God is a circumstance as well as when by man Apostolical Divine 82 Sect. 11. A Vindication of the Tract of Superstition from uncharitableness 88 CHAP. V. Of Will-worship p. 92 Sect. 1. The state of the Question Wil-worship distinguisht from the circumstances of it The matter of mans will of three sorts The 6. several possible notions of Wil-worship The application of them to the matter in hand The vanity of the Diatribists distinction The scope of the 2d Commandment 92 Sect. 2. The method of explicating difficulties in the new Test 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a good sense and when in a bad no prejudice to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 99 Sect. 3. His entrance on the view of Col. 2. answered The difference betwixt Commands of Magistrates and imposition of dogmatizers What 't is which is said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 101 Sect. 4. The Magistrates power acknowledged Inventing new ways of worship Davids appointing the Levites to waite from 20. years old an act of a King not of a Prophet Davids last words 104 Sect. 5. Col. 2. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Placing worship Christian liberty Marriage The Glosses put on the commands of men 107 Sect. 6. The Diatribist's way to make the Doctors words witness against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Placing worship an equivocal phrase 112 Sect. 7. Of Petitio Principii Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being capable of two rendrings The danger from mistake on the Diatribists side My interpretation not singular His no way probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particle of extenuation no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No shew of wisdome in respect of the folly that is in it The Wil-worship parallel to the humility The prime argument for my interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for piety vindicated from the contrary proofs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worship of Angels No agreement betwixt Col. 2. 18. 23. or betwixt 23 1 Cor. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 114 Sect. 8. The abstinences how taught by the Gnosticks Their pretenses for them no realities Abstinences may be free will offerings and self-denyals Such may Fasting duely qualified Such may virginal Chastity Pauls judgement of it Chrysostome of things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abstinences positive acts And yet if negative may be acceptable These abstinences not commanded 122 Sect. 9. Compliance with Papists The Diatribists inconstancy 125 Sect. 10. A reply to his answer of my two first reasons for the good sense Humility and Wil-worship associated either both real or both pretended Popish laniations why culpable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fasting a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 far from hurtful or abominable wherein the profit of it consists The true sense of 1 Tim. 4. 8. wherein the ilnesse of it consists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abstinence because of abuses For Religion Marcionites Durand A shew of Piety in Wil-worship All shew of good in respect of somewhat that is good The Diatribists fallacious instances and questions 127 Sect. 11. The Greek Fathers acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An argument of goodness that 't is pretended by hypocrites Religion in a good sense Wil-worship not worse then false worship not abominable All devised worship is not Idolatry doth not pretend to more wisdome then Gods The Latin Fathers cited by Mr. C. The vulgar Translator and the followers thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the vulgar rendred decernitis The authority of Bellarmine and Daillé for the goodsense The testimonies out of Ambrose Theodoret Salmeron Estius Augustine Thomas examined 139 Sect. 12. The fifth reason vindicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius corrected twise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverbially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius's Glossary concordant to the Scripture use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5. 4. 149 Sect. 13. Mr. C. His distinction of voluntary Spontaneous A work of love The Testimony of Socrates Worship true or false Nothing unlawfull which is not forbidden Voluntariness no way forbidden The second Commandment 153 Sect. 14. The first occasion of mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ill The vulgar translator and Mr. Calvin The Diatribists three exceptions to this shewed to be of no force Wil-worship distant from Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely in a good sense among Christians Three mistakes of the Diatribist All uncommanded is not forbidden 155 Sect. 15. The second occasion of taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an ill sense vindicated The design of the Treatise of Wil-worship onely for ceremonies not for new kinds of worship Whether all ceremonies be forbidden which are not commanded The various reading of Philostorgius Sitting at the Gospel forbidden Chrysostomes Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Ecclesiastical Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will-worship 159 Sect. 16. The third occasion of the mistake cleared Worship of Angels forbidden not onely not commanded The reviving Judaical worship not called Wil-worship Col. 2. 23. Maimonides's words wrested to a distant sense by the Diatribist Original of Angel-worship Vain worships Clemens confounding of Col. 2. 18. with 23. Worship of Angels c. a forbidden Wil-worship The imposing of virginity and abstinences as from God the onely crime found fault with by S. Paul and the ancient Catholiks Alcibiabes his using and remission of austerity The like of Spiridion and Marcianus Cyrill of meats 1 Tim. 5. 23. explicated 163 Sect. 17. The last occasion of the ill sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius Of the Pharisees appellation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dogmatizing and discriminating Epiphanius's words cleared Wherein their hypocrisie consisted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Mac. 2. 42. Asidei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fault 169 CHAP. VI. Of Free-will offerings p. 173 Sect. 1. The use of them in this question The Diatribists discourse of them His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Leviticalness of spontaneous offerings asserted by him in order to denying them among Christians Arguments against this conceit Allowance of days as well as of worship among the Jews Allowance acknowledged by the Diatribist to be as good as commands 173 Sect. 2. A first instance of uncommanded Pieties Davids intention to build the Temple Vindicated from the three answers of the Diatribist 181 Sect. 3. A 2d instance and
the original of the word is another thing not super statutum what then can he tolerably mean by t is well applied by Divines can Divines do well to apply superstitio to super statutum when that is no way the nature of the word Or can any proof be brought from hence to conclude superstition an excess or addition to the rule because it is super statutum when there is no affinity between super statutum and superstition what is or can be unreasonable if this be not And so it appears how little truth there is in that which shuts up this first reason That which the Old Testament calls addition to the word the New calls doctrines traditions of men wil-worship superstition In which few words as there be many infirm parts 1. That additions to the word are in the N. T. called Doctrines I suppose he means teaching somewhat else for doctrines Mat. 15 9. assuming them to be such when they are not So again Mar. 7. 7. where yet the word Doctrines signifies the Scripture or Doctrine of God and so the teaching their own traditions for doctrines is adding them to the Scripture Doctrines there simply signifying not that addition but that to which the addition is made and 2. that they are called wil-worship the contrary of which is proved in the Treatise of wil-worship and here to suppose it is a begging of the question so sure this is a third that additions to the rule of worship are any where in the New T. called superstition I desire he will shew me one such place for my Concordance will not afford it me T is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only twice there used First Act. 17. 22. by St. Paul of the Athenians whom he perceived to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more superstitious then others But these sure 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 styled adders to the rule of Worship adulterers are so in like manner and so by that measure or standard every sin in the world is superstition Secondly the word is used Act. 25. 29. where Festus speaks of Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own superstition but sure meant not to accuse him of adding to his or the Jews rule of worship but understood his own Religion and nothing else by that phrase And so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are as many misadventures amasst together as could well be crowded into so few words His second proof now follows thus Because as the defect in Religion is called profaneness so the excess is called superstition as standing in opposition to it Alas it seems there is great need of proofs for this again as the former was the very medium to prove the first proposition and so either the first and this second proposition of his are all one and then why was it cut in two by Lucians beetle or else these proofs are very excellent instruments fitted for all turns indifferently However it is I shall not need provide new answers to it but remand it to the former Section where it was considered to the utmost it could pretend Only if he please I shall put it in form for him thus The worship of the many false Gods or Demons is an excess opposed to Religion or worship of the one true God of heaven and earth in Aquinas's opinion and so also is the worshipping the true God after an undue or unlawfull manner ergo the using any Ceremony in the worship of the true God which the Scripture hath not commanded is superstition and superstition is that As if he should say superstition is that because it is somewhat else as extremely distant from that as that which is not God is from God or as unlawfull for so is superstition is from lawfull for such is that which is not prohibited 13. A third proof he now adds of his affirmation and that after the manner observed in his former argument from the Doctors own concessions and no less then five nay the fourth number being twice repeated no less then six of them And if I have so liberally granted it I wonder how it came to be my charge and that as the cause of my miscarriages that I denyed it But 't is strange to see what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can do phansie first and next accuse me of denying a thing grosso modo and to prove me to have erred in thus denying produce six several senses wherein I have granted it whereas there is in the whole inditement but one pretended wherein I had denyed it In all reason those six concessions might have reconciled the Diatribist to me and perswaded him that I was of his minde rather then one single appearance of dissenting have thus provoked him The Doctors Concessions such as they are are evidently reconcileable with all that he hath proposed in that Tract of Superstition and the descending to a particular view of them as they are marshalled up by the Diatribist will take away all doubt in this matter First saith he he grants that superstitions may denote such an excess Sect. 31. Here I demand what Mr. C. means by such an excess that indeed is thus far answered already that he means an excess of Religion But what excess in Religion The super statutum every addition to the rule of worship i. e. every uncommanded circumstance or Ceremony in the worship of God Thus he must mean if he be constant to himself and if the Doctors Concessions yield him any appearance of proof for his affirmative But to see the luck of it this first citation from the Doctor is so far from yielding him any such testimony that it is indeed the quite contrary for that which the Doctor there observes Sect. 31. is this that the word superstitiosus may indeed denote such excess from the force of the termination osus but this no more then the word religiosus also denotes in the opinion of Agellius out of Nigidius Figulus and consequently that 1. Superstitio and Religio were all one in that same Author's opinion and 2. that it is the animadversion of Agellius upon that Author that all such excesses are not culpable or taken in ill but good senses And then was not this a dangerous concession fit to be called out in judgement against me then which nothing could be more direct to the asserting mine and refuting the Diatribists hypothesis If this account of the word superstitiosus were not sufficient to secure my pretensions which in that place were only this that superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess I might farther adde that even when the word superstitiosus is but a bare denominative from superstitio and yet is used in an ill sense as when we Christians say a superstitious person the account is clear
instituting any ceremonie or Festival which is not commanded by God And I hope this suppletory to those former discourses which hath considered those two texts hath sufficiently convinced that And so there is no more now needfull to be added to this matter Thus have I traced this Diatribist through every branch of his discovery of causes and shewed I hope competently on which side the mistakes ly and if there be no more miscarriages in those three tracts of Superstition Wil-worship and Festivals then this Preface assigned to that work hath discovered to me I shall have no need farther to importune the reader with a Superfluous vindication unless upon this score onely that t is possible that the Diatribist may not have summed up his bill aright that there may still remain some particular mistakes discoverable by the view of the particulars which are here omitted in the foot of the account and then I must not take advantage of false reckoning And upon this slender account I must now still attend his motions and shall do it in confidence that what hath been here in answer to his Preface said so largely will not be exacted of me again at every turn by way of Repetition On which ground it is evident that I am to make no return to the remainder which is the recapitulating of this Preface CHAP. III. Of Superstition peculiarly And first of his Prolegomenon on that Subject Sect. 1. Answer to §. 1. The method used to find the meaning of the word IN his first Diatribe that of Superstition § 1. I may lightly touch and pass over the dislike of my method in writing of Will-worship before Superstition together with the reason that being more general this a species under it for though it be certain that I am not of his mind that the former is a species of the latter and so that I cannot admit of his reason of change or that his is as he saith a more just methodical order of tractation yet I shall not ingage in a dispute of their precedence but onely reply to the latter part of his first § which directs the manner of inquiring what Superstition is not by searching into the monuments of heathen Authors Latine or Greek from the names or senses by them given as by the judgement of Divines c. In answer to this I shall need no farther reply then to remind him that as there is no better way to understand the full importance of words then to examine them in their origination and their usage among the best Authors Masters of words not only profane but sacred so sure this is the very method I have taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Superstition viewing it in the antient heathens in the parts first then in the composition and so also in the sacred Scripture which I hope is no heathen Author as oft as it is found there in Lactantius and St. Augustine which sure knew what true Religion meant whatsoever he is pleased to suggest of my way and Authors and are as competent judges of Superstition as his later Divines that have reduced the use of all ceremonies not commanded by God to the 2d Commandment and to Deut. 4. 2. under the title of Superstition Sect. 2. Answer to §. 2. Amesius's definition The matter of the 4. first Commandments The Affirmative part of the 2d Commandment The Diatribist's misadventure about Duty in the midst No prohibition of either holy days in the 4th Commandment Jeroboams act 1 Kin. 12. 32. The Rubenites altar Josh 22. Naaman's altar Christmass Festival parallel to it The excesses in each Commandment IN the 2d § where he shews out of Dr. Ames how Superstition may be fitly defined by Aquinas a vice contrary to Religion in the excess viz. in order to the acts or external means of worship superadded by the wisdome or will of man when a man tenders worship either to whom it is not due or not in that manner which he ought he knows this in the obvious sense of the words such as from Aquinas was lately cited is perfectly agreeable to my affirmations who make the worship of all but God and the worship of God in any forbidden or abolisht manner to be species of Superstition But if by the aequivocal phrase not in the manner which he ought he mean in whatsoever other manner or rite or circumstance which God hath not expressely prescribed any appendant of worship instituted or appointed by man and not onely any worship as he cites out of Amesius p. 4. there is no truth in his definition nor agreeableness to Aquinas's sense as hath appeared formerly T is sure Aquinas which is cited in the margent hath not owned any such interpretation of non prout debet to belong to all uncommanded rites If Amesius have which I have not commoditie to examine then he was one of the Casuists which I forementioned as the derivers of this prejudice into the Diatribist and if Vrsine Dr. Fulke Mr. Perkins are rightly cited in his margent and their words extended no farther then they designed them then perhaps we have the full catalogue of them and the Diatribist is now of age to consider whether they have proved or onely dictated in this matter As for the grounds which are here laid by the Diatribist toward the evincing of it they are no way qualified for such a structure For when to the 4. Commandments of the first Table he assigns these 4. things as the subject matter of them a right object of worship God alone of the first a right matter commanded worship of the second a right manner with all reverence of the third a right time his own appointed day of the fourth and thence concludes all excess in any of these Superstition there is scarce any one minute part of sound doctrine in all this For in the first which hath most of truth yet this failing there is that the right object of worship is not the principal matter of that Commandment but the worship it self all the parts of that having him for our God treating him addressing to him as such and of this there is no criminous excess which can be styled Superstition 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 of that precept not the nimiety of the affirmative In the second there is not a word to determine the matter of it to commanded worship as hath been evidenced beyond all question The Subject of the 2d Commandment is the prohibition of Idol-worship And bending the knee to the true God and none else observing of Christmass c. are remote enough from that guilt As for the 3d I had thought our Saviour Mat. 6. had given us the summe of it Thou shalt not forswear thy self but perform unto the Lord thy
