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 will-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 will-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 will-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 will-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-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
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-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-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-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-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-Will-worship is rendred by piety not by appearance of piety unless piety it self can be taken there in an ill sense will-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-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-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
that superstition there signifies heathen-Heathen-worship or somewhat proportionable to it worshipping of others beside the one true God and by analogie with that notion of the substantive the adjective fitly denotes him that acts like one of those false worshippers or agrees with them in some eminent thing which is a branch of their false worship as he that makes observations of dreams and ominous days or occurrences is said commonly to be superstitious herein i. e. to imitate the Auguries of the Heathen and many the like The 2. concession that the worship of Angels is an excess or addition to the object of worship and by him styled that crime of superstition a man would wonder to see produced by the Diatribist against me T is certain I make the worship of Angels superstition worshipping those fellow creatures which a Christian ought not to worship But is this an excess of religion or not rather of impiety worshipping of the creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides or over and above the creator T is true this is an addition to the object of worship as death is an addition to life i. e. destruction to the oneness of that which ought alone to be worshipt and admits no rival ye cannot serve God and Mammon nor worship the one God if ye impart and lavish out that incommunicable priviledge to any other and so adultery is an addition to the object of marital love and fidelity But then what is this to the prejudice of uncommanded ceremonies the using of which super statutum the Diatribist is to demonstrate to be superstition for about that onely he knowes the controversie is betwixt us The 3. concession is just parallel to this and in part the same superstitum cultus saith he the worship of the Worthies by heathens or of Saints and Angels by Papists is called superstition Sect. 3. most properly why but that it addes to the rule of worship I must not repeate what was so lately said though the Diatribist will T is evident I affirm all these to be superstition but the using of an uncommanded rite is none of these what heathen worthy Saint or Angel is worshipped or idolized by my prostrating my self in the worship of the true God by my bowing at the name of Jesus c. As for the reason why the worship of heathen Worthies and Saints and Angels by analogy is called superstition it is strange again what care of interest can do The reason one would think was visible enough to the Diatribist in the very naming of superstitum cultus these Worthies and Saints are superstites supposed to live after death sure that is the notion of superstes and so the worshipping of such is superstition and as the Angels so the souls of the Worthies that thus survive the bodies and in the heathens theology are removed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the fortunate Islands in the Christians to heaven or paradise or Abrahams bosome are solemnly styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the worshipping of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that is superstition Is not this reason enough for the justifying the propriety of the use of a word that it perfectly accords with the origination of it both in Greek and Latine and then what need of his capriccio why but that it addes to the rule of worship Certainly so doth sacriledge even when it robbes God adde to the rule of worship in this sense doing something which the rule commands not no nor permits and yet that is not superstition The 4. concession produced is yet more strange A slavish fear saith he of God is granted to be superstition because fear of God being worship commanded in the first commandment slavish fear is an excess of that and he hath adventured to cite the sections wherein t is granted by me § 24. 25. of the treatise of superstition Herein the Reader will easily satisfie himself by his own eyes In a word those sections say no syllable of slavish fear or any such matter and yet the Printer hath not mistaken his figures all that they say is this that superstitio sometimes signifies in authors any part of Divine worship which in obedience to his God or for fear of vengeance from him any worshipper doth perform a thing which every sect likes in themselves but dislikes in others of a distant worship and so either honours or defames with the title as of superstition so of Religion also Then that it also signifies a trembling fear of Gods punishments due for sinne such as the Epicureans that denyed all providence were willing to scoffe out of the world And of this notion of superstition and equally of religion among the Epicureans and Cicero that took it from them I had spoken there at large from § 14. to § 20. to which I must remit the Reader and onely adde what there I omitted that all that is there observed would probably receive much light if we could retrieve one book of Plutarch which is lost and instead of which I can now onely give him the title of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of superstition to Epicurus differing it seems both by the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently in the subject of it from that which is now extant of Plutarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath no considerable aspect on Epicurus or his followers and Philosophy either to defend or accuse it Of this see the learned Gassend in his life of Epicurus But to return what pretense can there be thus to change my words in an unprofitable citation when if it had been slavish fear in his notion of it of which I spake yet that had been farre enough from the using of uncommanded ceremonies or instituting of Festivals and instead of that divine worship which any performs in obedience to his God or for feare of punishment from him and which Epicurus desired to scoffe out of the world to substitute slavish fear of God or an excess of that fear of God which is prescribed as worship in the first commandment Can it enter into any Christians heart to think or say that Epicurus was in the right in that part of his Theology and consequently that it was an excess of fear which Epicurus desired to exterminate This is to say that all religion belief of hell infinite punishments apportioned to sinners in another world are excess of fear and under the title of slavish criminous and to be cast out This certainly was Epicurus's meaning and the verses in Lucretius demonstrate it where he thus argues Nam si nullum finem esse putarent Aerumnarum homines nullâ ratione valerent Religionibus atque minis obsistere vatum If men should believe endless punishments they could never resist the religions and threatnings of the Priests And who would have expected the Diatribist a favourer of this sect as he must be if this fear of God which Epicurus called Religion or Superstition