be accusations again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7. c. Whence I suppose it will follow that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which he was charged which is the matter of the accusation or that wherein the offence consisted was his not their Superstition for how could their own Superstition be the matter of their charge against him To the 2d that what I said of Festus putting Jesus under the notion of a dead Heros though it be of that nature that I shall not because I need not make it a matter of controversie with any yet I had this consideration to incline me to it the immediate subjoyning of one Jesus whom Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contended to live to be superstes as of their Daemons Festus and those of his perswasions ordinarily affirmed To which purpose I remembred what the Athenians surmised when Paul preacht to them Jesus and the Resurrection Act. 17. 18. He seems say they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be a proclaimer of strange or new Daemons where St Chrysostome judges it so manifest that those Graecians thought Jesus to be a Daemon that he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they took also Anastasis Resurrection for some Goddess as being accustomed to worship females also And then why Festus an heathen likewise and which understood none but heathen Theologie should not thus mean in words of so neer an importance that will bear it so fitly I can yet see no reason to doubt Of this I am sure that in the one proof offered to the contrary the Diatribist hath strained more then I have in my Criticisme for 1. When he thus reads the text they had many questions that so he might make it necessary to distinguish the question concerning his Superstition from that of Jesus he hath inserted the word many there being neither in the Greek nor in our English any such word but onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some or certain accusations 2dly When on the same design he again reads both concerning their Superstition and also there is no such word nor any thing either in the Greek or our English answerable either to both or to also but onely thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning his own Superstition or daemon worship and one Jesus which was or had been dead so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies whom Paul affirmed to live and 3dly When he addes that he was accused of questions of their Law c. 23. and of sedition c. c. 24. this proves nothing which the Diatribist would have for though the Jews had thus accused him yet he had answered for himself in the latter part of c. 24. and cleared himself perfectly from those two charges from the first v. 12. and from the second v. 18. and so again c. 25. 8. and so still it remains that in Festus's judgement to which Paul appeals for the knowledge of it telling him that he knew he was guiltless from having done any wrong to the Jewes v. 10. Paul was not guilty nor stood charged of any thing but onely of his own Religion and one Jesus i. e. I suppose by way of explication as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is frequently exegetical of believing and proclaiming Jesus and the Resurrection c. 24. 15. which last also being common to him with the Jewes as there he contests could not by them duely be charged upon him and so the whole charge and that which is the characteristick distinctive note of his Religion is his contending that Jesus was alive who had dyed which how agreeable it is to Festus's notion of a Daemon I shall not need farther to declare As to the last it is evident that he that affirmes Jesus to be alive both soul and body doth to a heathen eare as much define him to be a Daemon as if he said nothing of his body However all that Festus here saith is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he affirmed him to live now after he had been dead and if to that we adde that Paul preached his ascension to heaven what could a heathen according to his perswasions conclude from thence but that he had attained his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was all that they required to his being a Daemon And so much for these objections Meanwhile if all were granted that is here desired by the Diatribist that the Superstition spoken of was not S. Pauls but the Jews this could no way incommodate me or hinder my pretensions in order to the main for then say I it shall signifie the Jews Religion simply without any character of ill or good laid on it as in Quintilian Primus Judaicae Superstitionis author the first author of the Jewish Superstition or Religion and in Vlpian that Severus and Antoninus permitted those to be capable of dignities qui Judaicam Superstitionem sequuntur who follow the Jewish Superstition or Religion and many the like Sect. 7. The method of search for the original notion of the word Mr. Cawdries collections from the heathens Among them Superstition all one with Religion Plutarch of the Sabbatick rest Sacrificing children to Moloch was not to the true God Jer. 32. 35. Lev. 20. 2. nor a bare uncommanded worship The glosses of the Etymologist and Phavorinus THe 21th § is a short dispatch of all that I had said of the use of the word among other Authors from § 14 to § 27. All which Sections though intirely designed to the discovering the true notion of the word by that norma loquendi the best rule to judge of words the use of it among writers of all sorts are shortly censured as a great deal of reading and learning to little purpose except to cloud the business to lead men away in a mist from the true and proper sense of the word among Christians It seems they which receive benefit by being in the dark are apt to mistake light for mists and the Apostle hath given the reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are reproved by the light T is certain the Christians took the word whether Greek or Latine from the heathens which were before them and accordingly to judge of the propriety of the use of it I thought my self obliged to search to the original i. e. to the use of it among the heathens and finding the Scripture use of it exactly agreeable to their acception of it from whom the Scripture had it and so likewise the Christian Glossaries that of Hesychius Suidas Phavorinus the Etymologist and others I thought this had been to some other purpose then onely to cloud the business And because I continue still in the same opinion I refer the judicious Reader for three eminent testimonies more to the same purpose out of Diod. Siculus of Imilco out of Heraclitns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of an edict of Tiberius set down by Josephus to the Annotations on Act. 17. By which and those already produced in the Sections here thought fit to be despised by the
good thing consequently the thing which I contest is not this that the worship of daemons is or ever was true or lawfull but that beside this supposed by Christians but denyed by heathens to be evill adding the like of illegitimate worship there is nothing else which hath been lookt on as simply bad in Superstition particularly not the excess as that signifies unprescribed uncommanded worship which is the onely matter of the present contest with such as the Diatribist And he doth but perplex and disturbe the matter when he saith the question is whether it doth not always in Scripture and Orthodox Divines signifie excessive and false worship for he must set the question as elsewhere he doth of excessive as that signifies no more then uncommanded worship without the addition of being false it being evident that I defend not false worship of any kind to be good but that ceremonies or institutions not commanded by God may yet be perfectly lawfull and blameless and that that is the onely question between us For the text of the Act. c. 25. 19. I have answered already and evidenced that Festus meant nothing ill by Superstition and the Drs. words cited from Sect. 24. of the ordinary practise of every Sect to dislike the distant worship of others and defame it under the title of Religion doth no way prejudge this because it is certain Festus was no way factious for the Jewes against Pauls Religion No more doth the marginal citation from § 22. where I have said that Superstition was made matter of reproach to the Romans where 1. It was not Superstition simply but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not coming short of excess of which that was said that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reproached by others and yet as much commended by the Author Polybius in that place and 2. That the old rule in Logick will always hold there is no syllogizing from particulars nor can this ever be formed into a regular syllogisme or valid probation some there were that reproacht the Romans Superstition therefore Festus reproacht Paul's Act. 25. 19. or spake of it by way of defamation What remains of this Sect. belongs to the place Act. 17. 23. of which I had said 1. That the Apostle speaking of those whom he cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more Superstitious then other men tels them that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship the true God though ignorantly 2. That he styles them more religious then other men meerly in relation to their worshipping the unknown which was the true God which others worshipt not and so meant no more by that phrase then that they were more religious then other men no way appearing to accuse them of that as of their fault but preparing thereby to declare to them that true God whom they worshipt ignorantly To this many things are here objected 1. That their worshipping the true God ignorantly with their own devised worship was a Superstition justly to be condemned It being gross Idolatry and sinful Superstition in the Israelites to worship the true God in the golden Calfe I answer their ignorance of the true God was justly to be condemned according to that of Minutius Felix Non minoris est sceleris Deum ignorare quà m laedere it is as great wickedness to be ignorant of God as to hurt him or that of Trismegistus as I remember 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignorance of God is a species of madness and in another of the antients style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kind of drunkenness of the soul But that being granted 1. This ignorance was not the thing that denominated them Superstitious but their worshipping many Gods 2. Their worshipping the true God though they knew him not was no new species of Superstition wherein they exceeded others 3. Their worshipping him with their own devised worship was not it which is meant by their worshipping him ignorantly the words in the original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literally whom ye not knowing or being ignorant of him worship i. e. worship him whilest ye know him not which no way refers to the manner of their worship as devised by themselves but onely to their ignorance of the God whom they thus worshipt which therefore the Apostle applies himself to cure and accordingly it follows him declare I unto you Lastly their worshipping him as dwelling in Temples made with hands i. e. in little Chaplets or Shrines or Images c. v. 24. is not their Superstition but Idol-worship and is very much more then the uncommanded ceremonies will amount to and so cannot be a proper instance of their own devised worship in the Diatribists notion of the phrase for all uncommanded worship and sure the Israelites woshipping the true God in a golden Calf is as little pertinent to that business for if it be true that they worshipt none but the true God then was that only Idolatry against the 2d Commandment not Superstition or daemon worship against the first or if they worshipt the Gods of the Aegyptians or any one of them Apis in that figure then what was that to the worshipping of the true God in an ignorant or by themselves devised manner 2dly He saith my rendring the place more religious then other men in relation to their worshipping the unknown God which others worshipt not is my gloss begges the question is against the text it self I perceive that in all things yee are too Superstitious both in their worshipping many false Gods and in their ignorant worship of the true and in their vitious rites of worship adding that this sense the Dr. himself gave § 11. I consider and behold you in all things or in all that I see of you as men more Superstitious then others Here I perceive my words are mistaken and therefore shall first answer to that then to the former parts of the objection The Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literally in all things or in all respects I look upon you as more Superstitious i. e. I take it and I thought I had sufficiently exprest it before considering all the altars and inscriptions i. e. the names of your deities which I see or behold I conclude that you are more Superstitious or religious worship more Gods or daemons then other men That this is the sense I am inclined to believe by the reason of his speech rendred in the next 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for passing through and contemplating your worâ—…ps i. e. the Gods which you worship I found also an altar on which was inscribed To the unknown God The summe of which is that in the survey of their altars which contained the names of their Gods he found one altar remarkably more then is usuall among other people that to the unknown God the true God of heaven which others in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship of many Gods did not worship which being the proof or reason exprest by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for of the former speech must needs give me authority to interpret it in proportion thereto that considering all that he had seen of them peculiarly that altar to the unknown God he concluded them more Superstitious i. e. worshippers of more Gods then other folkes That the Athenians truely were so esteemed appears evidently by what was said in the Tr of Superstition § 11. and hath here formerly been added to that head and therefore that will very fitly be the notion of the word not too Superstitious but literally more Superstitious then others especially if it be remembred that the bare addition of the worship of the true God however unknown to them to their other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship of many Gods cannot be a new fault in them distinct from the other or a superaddition to the guilts of other men All which being considered it now appears 1. How far from truth it is which is here suggested that Pauls speech of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 however rendred belongs both to their worshipping so many false Gods and to their ignorant worship of the true and to their vitious rites of worship when it clearly belongs but to one their worshipping the unknown God which others worshipt not 2. How far my words § 11. were mistaken or perverted by him 3. How far my interpretation hath been from opposing the text it self being the clear importance of the text considered with S. Pauls reason as the key by which to enter into the true meaning of it and lastly how far this is from any begging the question when I proved so largely whatsoever I said and when no answer is here offered to those proofs and yet if there were any need here have been added farther convincing confirmations of the same thing if yet they may deserve to be taken notice of And this is all that is in the least degree needfull to be said to this § 22. unless I yet adde that those words in the close of it cited from me that § 31. Superstitiosus in the positive signifies excess more then in the comparative are not very intelligible which they would surely have been to me at least if they had rightly reported my sense That which I said is no more then this that Superstitiosus by force of the termination osus may signifie an excess and that so Religiosus may also but what is that to the use of the word whether in the positive or the comparative when it is the bare rendring of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as here it is which no way signifies thus Sect. 9. The Diatribist's concession of the innocence of unprescribed ceremonies and so of all that is demanded His censure of himself and Chamier Authority in a Church to institute Ceremonies Abstaining from ceremonies because commanded by men or abused by Papists THe next or 23d § is very brief but yet seems to me to be very considerable and that in such a degree that it might well make an end of this debate betwixt the Diatribist and me for having exactly set down a 2d. inconsequence by me noted and concluded to be such from the opening of the Greek and Latine words viz. that the use of ceremonies or rites in the worship of God if not distinctly prescribed by the example or precept of Christ should be called Superstition and for that condemned he answers no more but this I believe this is a mistake none that I know make such a consequence but rather thus that what rite or ceremonie soever is made a part of worship without such example or precept of Scripture is Superstitious and therefore condemned I shall not here indevour to perswade the Diatribist that he knows some who condemne uncommanded rites as Superstitious because Superstatutum such as kneeling at the Eucharist using the cross in baptisme bowing at the name of Jesus but taking him at his word I beseech him to tell me why then he undertook the confutation of the Tr. of Superstition which he must know contended no more then this being designed to this onely end the averting that envy and calumnie that was then frequently but unjustly cast upon our Church upon the account of ceremonies and which was since in the Tract of Festivals no farther applied then as that analogie would justly bear which was betwixt uncommanded rites and uncommanded days of worship betwixt unprescribed gestures and times both which are known to be but circumstances and accessories no essentiall parts or branches of worship This truely were very strange for him to be ignorant of As it is 't is the yielding me the whole cause and I have no more to contend for but onely peace and what by perfect analogie from one circumstance of worship to another will irrefragably be concluded from that which is here granted by him T is now pity that we that are thus suddenly pieced should ever fall out again Nay we are likely if words may be believed to be yet more firmly knit together and consolidated for § 24. in answer to the 3d. inconsequence noted by me that men on pretence and in the name of piety should abstain from some observances indifferent as Superstitious either because commanded by lawfull authority or abused by Papists he speaks clearly that it is a worse mistake and that he believes I cannot give an instance of one understanding Christian that ever did abstain from observances indifferent because commanded by lawfull authority but rather that they were thought not indifferent but obtruded on them as parts of worship and so likewise for the other that they have been used by Papists is not all but that by them they have been abused and counted parts of worship and may easily return to be so accounted by others But to this I must reply lest by silence I incur the guilt of scandal of having wronged others and of writing all that hath been written on this Theme without any adversary to provoke me to it First then I professe to be able to give instance of many that were baptized into our common faith and so were Christians how deeply understanding I pretend not to judge who have abstained from the use of ceremonies meerly upon this score because commanded by their Civil and Ecclesiastical Superiors the King and Bishops by Canon Ecclesiastical This said they was laying more burthens on them then God had laid and so usurping on their Christian liberty And in stead of naming those men without their consent for that must now be the vilifying them the involving them under the Diatribists censure that they are not understanding Christians I shall name one on whom he may pass what judgement he shall please having full power to do it this very Diatribist himself p. 31. where 1. He hath these words If men may be Judges what are fit for number and wholesomeness every after comer will think himself as wise as he that went before till they have loaded the Christian
whether if a Christian had observed some Jewish ceremony which did not foreshew Christ to come but significant only of something past though they had not taught it necessary the Apostle would not have blamed them for that as superstitious and so for any new rites and ceremonies To which I answer considently and to the latter first that he would not and the very asking or questioning it in that form as if it could not be denied but the Apostle would have blamed them is the known fallacy of begging the question For the whole matter of controversy betwixt me and the Diatribist is this whether every devised rite or ceremony not commanded by God be superstitious And to the former part of the question I answer as confidently and ask him first what he thinks of the abstinence from things strangled and all eating of bloud was not that a Jewish ceremony and was not that observed by Christians Act. 15. and did the Apostles blame it as superstitious Certainly they did not Nay did not this observance continue among Christians for many ages Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis habemus suffocatis morticinis abstinemus we have not the bloud of any living creatures in our feasts we abstain from things strangled and that die of themselves saith Tertullian Apol. c. 9. And Lucian tells us how his Peregrinus was rejected by the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for eating some of their forbidden meats which sure belongs to this matter and in Eusebius's history l. 5. c. 1. Biblis thus vindicates the Christians from the accusation of eating of children because saith she 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we count it not lawful to eat the bloud of unreasonable creatures If this be not perfectly home to his question I shall then proceed and alledge for my instance the known practice of the Christian Church of the Apostles and purest time who as they celebrated the weekly Lords day on the first of the week in commemoration of Christs resurrection so they continued the observation of the Saterday Sabbath on the last day of the week in remembrance of the Creation of the World The custome appears in Tertullian de Monogam and was continued to the time of the Laodicean Councel which orders that not only the Law as Act. 15. 21. but the Gospel also should be read that day And the words of Balsamon are clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sabbaths were by the holy Fathers almost quite equalled to the Lords days and a great deal more to the same purpose as is elsewhere shewed in the Exposition of the fourth Commandment 4thly When § 32. he so reports my words as to conclude me to affirm that if ceremonies be but harmless or negatively wholesome there cannot be too much of them This is a plain changing of sense into that which is most contrary to it For my words are plain without his glosse that if they be positively wholsom or tending to edification not contenting my self with negatively wholesom or harmlesse or with any thing lesse then positive wholsomnesse then there will be little reason to accuse them of excesse then they will rather help devotion then incumber it the fear of which was the main objection against the multitude of them 5thly When § 35. he pretends to prove all folly and vanity in the worship of God to be superstition by demanding what Superstition is but folly and vanity this is a meer paralogisme never reducible into a Logical mood and figure by supposing things to be convertible which are not as if I should prove a particular substance for example the soul of man to be a body because every body is a substance The answer would be easie by saying every body is a substance but every substance is not a body so in like manner every superstition is folly and vanity but every folly and vanity even in the worship of God is not superstition This was a little too grosse a Sophisme to impose it self upon the Diatribist and he now sees a small measure of subtility was sufficient to enable me for the discovering of it 6 xtly When § 34. on occasion of my speaking of that one kinde of excesse of placing more virtue in some things then belongs to them he demands what I mean by or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church and whether the purer ages of the Church after the Apostles had power to put virtue into things which they had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word I answer that I never thought of any such thing that my meaning is plain enough if he would please to see it in the end of § 45. viz. that the thing there mentioned the signe of the Crosse and the parva Evangelia and the like had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church that force or virtue in them which in the latter impurer ages they were thought to have and I wonder what difficulty there was in understanding or fault in affirming this which hath no more dangerous intimation then that the opinion or estimation of the purest ages of the Church i. e. the first and neerest to the Apostles times were in any such controversie as this very fit to be considered in their due place i. e. next after the Apostles themselves 7thly When § 30. concerning holynesse or separation to holy from common uses he promises to speak somewhat considerable and under that head tells us that there is this difference between times and places separated by God and those which are separated by men that the former require holy duties to till them up i. e. that the duties are appointed for the time or places sake but the latter are to wait upon holy duties the time or place are appointed for the duties sake I must still challenge his promise whereby he is yet our debtor of somewhat considerable For certainly prayer and fasting and sacrifices among the Jews all duties appointed by God as in stead of the last the offertorie or almes among Christians were not appointed for time or places sake holy days and holy places the weekly Sabbath and the annual day of Expiation and the tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem were never the end for which prayer c were instituted nor is it imaginable how they should when each of those duties visibly prayer and sacrifice were appointed and practised before there was any such thing as Tabernacle or Temple instituted by God Again the time or place when instituted by God himself is as truly a circumstance of worship as when instituted by man and duty is equally the substance and it can with no probability be affirmed that the substance is appointed for the circumstances sake or as he is pleased to speak to till up the circumstances any otherwise then he would say substances were created to till up accidents the body for the colors sake As
the Apostle's command of decency c. yet because it is not worship it self but an extrinsecal attendant of it I need not allow that the title of Will-worship neither nor apply to it the Apostles usage of the word Col. 2. but refer it to those circumstances of worship for which or against which no command or prohibition of the word hath interposed of which I oft spake in the head of Superstition and vindicated it from that title Of the fifth is that I formerly spake and compared it with the voluntary oblations under the Law and of that there is all reason to interpret the word in the Apostle and that in a notion of good and commendable no way of vitious if it be truly such as it pretends to be and if it be not really such it may yet have an appearance of that and so farre an appearance of Piety or Wisdome And so again for the sixt or last I have affirmed of it and I hope made it clear that it is first lawful then commendable and rewardable by God above a lower degree or lesse frequent exercise of the same sort of worship and yet is not under particular precept as appears by this that at that time and in the same circumstances when it is thus laudable to give so much more the giving somewhat lesse is not a sin as is manifested in the tract of Wil-worship And so now I hope I have exactly obeyed the Diatribist's directions distinguisht the words and set the whole question before him as discernibly as he could wish and therein laid grounds for that just defence of a blamelesse word which was at large pleaded in the tract of Wil-worship And then I need adde no more to shew the impropriety and vanity of his own distinction or double sense of Will-worship 1. for spontaneous freenesse in worship commanded by God or 2. for worship devised by the wit and appointed by the will of man as contradistinguisht to the will and wisdom of God For as to the former branch of the distinction as it is restrained to worship commanded by God so it can be no Species of that Will-worship which respects the will and choice of man without any necessity particularly imposed by God and accordingly I have excluded it out of my Scheme not out of any unkindnesse to it but because it necessarily belongs to another head the cheerfulnesse and the worship being both supposed to be commanded by God and so uncapable of this distant title of Will-worship So that at the best imaginable he hath branched Will-worship into but one part and that was not the way of distinguishing that tearm Then for the other member it is so set that it hath many improprieties in it and in brief is that great fallacy to which Aristotle refers most others fallacia plurium interrogationum and I remember the Jews have a rule of their Vrim and Thummim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ask not of two things at once confounding and putting together things that are most disparate as hath already appeared by the several Species here set down which were to be distributed into their several classes some contradistinguisht indeed to the will and wisdom of God but none of those defended by me other only not particularly commanded by him or imposed sub periculo animae but very consonant and agreeable both to Gods will and wisdom and so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have very little to thank him for in his distinction As for his summe and scope of the second Commandment with the name of S. Augustine and the Doctor in the margent it already appears how little force it hath against my pretensions it being evident that the words there cited both for the affirmative and negative part of the Commandment belong to essential parts of Gods worship those only being prescribed and particularly appointed by God not to each circumstance thereof whether of time or place or gesture which among us t is certain are not particularly prescribed by God and yet we can so farre judge of his will by many indications of it that he no way reproves or dislikes our voluntary observing or the churches appointing of such and to these only he knows this controversie here belongs as applied to the Ceremonies or Festivals of our Church Sect. 2. The method of of explicating difficulties in the new Test 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a good sense and when in a bad no prejudice to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IN his second § where he professeth not to care how oft or how seldom the Greek word is used in other Authors or the translators of the old Testament when the thing signified devised or imposed worship by the will of man â—… so decryed in Scripture I shall to his fastidious despising my method proposed returne my reason of reteining it and to his reason a brief demonstration of the vanity of it For the first the reason of my method in that as in other discourses was the great affinity and consent betwixt the Greek of the Old and New Testament the writers being of the same nation Jewes by birth which had acquired some skill in the Greek Language and yet not so much exactness therein as wholly to assume the dialect or character of speech observed by native or Learned Greeks or to devest themselves of the idiomes of their own language Upon this ground I suppose it most consequent that for the explaining all verbal difficulties in the New Testament resort should first be had to the Greek Translators of the Canonical Books or the writers of the Apocryphal of the old and then in the second place to other good Authors from whom any light can be fetcht and when these fail in their expected aids then to make use of other supplies analogie of phrases or matter with what we find in the Old Testament circumstances of the context and the like And if the Diatribist despise this method of search it were but necessary charity in him to discover the faults of it and direct us to a better which having not here done he leaves us to surmise that it was not his judgement but his care to serve his own hypothesis which infused these dislikes into him for otherwise the result of my way of search being onely this that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being but once used in the whole Bible Col. 2. 23. the notion of it in that one place must in all reason be resolved to be that which properly belongs to that place especially if it proves to be such as agrees exactly with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or freewill offerings in the Old Testament I see not what infirmity it was which could render it up to his despising However this wholly removes and evacuates all force of his reason of dislike it being evident by that one example of freewill offerings but much more so by other evidences both there and here added that there may
are clearly Davids last Will and Testament but the last words 2 Sam. 23. 1. are the last words of prophesie that he delivered it being evident that he spake many other words after that as appears in the Chapter and the Book following 1 Kin. and of his prophesies it is and not of his other words that it there follows the Spirit of the Lord spake by me Sect. 5. Col 2. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Placing worship Christian liberty Marriage The Glosses put on the commands of men HIS 5 t § is an examination of what I have said for the interpreting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col 2. 22. This phrase I have thus rendred and paraphrased These commands of abstinencies Touch not taste not handle not v. 21. are all to destruction or destructive by the abuse of them i. e. by imposing them on Christians as commands of God now when they are abolisht by Christ and for this I thought I had produced sufficient authority to vindicate the interpretation from the censure of singularity the plain words of S. Angustine and S. Ambrose or whosoever it is that wrote the Comments which bear his name Sunt in interitum c. they are to destruction and eternal perdition to them that believe them necessary to salvation and sunt omnia in interitum corruptionem per abusionem c. they are all to destruction and corruption by abuse c. But without adverting to the commodiousnesse of the interpretation or the authority of those ancient Fathers or giving any answer to what is said to recommend this interpretation he is pleased to take a much easier way to ask some questions and offer some exceptions First he asks why I refuse our translation of those words To this question I answer by rendring my reasons 1. because I think this other preferrable and I doubt not but when the Diatribist findes it useful he will do the like in this or any other controversie 2dly because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot by any propriety of speech or analogy of the like phrase signifie are to perish but either in an active sense are to corruption as that in false teachers may denote corrupting or seducing of others to their herefie and particularly to those abominable sins which by detesting of marriage the Gnosticks brought in exprest often in these Epistles by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corruption or else in a neutral sense ad interitum to destruction 3dly Because though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may possibly signifie use as well as abuse yet it is as easily replyed that it signifies abuse as well nay more properly and frequently then use In the Bible it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never used either in the verb or in the substantive but in this place but in other authors 't is vulgarly used in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Plutarch of Alcibiades the Lacedemonians rather abused then used him and in Apophtheg that great men have good and ill friends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they use some and abuse others and many the like 4thly Because the Notion which the Diatribist from the civil Lawyers out of Estius gives of the Latin abusus is that of consuming use whereas it is both improbable that S. Paul should take it from the civil Law much more probable that he should take it in the sense in which we finde abusio sometimes among Divines for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abstinence or not using at all So Prosper de vit contempl l. 2. c. 22. veraciter abstinentes escarum non naturas sed concupiscentias damnent ac voluptates suas desiderati cibi vel potus abusione mortificent which sense also the words here would bear well enough and be a more punctual character of the Gnosticks abstinence from marriage by which they brought in all abominable villanies and if he did it would as fitly comply with mine as with his notion of it for thus it signifies abolition or wearing out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usu attero obsolefacio and to that agrees Phavorinus rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Suidas by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destroying and then this would be the rendring these impositions of Touch not c. which were once in force under the Jewish state but now abolisht under Christ are thereby to destruction or to ruin of souls as when the Apostle tells them in one place of these ceremonies that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb 8. 13. nigh to vanishing away to abolition and upon that account in another place that if they look upon them as things still in force among Christians Christ shall profit them nothing But this I do not really think to be the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because those that render it using generally apply it to the meats which are consumed by eating and by the way Oecumenius that understood it in this sense read it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word which denotes casting out of excrements which yet most evidently belongs to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines of abstinence not to meats and indeed the antecedent to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which referres is Touch not taste not handle not which denotes other abstinencies beside that of meats particularly that of marriage which these Gnosticks prohibited and taught to be abominable and that is not capable of this notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by using for sure marriage doth not perish by using And the like may be said of unclean things the leper the dead that Judaizers would not touch which yet did not perish were not consumed by using And though in the next place the Diatribist leave it indifferently betwixt meats add ordinances of abstaining which are contrary enough yet the notion of using is no way applicable to the latter for what the Diatribist sets for the interpretation of it now being out-dated they perish with the using without any spiritual advantage is sure very short it being evident by other places of Scripture that the imposing these out-dated observances is not only not advantageous but moreover hurtful those being as the Fathers generally resolve not only mortua dead and so profitlesse but also mortifera deadly destructive and sure that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to perishing or destruction whether it denote damnation it self or those horrible or unnatural sins and the seduction of the Gnosticks which certainly induce it In the 3d place he quarrels with my interpretation for supposing that these abstinencies were imposed and taught by the false teachers as divine obliging precepts whereas saith he there is little or nothing in the text to import that What will with him when produced against his sense and interests be accounted great I know not but that there is something in the text to incline it this way will soon be
are behind make these that are cited utterly uncapable of the sense which he puts upon them For thus the words lay in the period before he had the dismembring of them which words point out that wherein the danger doth consist viz. imposing on men humane ordinances or doctrines i. e. those things which though they are not commanded by God are yet by men affirmed and pretended and taught though as we say magisterially and without proof to be so commanded It is not possible any word should be more expressely contrary to the Diatribists conclusion then these which he thought fit to sollicite to bear witness on his side and to that end cut them in the midst and then after the manner of the serpent that fed upon it self suborned and instructed one end to devour and eate up the other This he saw and therefore in the end of that 6t. § he mentions these latter words as the Doctors gloss of his own former words and saith they will now prove his own i. e. singular And truely if they should prove singular i. e. if no man in the world should be found to have ever said the like but the Doctor they would yet be sufficient for the turn to which they were designed to explicate the Doctors own meaning and to secure the beginning of his period from being brought in judgement against him and so might have saved the Diatribist the pains of this § For sure no man was so fit to explain his own words or to give his full sense in them as he whose words they were foreseeing that possible which now hath happened that otherwise they might be mistaken But then 2. I shall not acknowledge my gloss a singular one but that which the Apostles word will own as a natural and perspicuous paraphrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reading the middle as in a parenthesis specifying what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means and the specious glosses which they put upon them why do you permit such abstinencies prescribed and taught you really by men and not by God to be imposed on you as doctrines commanded by God just as when the Pharisees taught their own traditions as the doctrines of God That this is the very literal importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be subjected or to pay obedience as to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or command of Gods hath already been shewed And if that be granted there can be no farther doubt of the whole expression nor consequently of the propriety of my gloss or paraphrase on it As for the placing worship in those abstinencies that equivocal phrase was very lately examined and must not again return to exercise us If they placed worship in them in this sense that they did or taught them as parts of God's commanded worship t is the very thing wherein I placed the danger If they delivered them as their own doctrines and not as the doctrines of God they did not then place any part of God's commanded worship in them If they taught them as such things which though not commanded by God would yet be acceptable to him still after they were abolisht by Christ then they taught that which had no truth in it for such kinds of abstinencies are not now valued by God but more real acts of self-denyal set up in their stead mortifying of lusts and the like which those false teachers were far from being guilty of As for ceremonies of decencie and order and Festivals really designed to ends of piety and edification they are neither of them parallel nor bear any analogie with these which are here censured Sect. 7. Of Petitio Principii Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being capable of two rendrings The danger from mistake on the Diatribists side My interpretation not singular His no way probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particle of extenuation no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No shew of wisdome in respect of the folly that is in it The Will-worship parallel to the humility The prime argument for my interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for piety vindicated from the contrary proofs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worship of Angels No agreement betwixt Col. 2. 18. and 23. or betwixt 23. and 1. Cor. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS 7th § is the arraigning of what my 7th had said concerning v. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And all that he there saith will lose all force if these two things may be observed or remembred 1. That the opposers of the ceremonies of our Church against whom that tract was prepared founded their conclusion on these two premises 1. That Will-worship was a sin 2. That the using of ceremonies not commanded by God was Will-worship And therefore to our vindication it was sufficient if upon survey of that one place of Scripture where that word was used it should be found capable of such an interpretation which should affix no ill but contrariwise a good character on it For herein the task lies on the opponent to prove his affirmative that Will-worship is criminous and not on me to demonstrate the negative and that he can never do from this text if in this text by a commodious interpretation it be capable of a good sense This I here premise because he so oft reminds me in this place of begging the question when I deny the word to be taken in an ill sense Of which Elench I cannot be guilty unlesse it were incumbent on me to prove and demonstrate the negative his affirmative being sufficiently avoided by my shewing that the contrary is possible and not improbable which therefore was all that was here required of me and I hope is competently performed 2dly That if the words be capable of several rendrings and either of these will free Will-worship from the necessity of an ill sense then again this is sufficient for my turn for then still he hath not unanswerably asserted his conclusion This I say to give an account why I set down two possible rendrings of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either rationem sapientiae vel pietatis reality of wisdom or piety or else only Speciem sapientiae a shew or bare appearance of wisdom For of this it is certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies ratio as well as Species and much more ordinarily the former and in case it should here signifie the former then t is unavoidably evident that Will-worship must be taken in a good not ill sense Mean while as I pretend not that both those rendrings are true for if it be only a shew of wisdom then it is no reality so I professe to yield so much to the authority of the ancient interpreters as to pitch upon the latter only that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shew of wisdom not the truth and even then as hath been shew'd the Will-worship there is capable of a good notion for how can those abstinencies or doctrines have so much as a shew of wisdom in
and consequently proposes this whole matter not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any command of Christs for he professeth to have no such but as his opinion or judgement v. 25. and 40. which what is it but the very notion of freewill-offering such as of which S. Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is an act of my own will in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a precept or command precedent or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those things which are done above the precept have in this respect great reward but those which are in the rank of precept not so much As for the reasons produced by the Diatribist certainly they will be of no force against this evidence for why may not virginity or fasting deserve to be accounted positive things is it not as truly a positive action to conquer as to satisfie to subdue as to glut my appetite and if self-denials be negative things and yet acceptable to Christ what prejudice will it be to these abstinencies though they should be deemed negative also Are not all the obediences that are performed to negative precepts compliances with those negations and so negative also as not killing not committing adultery c. And shall not the same be said of all abstinences If Adam had not tasted the forbidden fruit this had been but negagive yet an act of obedience to God and that preferred by God before all burnt-offerings and sacrifices prescribed or voluntary And then what diminution could it be to an abstinence or prejudice to its being a freewill-offering that it is a negative act So wide is this kinde of arguing from proving any thing And as wide is his second proof that these abstinencies were commanded by special lawes when he knows that abstinence from marriage was never commanded by any law of Moses or Christ and that that other from meats was now left free by Christ those special laws under Moses given to the Jewes being now cassate and cancelled by Christ This sure is enough to his present velitations what he hath of reserve for a weightier impression shall then be warded when I see it approach and therefore so much for these two Sections Sect. 9. Compliance with Papists The Diatribists inconstancy HIS 10th § being an introduction to his survey of my six reasons for the taking Will-worship Col 2. in a good creditable sense begins with a general but that posing confounding note that taking the word in a good sense the Doctor complies too much with the Papists most of them taking it in an ill who use to take off the force of the Protestants objection from this place against their Will-worship by answering that it is taken here in a good sense for voluntary religion or worship To which I confesse my self unable to give any answer as not guessing wherein the objection lies whether in my complying or not complying with the Papists The words expressely tell me that taking it in a good sense I comply with the Papists and yet there are other words as expressely pronouncing that most of the Papists take it in an ill sense The only expedient to me imaginable to reconcile these contradictions which yet I have no pretence of imputing to the Printer or to any but the Author is this that though most of the Papists take it in an ill sense yet some though smaller number of them take it in a good and so defend their many traditions of worship as he calls them and answer the Protestants objections the Diatribists and his partners from that text Col 2. and then that I differ from those Protestants and comply with those Papists And if this be the meaning then as 1. I can truly say that I borrowed not this interpretation of that word or text from any Popish writer but from the weighing the text it self and the characters I found in it the same that Hugo Grotius hath discerned also as was said and accordingly set those down for the reasons of my interpretation so if I shall truly be found to have complied with any Papist herein yet 1. I shall never startle at the interpretation upon that account many Papists having given the true senses of many places of Scripture and 2. I shall with much more justice be able to retort this argument on the Diatribist if I may believe himself the sense which he hath given viz the ill sense being owned by most of the Papists as he here himself confesses And then sure he that is acknowledged to comply with most of the Papists and not he which is but accused to comply with some few of them must needs be most guilty of that crime whatsoever 't is fancied to be which consists in such compliance Nay 't is not long since he affirmed of my interpretation of this verse that he believes it is singular without any precedent either ancient or modern Protestant or Papist and then I have little reason to believe his bare general suggestion against his own belief that the Doctor herein complies with the Papists especially when out of Chamier he here addes that that learned and acute man Panstrat l. 3. c. 6. § 5. professes he never saw the good sense in any interpreter of the place So then this general note is not likely to tend much to our prejudice I proceed then to his more particular answer to my reasons Sect. 10. A reply to his answer of my two first reasons for the good sense Humility and Will-worship associated either both real or both pretended Popish laniations why culpable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fasting a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 far from hurtful or abominable wherein the profit of it consists The true sense of 1 Tim. 4. 8. wherein the ilnesse of it consists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abstinence because of abuses For Religion Marcionites Durand A shew of Piety in Will-worship All shew of good in respect of somewhat that is good The Diatribists fallacious instances and questions ANd my first reason being taken from the joining of Wil-worship with humility one undoubted Christian virtue and not sparing or as Calvin mortifying of the body To the former his answer is that by my favour humility here is not the true and laudable Christian virtue but a meer counterfeit a pretended humility fit for a pretended Will-worship And I reply that if it be so it fits my turn very well for still Will-worship and humility are associated the pretended Will-worship he saith with the pretended humility and consequently that as the fault is not in the humility but in the pretending of it when it is not true the falsenesse and counterfeitnesse of it and that an evidence that the humility if it were truly such were a Christian virtue because the fault is in the feignednesse of it so by the analogy of reason it must hold of Will-worship that when that is truly such it is
a Christian virtue and that the only fault is that it is not what it pretends to be and so that is still a valid argument for the good sense of the word Will-worship though not of the disguise and false appearance of it the bare shew even of divine worship it self being acknowledged to have nothing of good in it which yet certainly the reality of it hath As for that of the Self-denial it is saith he not only a counterfeit but an impious mistaken mortification viz when t is made a worship of God and he instances in the Romish ridiculous Penances Pilgrimages c. and asks what t is that makes them impious mistaken mortification not their being held forth as commands of God for that they deny it must be then saith he because they make them worships of God voluntary worship Here again the former reply is in force if it be the counterfeitnesse and impiety of the mortification that defames it then still the self-denial and mortification truly so called is a Christian virtue and then that will conclude the Will-worship to be so too if it be truly what it pretends to be As for his instance and question founded on it it answers it self for as it is not their holding it forth as the command of God so neither is it their making it the worship of God that renders it culpable but the ridiculousness of it which he mentions the unfitness or inordinableness to that end to which it is designed such laniations of our own bodies being on that account and by their affinity to the bloody sacrifices under the Law deprived of all appearance of being acceptable to God and so for all other sorts which are not either regular effects of Godly sorrow or designed as expedients to make it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lasting and durable repentance as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 revenge 2 Cor. 7. 11. is defined to be For whatsoever is truly so I must not be so injurious to it as to doubt of the acceptation with God or to censure it either as impious or ridiculous My 2d. reason for the taking Will-worship in a good sense was this because these abstinences are said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether that be some small reality or else a bareshew of wisdome in respect of the Will-worship discernible in them neither of which they could be said to have if Will-worship had past with St Paul for foolish or impious for how can a thing be said to have so much as a shew of piety in respect to any sin as lust or rage discernible in it To this his answer is long and perplext 1. By rejecting that notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for any degree of real wisdome And to this I that did not really adhere to that will not be so far concerned in it as to make any reply or at all to indevour to defend it or to adde of it farther then this that the bare possibility that it might so signifie supersedes all demonstrativeness of proof from this text for the criminousness of Will-worship But upon this occasion he takes liberty to consider the Apostles words of bodily exercise 1 Tim. 4. 8. and of that affirmes when it is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profitable for a little the meaning is t is profitable for nothing nay hurtfull and abominable To this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I must interpose that this is a very strange and groundless interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profitable for a little i. e. for nothing and even less then so hurtfull and abominable It is as if when Agrippa tells Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little way thou perswadest me to be a Christian he should interpret it that Agrippa was not at all perswaded by him toward Christianity but on the other side was more confirmed in his Gentilisme To this purpose it is observable that although the bodily exercise in that text be by some of the antients understood of bodily labour yet they which do so render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to signifie somewhat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it profits the body a little and for a while saith St Chrysostome and Theophylact and so we know it doth and S. Hierome in like manner ad breve tempus in carnali proficiunt sanitate they are for a short time profitable in respect of bodily health and so likewise those others of the Antients Ambrose c. who understand it of fasting so doth Leo also Serm de jejun 7. mensis sometimes in that phrase of corporum labor the labor of bodies Serm 2. sometimes of exercitatio continentiae quam sibi quisque proprio arbitrio indicit the exercise of abstinence which every one by his own choice layes on himself Serm 3. conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to denote some degree of profit utilitatem cujusdam portionis saith Leo though not so great as belongs to that which is understood by piety in the next words Thus the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies among the Rabbins that which is in some degree profitable but within certain bounds and so also among the Greeks as when Plato saith of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrates is a little to be considered but truth a great deal and proportionably here the comparison lyes bodily exercise is profitable for a little but godliness is profitable for all things As for his censure that by consequence to this interpretation he fastens on bodily exercise in this notion taking it for abstinences from meats and mariage without relation to that of the Dogmatizers teaching and requiring that abstinence as from things forbidden by God i. e. in effect on bare voluntary fasting and celibacie when they are onely used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for exercise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not with detestation of mariage or meats as the antient Canons have it viz. that they are hurtfull and abominable I need say no more but that it is an ungrounded and unwary affirmation no way to be justified or excused unless still he relieve himself at the dead lift with the supposition that they are made the worship of God And then again as that cannot be applied to abstinence from mariage in his notion of worship for even they that make that a thing acceptable to God and a state of perfection do not count it a worship unless in a generall sense as every virtuous act performed to God may be styled worship and so this being not under precept but commended a Will-worship so being applied to abstinence from meats it can be of no very good consequence For Fasting hath long been numbred among the sorts of Christian sacrifice and is so set down by Aquinas from that of S t Paul of offering up our bodyes a sacrifice to God Rom. 12. which saith he is done by fasting continence martyrtome Leo calls it continentiae libamen the sacrifice of abstinence And St Hierome speaking
casting down the works of the Creator de jejun c. 15. And the like intimations of the opinion of hereticks we meet frequently in the Fathers who give their cautions against this Non re iâ—iendis generibus ciborum quasi pollutis August de mor Eccl Cath l. 1. c. 33. escarum non naturas sed concupiscentias damnent Prosper de vit contempl l. 2. c. 22. And many the like And among the Papists no meaner person then Durand speaks much to this sense that those old hereticks did though the generality of the Papists seem not to approve or follow him God saith he cursed the earth and from thence it is that in fasting 't is unlawful to eat any flesh that is upon the earth beasts and birds c. Rat. divin Off. l. 6. c. 7. But this by the way Next then taking the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify only a shew of piety he cannot but wonder at my question How abstinences can have so much as a shew of piety in Will-worship if Will-worship passe confestly for foolish and impious bidding me ask all inpreters who render the words a shew of wisdom in superstition or affected religion how this can be But before I shall ask them I must have some assurance from this Diatribist that all interpreters do so render it for otherwise my question will be lost in the aire and never bring me home any answer But of this I am well enough advised that all interpreters do not thus render it I shall instance as even now I did in the learned Grotius as valuable I believe as any that will be brought for the Diatribist's interpretation and besides any one asserter of mine interpretation and certainly Grotius is one confutes his assertion of all interpreters However unlesse I can be farther assured that he or they whom the Diatribist takes for all doth also take notice of and render some answer to my question what shall I gain by asking them And if they do answer it why would not the Diatribist be so kinde as to recite it from them But this I am sure he hath not done by asking me again Cannot a thing have ashâ—w of wisdom or piety which is confessedly foolish or impious and if so may it not be so in respect of the Will-worship in it I answer that if I take the question in the terms wherein it is proposed it is no way of answering my question but the diverting to a very distant matter For when he asks may it not be so in respect of the Will-worship in it the plain importance of his words is may it not be foolish or impious in respect of the Will-worship that is in it not may it not have a shew of wisdom or piety in respect of the Will-worship for it is visible that be so referres to is foolish and not to have a shew And then there is a faire fallacie put upon the Reader the termes of my question and of the text quite changed and others substituted in stead of them and then I confess that supposing Will-worship as ill as the Diatribist would have it a thing may be foolish or impious in respect of Will-worship But let the question be fairely set cannot a thing that is foolish and impious have a shew of wisdome in respect of Will-worship And then as I shall answer it may so I must adde that then that Will-worship must be taken in a good sense for else that foolish thing could not have a shew of wisdome or piety in Will-worship If a fool have any shew of wisdome in him it must be sure not in respect of his folly but of some particular or other which is by him that speaks accounted wisdome and that he must have in him either in reality or in appearance or else how can he have any shew of wisdome If Satan have the shew or appearance of an Angel of light it must be in respect to something which he doth or pretends to do which is Angelical As for the instances with which he prosecutes this it must be a strange shortness of discourse if he can think they evince his conclusion He exemplifies in the Baalitical lancing and the Popish penances and supposing the former impious and the latter not onely ridiculous but heathenish yet these saith he had a shew of piety But what if they had was it ever denyed or questioned by me but that impious persons or actions might have a shew of piety for sure I always knew there were hypocrites in the world but my question he knows was how any thing can have a shew of piety in respect of that very thing which is impious This was the onely question that belonged to the affair betwixt us and certainly the Diatribist's instances are very remote from that for the Baalites shew of piety consisted not in their bloody lancing of themselves nor the Papists in their as bloody penances but either in the reality or appearance of that detestation of sinne and that zeal which make them submit themselves to so much smart It was very necessary then for him in the pursuite of this when he again recites my question But saith the Doctor can any thing be represented to me as having so much as a shew of piety in respect of lust or rage discernible in it to tell the Reader that this comparison is ill laid For if this be well laid then sure his setting of the question is foully out of the way But why is it ill laid is it not directly a way of tryall whether will-worship be set by the Apostle in an ill notion For if it be then somewhat else which is acknowledgedly ill and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rage and lust the two principles of sensuality were the fittest I could think on of this sort to instance in being put in the stead of it the Apostles words would still continue to have truth and congruity in them viz. that such a thing hath a shew of piety in it in respect of lust or rage This it seems was too gross for him to swallow and therefore and upon no other reason but because it made the truth most palpable the comparison saith he was ill laid But 't is yet more strange if we consider his reason of excepting against this comparison For rage saith he and lust are for kind confessedly wicked things And truly that was the reason why I instanced in them to shew that a thing cannot have a shew of good in respect of that which is confestly bad which I could not have shewed in those instances if they might have been good as well as bad but worship saith he may be true or false I shall then onely ask whether Will-worship may so too for that he knows is the word we contend about If it may not but is always false then still it is directly parallel to lust and rage in this wherein the comparison was made
those always ill and this also But if Will-worship may be true as well as false then as I acknowledge a thing may have a shew of piety in respect of Will-worship meaning the good or true Will-worship and supposing S. Paul so to have meant and not any false or impious will-worship so by this one concession of the Diatribist after all this contention and scrupulosity and niceness the whole question is yielded me for it seems Will-worship may be true as well as false and so good as well as bad and here not confestly false or bad quod erat demonstrandum What now follows shewing that impious and false worship may have a shew of wisdome and piety to natural men is evidently impertinent to our debate or question which consists onely in this whether that which hath a bare shew of piety or wisdome can have it in respect of that which is confestly impious and foolish and therefore when he hath full scope to put it a little more home to me as he saith and yet can do no more but ask Whether zeal may not have a shew of true zeal and yet be nothing but rage and madness it is still to as little purpose equally beside the question And so when he asks Whether the Devil transforming himself into an Angel of light must have something really of light or piety in him or else cannot have so much as a shew of piety T is evident he may without having any reality of piety in him and yet it is as evident that if he have that shew of piety in respect of humility or charity or any thing else that humility or charity or whatsoever else must be of the number of those things that are accounted good and pious for otherwise his having the appearance or bare shew of them would not conclude him to have the appearance of piety The matter is evident enough if he will please to open his eyes I cannot have a shew of piety in Will-worship unless Will-worship be a branch of piety and so by proportion a shew of Will-worship a shew of piety His conclusion of this copious answer is yet more observable and according to his directions I shall note it once for all that the words are not which things have a shew of wisdome and Will-worship c. for then saith he 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 Will-worship c. and if they were faulty because they had onely a shew of wisdome they will be more faulty that they had but a shew of piety or worship or humility All which I shall very easily grant and as in the latter part I shall fully comply with him that those doctrines of abstinences Col. 2. were faulty because though they had a shew of Will-worship and humility yet they had not the reality of those virtues in them so from the former part of his words I have all reason of analogie to conclude that Will-worship is taken in a good sense by its being evidently joyned with humility and self-denyal for those sure are good things also as well as wisdome and that all the fault was that the doctrines of abstinences had onely the appearance of those virtues not the truth or power of them How inevitably this conclusion is founded on these very premises given me by the Diatribist is so evident that I hope I shall not need farther to enlarge to shew it By the same reason that Will-worship must have been concluded good if it had been joyned with wisdome in this forme a shew of wisdome and of Will-worship it must certainly follow that Will-worship is good because it is joyned with humility in this forme in Will-worship and humility humility being as confestly good as wisdome is supposed to be and the fault of the abstinential doctrines still equal that they had onely the appearance not reality of all these Once more the utmost force of all is yet reserved for the close of the conclusion The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. saith he do no more inforce us to take it in a good sense then when we say Judas made a shew of love to Christ in his traiterous kiss and the Papists devotion in bowing to stocks and images But I desire that he set the words of his example so as may be exactly parallel to the words Col. 2. 23. the least change may have an influence on the matter and then it must be thus 1. Judas had not made a shew of love to Christ in his traiterous kiss and the Papists have a shew of devotion in bowing to stocks and images And 2. in stead of triterous must be placed some word which shall no more vary the kiss then the addition of Will varyes the worship for that the uncommandedness of worship makes it traiterous or so much as ill must not be supposed here where it is the onely question Having premised this I now answer to the example as it is by him set that as the words in the Apostle were certainly true so these words as they are now ill set are as undoubtedly false for consider the kiss with that so distinctive contrary adjunct as a traiterous kiss which addition as it is necessary to make it ill so it deprives it of all appearance of love and then Judas had no shew of love to Christ in this viz. in his traiterous kiss If indeed he had said Judas had a shew of love to Christ in kissing him or saluting him friendly then it had been true and then the conclusion had been evident that a kiss or friendly salute is an act or indication of love an hearty kiss of an hearty love and a feigned kiss of a feigned love or if the addition of traiterous kiss had made no greater a change then the addition of will or uncommandedness to worship then again it had been true But supposing the kiss to be a traiterous kiss viz. a kiss given as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or watchword whom and when the Souldiers should apprehend then sure he had no shew of love to Christ in that kisse And so in like manner if the proposition had been The Papists have a shew of devotion in bowing it had been true because adoration or bowing is a species or indication of devotion but because Idolatry is neither of these and bowing to stocks and images is Idolatry there can therefore be no truth in that proposition set as by the Diatribist it is set and supposed to be delivered by any Orthodox pen for such sure was the Apostle's to his Colossians but the direct contradictory will be true and clear to all that count bowing to stocks and images a sin For to them the Papists have no shew of devotion in bowing to stocks or images no shew of piety but
But this all the while incumbent on the Diatribist to prove and as it will not be granted for asking so it is not so neerly approaching toward truth as to want any farther answer then the reciting of it I cannot yet be so uncharitable to Mr. C. as to imagine it his serious opinion that kneeling in prayer or thanksgiving to God on purpose to expresse our lowly reverence to him or bowing at the name of Jesus in token that we believe him to be the eternal God in opposition to the ancient or modern Arians and Socinians is abominable to God and worse then false religion And though his following question confirms this to be his opinion Do not all Idolaters pretend wisdom in their inventions citing in the margent Psal 106. 39. went a whoring with their own inventions yet t is not to be believed that he can in earnest thence conclude Therefore all inventions of men are Idolatry and worse then Idolatry If he can 't is sufficient to reply that though all Idolatry be invented and devised worship yet all inventions of men are not Idolatry though every beast be a living creature yet every living creature is not a beast And so that though Idolatrous Will-worship be abominable to God yet all Will-worship is not Idolatrous Once more he presseth this argument Doth not saith he this pretence of wisdom make it more odious to God as taking upon them to be wiser then he and more devout then he requires But it may suffice once for all that he that useth an uncommanded ceremony in the service of God doth not take upon him to be wiser then God but walking regularly in obedience to the divine rule wheresoever there is any particularly given acts according to reason and the more universal rules of Decency c. where God hath not particularly prescribed any thing And so again in acts of uncommanded devotion doing that voluntarily out of love to God which God requires not sub periculo animae and so which is not extorted by fear either of offending or suffering this is again no elevating our own wisdome above Gods but our making use of those advantages and those liberties which God in his wisdome chose to afford us that there might be somewhat for us freely to exercise his graces upon and so for him as freely to reward in us And of this there is no fear that it shall ever be counted any irregular acting and having God's promise to be rewarded it is safe from being odious or abominable before him Thus I hope I have vindicated the good sense of the word as farre as in my 3d. Reason I pretended from the Greek Fathers concurrence with me As for the Latines and later interpreters to which the Diatribist now calls me and asks me why I did not tell him how they rendred the word To this I answer that as I have not commodity to examine all those interpreters in this matter so I did not think my self obliged to do it having never pretended that the notion which I give is universally received by all Expositors I acknowledge that all men have not rendred the word in a good sense particularly that the vulgar Latine reads it Superstitio though in what acception of that word I know not most probably in an ill sense but sure this with no more truth or analogie for so interpreting then is for their interpreting the Passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by decernitis v. 20. which is no less then to change subjection into command undergoing a yoke into imposing of it one contrary into another However from thence t is nothing strange that the ill sense should be transfused into those Expositors which follow and never depart from that Latine translation neither examining the original word nor the context to reforme that translation by it This was the task which I then undertook and having found the context to incline it to a good sense and the Greek word to bear it very well and the Greek Fathers to concur with me in their notion of it I thought I might lawfully question the authority of the vulgar Latine and those who had been lead by it and so we know are the Papists and from them others also who do not take notice who t is that leads them and attempt that here which I saw ordinarily practised by all other sorts of men the Learned Papists themselves and I doubt not by this Diatribist when he conceives himself to have reason for it i. e. depart from their words and conduct as in other so in this particular In so doing I now see without any search that I have such a concurrence as will secure it from any censure of singularity Beside the Greek Fathers forementioned the Diatribist tells me I have Bellarmine's consent adding some other Papists also and I hope his authority alone were considerable enough if there were not also some others to weigh in the balance with Salmeron and Estius which are all the modern Expositors here cited by him And among the Protestants to Hugo Grotius already cited I now adde Monsieur Daillé in his late tract de Jejuniis written ex instituto against Bellarmine and yet in this place of St Paul contested between them he expressely acknowledges with Bellarmine the very thing that I concluded viz. that those false teachers had a threefold colour of wisdome 1. In Will-worship 2. In humility 3. In austerity to the body for which three things they admire these their doctrines of men defining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cultum sponte voluntariè assumtum nulla cogente Dei lege a worship undertaken voluntarily and of their own accord without any law of God constraining them and again that by the whole discourse of the Apostle it appeares that they commended and set off their doctrines of abstinence by this that voluntarily ex quadam zeli sanctificationis abundantiâ susciperentur they were voluntarily undertaken out of an abundance of zeal and holiness And so in his opinion if abundance of zeal and holiness were taken in a good sense Will-worship must be resolved to be so taken And so this Exposition of that learned man who will not be deemed partial to me against the Diatribist may now deserve to be considered by him as soon as the contrary of any modern Expositor produced or I believe producible by him For as to those antient Latine Fathers whom he hath already produced they are but three Ambrose Hierom and the vulgar Latine and those three may be reduced also and in fine will amount to little more then the one single vulgar Translator This is generally supposed to be St Hierome and if it be not t is certainly somebody whom St Hierome followed St Hieromes short notes on the Epistles being affixt to that translation and so St Hieromes name is no addition to that onely served the Diatribists turn as in a false muster to bear two names to appear twice and
he cites not In all reason this defect must be supplied by Salmeron who cited in the margent August lib. de verâ rel lib. 2. de doctr Christ c. 25. and Thomas 2a. 2 ae qu. 93. art 1. What place in Augustines book de vera relig it is to which he referres we have no direction and so are left to guesse that it is cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio in phantasmatibus nostris Melius est enim qualecumque verum quà m omne quicquid pro arbitrio fingi potest Let not our religion be placed in our fantasmes for any thing which is true is better then whatsoever can be feigned at our own pleasure And as to the truth of this position I give full consent that all fictitious false worship is to be avoided not only as he contents himself to say unfit to compare with true so I no where undertake to be advocate for any false or fictitious or fantastick religion The commemorating the birth of Christ on the 25th of December I hope is not such nor any Ceremony admitted into use in our Church The other place out of the 2d de doctr Christ c. 55. stands thus Having at the 20th Chapter defined Superstitiosum superstitious to be whatsoever was instituted by men for the making or worshipping of Idols and that either belonging to the worshipping any Creature or part of a Creature as God or to consulting or making any pacts with Devils c. and having fallen on the several sorts of divinations c. 20 21 22 23 24. he begins his 25th ch quibus ampuâ—atis atque eradicatis ab animo Christiano deinceps videndae sunt institutiones hominum non superstitiosae i. e. non cum daemonibus sed cum ipsis hominibus institutae the former being lopt off and eradicated from a Christians minde let us farther view such institutions of men as are not superstitious i. e. are not made with Devils but with men themselves And having added somewhat of such vain institutions which sure no way concern the matter now in hand he comes to those which are useful to humane society and resolves that such are not to be avoided by a Christian imò etiam quantum satis est intuenda memoriaeque retinenda but in a competent manner to be observed and retained and this how little it belongs to the present purpose to the proving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be here used in an ill sense is already so apparent that I need adde no word more to the clearing of it As for the place of Aquinas 2a. 2 ae qu. 93. art 1. It is the very same which long ago we considered in the former part of this Tract ch 3. § 3. n. 5. and to the view of it there presented I refer the reader finding nothing more in that whole place art 1. which was not there punctually considered unlesse it be a citation out of the Glosse Col. 2. quòd superstitio est quando traditioni humanae religionis nomen applicatur that it is superstition when the name of religion is applied to the tradition of men which words have nothing in them which I am not ready to acknowledge being sufficiently assured that dogmatizing is a sin and consequently that so good a name as religion ought not to be pretended for or applied to it What he addes by way of answer to my fourth reason hath I think nothing of moment in it but what hath oft been spoken to already unlesse it be that he saith he hath not observed any such difficulty or obscurity in that text Col 2. 20. c. but dares say the Doctors exposition makes the greatest obscurity that ever he met with But of this there is no disputing I must not expect that he shall acknowledge my interpretation to be clear when he dislikes it or discern the involutions or difficulties of that other which he hath espoused when if he did he were obliged to forsake it Sect. 12. The fifth reason vindicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius corrected twise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverbially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius's Glossary concordant to th Scripture use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5. 4. TO my fifth reason taken from Hesychius's rendring it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary piety or worship and the notion which he had of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition to signifie that which a man did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntarily and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his own accord agreeably to which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freewill-offerings are rendred by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary performances his answer is brief that this is no advantage to my cause for the words may both signifie well-devised worship in an ill sense And though in humane authors the derivatives and compounds of this word expresse the Freewillingnesse of the person yet that will not help the Doctor who doth not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect to the willingnesse of the person in a commanded worship of God but voluntary worship i. e. worship not commanded by God but offered to him by the free will of man To this I reply 1. that I willingly confesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as capable of an ill sense as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that when the worship is forbidden or false then being ill the voluntarinesse of it can infuse no goodnesse into it as when it is of it self good the uncommandednesse cannot make it ill And therefore 2dly this was not it on which I laid the weight only I thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not been so likely to hear ill with gainsayers as this other which I saw was fallen under great prejudice with some but rather that which followed of the other compounds of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie no more but doing somewhat voluntarily or of their own accord without any necessity to doe it 3dly Then I say that acknowledging it my notion of the word to signifie worship not commanded by God the authority of Hesychius and the other Greek Glossaries which concur with or follow him is clear and home to confirm that to be the meaning of it If that which is said already be not sufficient to lay the parallel directly betwixt Will-worship and voluntary oblations or performances of things not commanded then adde 1. from Hesychius again that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary proceeding from his own will and that sure is distant enough from the will or command of another The words in Hesychius are certainly false printed as much of that book is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must questionlesse thus be mended either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverbially for so Suidas fetcheth that word out of approved authors and which way soever it is the sense
is the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies one that doth any thing from his own not anothers will or command whereas the word to signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary in performing commands is by him set 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so those two words must be read together and not severed as they now are in the vulgar copie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as immediately after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So again of the two words formerly cited by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former certainly signifies the freeness of the matter not of the person one that is willingly deaf or disobedient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sure cannot be phansied a doing that freely or willingly which is commanded for no man is commanded to be disobedient and in like manner the latter is rendred by Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is made such by himself and not commanded by the city adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 setting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary to commanded by another and Phavorinus repeats the very same words onely with the change of the Gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adding also as seldome he omits to do what Hesychyus had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same may appear again by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that chooseth ill voluntarily i. e. he which of his own accord chooseth the evil both in Phavorinus and Suidas where sure that which he chooseth voluntarily is not first commanded by God being supposed to be evill And so still these compositions from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie all of them in perfect accord with my notion of Will-worship i. e. a performance voluntarily taken up without any command of God And indeed t is a little strange that this Diatribist who takes it here in an ill sense and places the ill in this that it is an uncommanded worship should yet here dispute against this signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for voluntary worship uncommanded by God and phansie that I pretend no more but the free-willingness of the person in a commanded worship of God What he addes in the end of that 15th § that though the word in other authors be taken for voluntary worship and be but once used in Scripture yet the Spirit of God useth words in a sense clearly different from other authors instancing in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5. 4. taken for a vice which in Aristotle is taken for a virtue will soon receive answer For 1. Hesychius being the author now peculiarly under consideration and his Glosses having a speciall propriety to the explicating of words in Scripture what is said by him is not so much the sense of other authors as of the Scripture itself and so cannot reasonably be thought distant from it 2dly Though some words are taken in the Scripture in a sense different from other authors this is not applicable to all words of Scripture some are used in ordinary vulgar senses and by much the greater part of words there and from thence to conclude of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is taken in a different sense is to conclude and syllogize from particulars which is against all Laws of Logick 3dly Whensoever a word in any place of Scripture is affirmed to be used in such a different sense that must be concluded either by the circumstances of the text which so inforce it or else by comparing it with other places of Scripture where that sense is necessary as when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is concluded to be a vice Eph. 5. 4. t is manifest by the context it must do so for to it is immediately annext 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are not onely not convenient but as that phrase denotes very inconvenient nay as the companions of it there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inforce filthy noisome unsavory so as folly oft signifies uncleanness and so this is a visible reason also why the word is taken in an ill sense when Aristotle meaning onely cleanly not beastly jesting takes it in a good sense But of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this no way appears in this one place where t is used but on the contrary the society in which t is found humility and self-denyal or austerity determine it to be the good sense as certainly as the companie of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determine that to an ill And so much for my 5 t Reason Sect. 13. Mr. C. his distinction of voluntary Spontaneous A work of love The Testimony of Socrates Worship true or false Nothing unlawfull which is not forbidden Voluntaryness no way forbidden The second Commandment TO my last reason because things done in the service of God are not therefore ill because spontaneous but on the contrary that when out of a pious affection a man shall do any thing else beside what God hath commanded by any particular precept this action of his is so much more commendable and acceptable to God he thinks it sufficient to distinguish of voluntary either as it denotes the manner or the efficient cause of worship in the first respect that is voluntary saith he which yet is necessary viz. commanded by God in the second that onely which is done by the will of man contradistinguisht to the will of God But this distinction is very far from answering my reason For of the second it is he knowes that I understand the word and that I might prevent all want of this or the like distinction I speak most plainly using the word Spontaneous not voluntary on purpose to denote that which was done by mans will on his own accord without any command of Gods for so sure Spontaneous signifies however the Diatribist here confounds it with voluntary and so involves in stead of extricating mixes when he went to distinguish that which is suâ sponte from a mans own incitation not from any external impellent whether command or punishment attending it for this indeed being done thus freely is perfectly a work of love and that renders it so extremely greatefull and rewardable by God I shall give you the description of it in the words of Socrates speaking of Ecclesiastical rites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing no man can shew any written command for this it is manifest that the Apostles left this to every mans judgement and will that every man might do good neither by fear nor of necessity When he addes that in worship devised by man the will bears all the blame and then the more voluntary the more abominable I answer that worship is either false or true bad or good Heathen or Christian His rule is perfectly true in unlawful wicked worship all the blame thereof lyes on the will of man but it can have no place where the worship is lawfull for then no blame is due at all but the more
hating mariage that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for the latter though thou usest austerities and fastings which may be usefull to virginal Chastity yet do not this to the hurting of thy body but in consideration of thy infirme habit of body thy frequent indispositions give thy self the use of lawfull liberties take wine sometimes in a moderate proportion keep not thy self so strictly to water-drinking as persons of austerity use to do All this and much more might be added of the same nature makes it most evident that uncommanded performances such sure were virginity or fasting had no ill character fastned on them by those same Orthodox Fathers who yet would not indure to have them imposed on Christians as from God but brand all such as attempt it for false teachers Sect. 17. The last occasion of the ill sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius Of the Pharisees appellation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dogmatizing and discriminating Epiphanius's words cleared Wherein their hypocrisie consisted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Mac. 2. 42. Asidei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fault THe last occasion of the ill sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I took notice of was Epiphanius's mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the denotation of the Pharisees name in respect of the voluntary performances wherein they pretended to exceed other Jews And I leave the Reader to view in that place § 24 25 26 27 28. what I thought fit to note on that word which when he hath done I shall have some confidence that he will need no farther reply of mine to demonstrate the invalidity of all this Diatribist's exceptions against those Sections For there he will find 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that may denote the superfluity of either noxious or ridiculous or but for number many and so burthenous ceremonies is not pleaded for by me and that is answer to his 24th § 2dly That what was blameable in the Pharisees was not their bare using of some lawfull indifferent or else good and commendable things not commanded by God but their teaching such for doctrines and laying them as burthens on others and what was consequent to this their discriminating themselves proudly and fastidiously from other men upon this account and that prevents his 25 t § 3dly That I no way plead for the Pharisees but affirme them generally to have been ill men and hypocrites Onely I say that when they imposed that name of Pharisee upon themselves sure they meant not to reproach themselves by so doing and that Epiphanius saith they thus imposed it on pupose to denote their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that meaning some performances of theirs wherein they conceived themselves to exceed all others which again was the preventing of all that he addes § 26. And lest there should remain any doubt of this the Diatribist setting it quite another way and affirming that Epiphanius cals the heresie of the Pharisees by that name as offending both in Will-worships of their own devising and also in the abundance and superfluity of them I shall set down here the words punctually as they are found in Epiphanius and leave the Reader to judge on whose side the truthlyes in this particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were called Pharisees for being separated from others because of the abundant Will-worship whether prescribed or customary so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently signifies among them for Phares in Hebrew is interpreted Separation In which words what is there I pray which can give the least ground for the Diatribists gloss either that Epiphanius calls the heresie of the Pharisees by that name when he only sets it down as the interpretation of that name of Pharisees long before Epiphanius imposed on them or that this name was given them as a character of their offending both in Will-worships and in the superfluity of them Certainly neither of these hath the least appearance of foundation in Epiphanius I wonder the Diatribist could think fit to cite them from him 4thly That though hypocrisie were the Pharisees chief crime and withal the fewel to their pride and despising of others yet their doing some things which were not commanded was no part of this their hypocrisie but on the contrary either their saying but not doing or their doing the lightest and neglecting the weightiest duties or their preferring their own traditions before the commanded duties and making the observance of the one as in Corban their commutation and excuse for neglecting the other and this indeed was farre more likely to inflame their pride and despising of others then the real Christian necessary performances would have been the lightest things ascending highest and appearing most visibly whilest the weightier sink down and lie hid But still this is no prejudice to those real performances of more strictnesse then the law exacts fasting twise in the week and the like supposing as we here suppose that they are not used to the supplanting of necessary duties but go along very friendly with the practice of them and offend in no other respect but that they are uncommanded performances And this avoids all his artifices in § 27. 5thly That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Mac. 2. 42. signifies more then a well mindednesse to the law meaning by that the precepts of God most evidently a spontaneous performing of some things which the law required not Let the place be there viewed and these two things will be evident 1. That that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is set to denote the Asidaei by way of periphrasis Now of them t is certain that they were so called from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we ordinarily render mercy but signifies saith Kimchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excellence of goodness others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abundance of goodness and in Maimonides excessum supremum gradum in one place the excesse and highest degree of any performance especially of charity or beneficence and in another benignitatem erga aliquem cui nihil planè debes vel erga eum qui beneficio dignus est at non tanto benignity to him to whom you either ow nothing or not so much as you afford him by which it is manifest that the name Asidaei denotes not only willing but spontaneous agents which keep not themselves within the line of the law as to do nothing which is not commanded but have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary performances to offer to God above that which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the line of law as the Rabbines style it exacts of them and so are properly styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 volunteers in or to the law as that is opposed to prest or hired souldiers of it The second thing is that the men that are there particularly mentioned in that place of the Maccabees are
money upon the navy is Cicero's phrase pro Flacco erogare pecunias ex aerario in his Oration in Vatinium erogare in oleum in Plinie Ep. 240. joyned with conferre in operibus balnei unde in eos sumptus pecunia erogaretur in Livie l. 1. and the substantive erogatio for expending or laying out erogatio pecuniae in Cicero ad Atticum l. 15. 32. Tot impendiis tot erogationibus saith Plinie in his Panegyrick and in Suetonius 't is explained by largitio and profusio pecuniarum And accordingly supererogo is to lay out all and more and from the opinion of pious mens doing so the Romanists have clearly raised their treasure of the Church as the bank into which these payments are made I could not have expected that there should be any question made of this As it is I hope this will satisfie it And then alas what a remote unhappy etymologie hath this Diatribist fallen on supererogare is as much as super quod erogavit lex Had he been pleased to have englished this latine the mistake had been too visible and therefore that was more prudently omitted For what can erogavit signifie in that period of his Required so he renders it in the following period works saith he may be said supererogare when men think they have done more then the law required But 1. that is in no wise the meaning of the word as hath already been manifested 2. whatsoever it shall be resolved to signifie yet in this way of etymologie the erogavit belongs to the law whereas we know in the use of the word among all Romish writers it is the man or the works not the law which erogates i. e. lays out his money pains life c. and proportionably which supererogates 3. and which is yet more grosse the super must in this etymologie be assigned to the man as the erogating to the law and so the one word be divided betwixt them the law must be said to erogate the man to super and what is that either nothing or else to supererogate and yet that he cannot do in any sense wherein the law could be said to erogate Thus beyond all either reason or grammar incongruous and inconsistent is this etymologie And this being said concerning the nature of the word all that remains of his exercitation being built upon this mistake is perfectly superseded yet I shall attend him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In many respects saith he such works may be said to supererogate 1. with respect to the law it self when men think they have done more then the law required which makes them not supererogatory but derogatory from the perfection of the law of God and lays imperfection upon it as the Doctor hath plainly done above To this I answer 1. that by his own confession these which he now mentions are not supererogatory works but the contrary why then doth he set them as a first instance of the many respects in which such works may be said to supererogate 2. When he knowes that that treatise of mine on which he exercises his discipline doth not defend the thinking a mans self to doe more then the law requires but precisely in distinction from that to doe somewhat which the law doth not require why should he still confound things thus severed and lay that to my charge which he knows I am not guilty of 3. There is no truth in his suggestion that this doctrine as it is taught by me is derogatory to or layes imperfection to the law of God For if by the law of God he mean the Mosaical law then though from Christs own words I conclude that he came to fill it up or perfect it and so that it had in it before vacuities and imperfections yet the doctrine of the treatise of Will-worship is no way founded or concerned in that As for the law of Christ under which as well as under the law of the Jewes some things are left free and uncommanded and consequently I affirm it possible for a Christian to do something which is not commanded him I never accused that of imperfection but doe without all doubting suppose it to be a perfect codex of commands to which God will never adde more and when I have done so I found this doctrine of the Christians voluntary oblations in this perfection not imperfection of this law viz. that even in the greatest perfection there is a latitude and the higher degrees of that latitude are not under precept A 2d way of supererogating he mentions in respect to other men as the Pharisee that said with scorn and pride enough I am not like other men I fast twice a week c. To this I answer 1. that this as little belongs to the true as it doth to his false notion of supererogating For in neither of them doth the super include or intimate superiority above other men and 2. that he that thus scorns and exalts himself above other men is far from doing more herein then is commanded t is evident he comes short of very duty in an eminent most rewardable virtue that of humility wherein he that strives not to exceed as much and more as in any voluntary oblations t is evident that he is no good Christian and I never undertook to plead for such Pharisees but of all others think Christians obliged to use all diligence to avert this shipwrack And yet 3. the Apostle himself both by his doctrine and practise allowes of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies literally a glorying but it is certainly an humble rejoycing in having done things which he knowes are eminently acceptable to God and elsewhere rejoycing in his own work and as this is no way increasable to a Christian by comparing it with other mens defects or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his charity makes him passionately wish and his humility really think all others better then himself so it is very far from that scorn and pride in all Pharisees which makes them discriminate themselves from other men The 3d way he mentions is with respect to the overpleasing and acceptance of God when they that think they can do something not commanded expect to find more acceptance from God then they themselves or other do for doing onely what is commanded To this I answer 1 That still this is nothing to the notion of the word supererogating which sure signifies not overpleasing 2. That if one caution be taken in viz. that uncommanded works can never satisfie for disobediences and consequently that it is perfect impiety and folly to neglect any duty on one side and then to think to compensate that by doing more then is commanded on the other side If I say this caution he premised and proportionably the earlyest and principallest care be taken to secure duty to make good obedience in cannot be amiss in the next place to superadde this other care of the most eminent heroical uncommanded performances and he that
a last remedy and so not proceeded to till the disease were universally spreading and obstinate against all cure for whilest it were lower then so it was still but the season of reformation From whence that the Diatribist should think fit to infer it my sense that he might accuse me that lesse or lesse generall abuses need no reformation there can be no tolerable account rendred but only this that his ears have been so accustomed to the new dialect that of exterminative reformations that he cannot think the word signifies any thing else by whomsoever it is used but that which indeed it never signifies in any propriety of speech extirpation and abolition In a word I think there is no necessity of excision till the part begin to gangrene or corrupt and spread yet I can admit of medicines long before and heartily advise timely prudent applications as soon as ever the patient begins in the least measure to be distempered His 23th § is the accusing of those that used cards on the Lords day after the evening service and the upbraiding their superstition that they will not touch cards or dice on Christmas day and the answer is sufficient that as I spake not a word of them that did thus so I never heard of any that thus made a difference betwixt Christmasse day and the Lords day but that if they used that liberty on the later they used it on the former too However if by the Diatribist it were deemed criminous in the one I should have hoped he might have been gratified by hearing it was abstained from in the other For my own part I never allowed my self the liberty on either and know not that I ever saw it used and therefore I am sure there is nothing farther to be replied to by me in that § I as heartily with a devout conscientious profitable observation of the Lords day as of any other Festivity and cannot justly fall under the Diatribists censure for any thing I have so much as intimated in this matter And this I say the rather because § 24. this is charged upon my doctrine as a crime and a part of superstition that the day hath been accounted more sacred then the Lords day and the proof brought out of my 20th § where saith he I call it most sacred and out of my 24th § where I say it hath been kept if not much more yet certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year But here is misprision in each of these The phrase most sacred § 20. doth not at all belong to the day much lesse to the preferring it before the Lords day in respect of sacrednesse but only to a Christian Festivity as that is made up of prayer praises Eucharist charity hospitality c All which being put together I hope I could not offend in styling it most sacred such as the extravagant irrational riots of men ought not to assault and pollute And for the 2d there is no such word as sacred to be found in that 24th § all that is said is that in this nation the day of the birth of Christ hath been kept if not much more certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year and this interpreted most clearly by the following words in frequenting the services of the Church in the use of the Liturgie Sermon Sncraments c. And I cannot imagine how this manner of strict observing of it can be criminous in it self or to the prejudice of the Lords day on which t is no news to say that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which I make an ingredient in the strictnesse of the celebration and that which denominates it more strict is not constantly celebrated and yet sure no fault that it is constantly celebrated on Christmas day However the strictnesse of observing is one thing and the sacrednesse is another Any private fast may be more strictly observed more or more severe strictnesse of duty allotted to it then to the Lords day and yet the Lords day as set apart by the Apostles of Christ in respect of that institution and of the resurrection of Christ to the commemorating whereof it was consecrated be esteemed and lookt on as most sacred I need to say no more of that As for the ground which he pretends from his own knowledge to assigne of my thus speaking viz. that we may make the Lords day and Festivals to be founded on the same authority viz. of the Church this he must very much dissemble his knowledge if he confesse not to be a mistake also For in the margent he grants that I say that the Apostles instituted the Lords day § 31. and so certainly I do though I know not in what words of Scripture that institution is set down But saith he there be other words § 57. which speak of the Lords day by the same authority appointed To which I answer that the words there used though the Lords day be by the same authority appointed belong not at all to the stating of this question and being introduced in that form though c. they are not any affirmation that the Lords day is not instituted by any higher authority then Christmas day but only a concession of what was asked by the Quaerist without so much as examining or inquiring into the utmost of the authority by which it stood Of this I had sufficiently exprest my sense § 31. as the Diatribists margent confesses from me viz. that the Apostles instituted the Lords day whereas in that 57th § I speak as plainly of Christmas day that it hath its authority from the institution and usage of the Vniversal Church And if when the matter is so clear and my meaning so expresse both for the one and the other I must yet be accused for the contrary and this be affirmed from the Diatribists knowledge to be my ground viz. a designe to make the Lords day and Festivals to be founded on the same authority and that by him specified viz. of the Church T is certainly most visible that either this is a calumny in the Diatribist or else that the word Church must be so taken as to comprehend that part of it of which the Apostles were rulers in person and then what harm hath been in that speech thus interpreted the Church of the Apostles instituted the Lords day and either they personally or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals the Festival of Easter being derived undoubtedly from the Apostles Philip and John Peter and Paul as hath already clearly appeared out of the difference betwixt Victor and Polycrates And other Festivals by the passages of the Martyrdome of Ignatius and Polycarp i. e. by evidence of story being demonstrated to be little later though of Christmasse this do not so expressely appear to me as to be any where affirmed by me But there is yet more of this captious discourse behinde upon my saying that t is not usual to touch
this 83 38 institutione 86 17 of my sence 28 36 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 108 26 rendring These 109 11 and 113 3 words 116 6 on mine 117 28 of not 129 32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 150 2 Will-devised 152 23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  30 dele be 154 12 place all 171 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 180 38 on his 187 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 192 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 206 16 41. 207 35 depredicates 208 2 St 213 20 proposes 224 10 gloriosè 228 32 it 229 4 dele 237 32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 239 38 rendred 243 29 downward 250 2 hither 251 32 reach 268 18 entrance 272 1 wish a 279 7 after be add  17 be it two 286 17 whos 's  22 think p. 10. in marg read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 48. in marg l. 1r Chalcidius p. 131. marg li. penult r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arr. Epict. l. 1. c. 22. * Elias Lev. Thish p. 49. 1 Thess 4. 11. Annot. on Col. 2. a. and 1 Tim. 1. 2. Mat. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 10. 2â— 2â— qu. 92. art 1. Resp ad 3. Vid 1. 2. q. 64. Art 2. Ibid. l. 2. q. 64. Art 4 in corp 2 dâ— 2 dâ— q. 81. Art 5. in aorp Q. 92. art 2. corp In resp ad tertium Art 2. in resp ad tertium Superstitiosum est quicquid ab hominibus institutum est ad facienda colenda idola pertinens August de doctr Christ l. 2. c. 20. Quid enim interest utrum Deos neges an infames Superstitio error in sanus amandos timet quos colit violat Seneca Epistol 124. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f. 89. In Rom. 8. Chalcidius in Plat. Tim. p 219. 2â— 2 qu. 93. In Tim p. 243. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 248. Festiv p. 438. Smyrn Eccles Epist p. 28. Martyrium Ignat. p. 8. l. 2. p. 779. l. 3. c. 8. Leg. Qui ad Temp. D. Decurion 2â— 2. quâ—â—… art 1. p. 381. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut. lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Maim Hal Kelc-hammikdusch c. ult â— Sapientiam rnusquisqne eoum di cit quam à semet ipso adinvcnit Ir. l. 3. c. 2. Tom. 3. p. 382. Diatr p. 44. 2ª 2 ae qu. 85. art 3. Ad Celantiam Ep. 14. Tom. 1. p. 31. De cultu soem c. 9. Affictio corporis peccatorum indulgentiam deprecatur Hierom in Isa 58. Tom 4. p. 191. F. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom 6. p. 476. l. 17. Eò affligunt carnem suam quo animae frangant superbiam Hieron ad celantiam Ep 14. Tom 1 p. 39. 8. Eodem tempore vacâ—mus orationi ne interior homo noster Draconis vescatur carnibus Hieron m Isa 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 15. Tom 6. p. 573. l. 16. Frange panem esurienti partem pams quam si non jejunares comâ—sturus eras Jesumum tuum non sit lucrum marsupii sed satuâ—â—tas animae Hieron Ib Tom 4. p. 191. G. Quod vestris usibus religiosâ parcitate subtrabitis in alimoniam pauperum in cibos debilium transferatis Leo de Jejun 7. mens Serm 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To. 6. p. 476. l. 25. Hier Tom 1. Ep. 14. p. 39. A. p. 69. l. 1. c. 7. Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 22. Edit Savil. Tom. 6. p. 975. * Ser. 3. de jejun 7. mens Eccl. hist l 5. 6. 18. Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 3. Sozomen l. 1. c. 11. Tom. 3. p. 791. l. 1. Haer. 16. in Psal 36. Rabbini in Prov 22. 28. c in Pâ—â—ke Ave. More Nevoch Part. 3 Rabbi Ismael in Beracoth c. 1. In 1 Cor. 9. In Act. 21. Tom. 4. p. 860. l. 12. Ibid. lin 20. Contra Cels p. 91. Tom. 9. p. 159. Ep. 28. Tom 1. p. 69. See Sir H. Spelman De Exord Christ Rel. in Brit. p. 2. p. 123. p. 125. Hist Eccl l. 2. c. 40. p. 107. l. 5. c. xy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. l. 4. c. 37. See Guil. Malmesb de Antiq. Glaston Eccl. ex Freculpho l. 2. c. 4. Et Baron Tom. 1. an 35. num 5. Et MS. Hist Angl in Vatican Biblioth Addit is missum suisse Galâ—â—â—i in Britanniam à Philippo Apostolo Josephum Arimathaeum Sir H. Spelman Appar p. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 4. c. 36. l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sam. 253. De Temp. Domin 1. Adv. Niceph l. 7. c. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 1. contr Marc. c. 5. Ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qu. 1. §. 38. and in the Def. of L. Falklands Tract of Infall In cis quae scriptura nec jubet nec prohibet illud est sequendum quod consuetudo roboravit quae sine dubio de traditione manavit Tertull. de coron milit Quod universa tenet ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi potestate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur Aug. de bapt con Donat. l. 4. c. 23.
evident 1. by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines signifie those things which are taught as from God Mat. 15. 9. hath been formerly shewed and is evidens from the form of speech in vain do they worship me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men where the commands of men are taught not as such but as doctrines of God From hence the active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dogmatize ordinarily denotes teaching those things to be divine precepts and so obliging conscience which are not and accordingly the passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs denote the having such weights thus imposed upon them being subject to ordinances or doctrines as we rightly render it These are in the beginning of that 20. v. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the elements of the world whether of the Jewish or Gentile service both nailed to his crosse by Christ cancelled in his death but such as were incumbent on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that lived in the world being under those elements or initial ordinances though Christians were not 3. These are specified what they were Touch not taste not handle not abstinences from meats and from marriage that of meats evidently a precept of Gods to the Jewes and the Gnosticks divinity being in part compounded of Judaism there is no reason to doubt but they taught these abstinencies as the Jewes taught them i. e. as divine obliging precepts and joined abstinence from marriage to that of meats in the same form i. e. as under precept also As for that which the Diatribist addes to confirm his objection viz that in the next verse they are called the commandments and doctrines of men it hath no force in it for so really they were and not of God but yet were by the false teachers imposed under a more honourable glosse as commands not of men but of God and therein their false teaching consisted And it is strange the Diatribist could say of such false doctrines that they could not be pretended much lesse imposed as a divine command T is as if he should say False teachers could not teach false hypocrites and deceivers could not pretend the authority of Scripture for their errors the Devil could not put on the appearance of an Angel of light So again 't is with equal truth that he saith the traditions were not pleaded to be the commandments of God but expressely called the commandments of men Mat. 15. 9. when 't is evident that those commandments of men were by the Pharisees taught as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines and so commandments of God though by Christ affirmed in truth to be opposite to Gods real commands v. 3. 6. it being very ordinary with hereticks and hypocrites to pretend that to be the will and command of God which is most extremely contrary to it And in that the Pharisees sin and hypocrisie consisted Fourthly he would ask me another question whether the placing the worship of God in the observation of those ordinances though not taught or imposed as God's commands were not an abuse of them and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I answer 1. By asking what he means by the worship of God if such as man may justly prescribe or practise either ceremonies perfectly lawfull but not prescribed by God or more then so that which is sure to be accepted by him though yet it be not under divine precept then 't is certain 't were no abuse but if he mean the commanded worship of God then his question implyes a contradiction for whatsoever this worship of God is placed in that is taught as command of God for else it were not Gods prescribed worship which yet it is supposed to be 2. That these abstinencies being of such a nature that Christ removed all ordinances requiring them and purposely designed that they should be left free to men no humane authority could lawfully impose them no man can forbid marriage to Christians and so any such command were an abuse of authority if given by lawful superiors or if given by others an act of intrusion and usurpation for who made them judges or dividers of tasks to their brethren But then this may not be extended to all ceremonies and circumstances of the worship of God times gestures c. for Christ never exprest any absolute dislike to all such nor can the imposing of such with prudence in respect of choise and moderation in respect of number be by any analogic reducible to those abstinencies of which the Apostle there speaks Nay even for those particularly abstinence from marriage t is certain that it may be lawfully practised by him that can bear it and that all the error is in imposing it on others contrary to that liberty which Christ hath for weighty reasons allowed and required to continue allowable and honorable among Christians Lastly He argues from the following words v. 23. where the Apostle sayes they have a shew of wisdome in Will-worship not as the commands of God and thence he concludes their abuse to be not that they imposed them as divine commands but as parts of divine worship But I answer that that verse is not the setting down the abuse or the defining wherein it consists but at the utmost a description of the faire glosses those abstinencies and false worships were capable of viz. a double shew or appearance of piety one in Will-worship offering to God a free will offering for such is every uncommanded if lawfull abstinence but such was not this and therefore 't was but a shew of piety and another in humility worshipping Angels as the ministers of God humility indeed a most Christian virtue but this no justifiable humility To which also a third is subjoyned that of self-denyal or austerity of the same kind with the former and so still 't was but a shew no reality of wisdome or piety which consisted in this Sect. 6. The Diatribist's way to make the Doctors words witness against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Placing worship an equivocal phrase BUt the Diatribist is so fixtly resolved on his way that the criminousness and danger of these abstinencies shall consist in their being devised or willed by men and not in the Gnostick dogmatizing or teaching them to be commanded by God that in his 6 t § the Doctor himself shall again according to his method taken up in his preface be brought in to testifie for him To which purpose these words are cited from him that the danger consists in imposing on men humane ordinances or doctrines and then saith he stay there a while viz. that he may from those words taken alone conclude that then they did not impose them as commands of God But I know not what obligation lyes either on the Reader or me to make a pause upon his command in the very middle of a period when the words which