that were contradiction in adjecto but there is a wide difference betwixt forbidden and voluntary as wide as between unlawfull and lawfull all being lawfull which is not forbidden else there were not universal truth in the Apostles maxime that sin is a transgression of the Law I shall convince what I say by this plain instance Theophylact saith of many men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they exceed or transcend many of the commandments I demand Do they offend and sin and are nocent in so doing or did that holy man think they did T is evident he did not for he after his manner borrows from and transcribes Chrysostome and in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many he reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spiritual They saith he do many things with desire and appetite and manifest it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that they do even exceed the commands It appears therefore that to these two holy and learned men it seemed not what to Mr. C. it seems that there is contradiction in adjecto in affirming voluntary and uncommanded worship to be innocent A multitude of the like testimonies are put together in the Annotat. on Col. 2. which may be sufficient to justifie me from singularity that I discern not the phansied seeming contradiction But this affirmation again of the Diatribist will not want its proofs four that pretend to that title are here annexed For 1. saith he It 's expressely against the 2d. commandment which forbids all worship not expresly commanded by God I must not complain of my eyes or other faculties because they are the best that God hath given me but I may wish for such supplies as Mr. C. hath met with for else I am sure I shall never see the least glimpse of that which he mentions so expressely out of the 2d. Commandment What is expressely against the 2d. Commandment should me thinks oppose some expresse words in it and then it must follow that there are such expresse words there which forbid all worship not commanded by God and this not onely as by worship are meant the sorts and species of worship but the very accessaries and ceremonies of worship and all the expressions and emanations of the inward fulness of the religious heart But my Optick Glasse will not afford me any such prospect in the 2d. Commandement All sorts of graven images and such like I have there a fair view of and an express severe interdict of worshiping them but for all kinds and all circumstances of worship which are not commanded kneeling prostrating the body to the invisible true God the times and degrees of ardency of worship the abstinencies self-denyals atendant on it sure there is nothing said expressely there either to command or forbid them and for any general comprehensive phrase that can rationally contein a prohibition of all which is not commanded I can say no more but that the first verse of Genesis or any other in the Bible hath as much of this to my eye as the 2d. Commandment The business we are all this while upon is the discovering of causes of mistakes and therefore I must be excused again upon the score of the example before me if I once more attempt to shoot my shaft and by this first argument pass my conjecture of the cause of the prefacers mistake in this matter It is the solemn practise of some Casuists to reduce all sins in the world to some or other of the Commandments of the Decalogue wherin I am not sure that they have aim'd aright for separate gluttony and drunkenness as sure they may be separated and yet continue to be sins from some accidental consequences of them as wasting of health which may assign either of them to the 6t. Commandment and the like and you will hardly tell whither to reduce the intemperate use of the creature And so for that sort of lying or false speaking which is no way hurtful or designed to be hurtful to the neighbour and many the like instances might be given But on this I insist not with any concernment but leave it to prudent consideration what necessity there is that all laws natural and positive divine should be reduced to one or more of these 10. Commandments This is not that which I meant to say but farther to offer it to consideration whether it be not visible that those Casuists which have erred in judging the unlawfullness of some things have not easily been induced to reduce them to some or other of the Commandments as offences against the affirmative or negative part and if not against the words or sense yet against the Analogie of it According to this practice it is most necessarily consequent that he that hath been possest of the unlawfullness of ceremonies and worship uncommanded and hath not so far considered as to rectifie his judgement in that matter by weighing this one thing that whatsoever is not forbidden is lawful not whatsoever is not commanded is unlawful must whensoever he shall write cases of conscience or comment on the Decalogue reduce this to some interdict under one of the ten heads and all the other nine renouncing it force it in by some appearance of analogie to the 2d. Commandment And then it falls out that so many men disaffected to the Government and Ceremonies of the Church of England have written on the Commandments that it can be no more matter of wonder that uncommanded worship should be crowded in to the 2d. Commandment and there long agoe imbibed by the Diatribist and never questioned since then that Mr. Brightman should find the Church of England of this age among the seven Cities of Asia in St Johns time or that Mr. Parker should make the using the cross in Baptisme a breach of every one of the ten Commandments and branch a book in folio into the Atheisme as I remember I am sure the Idolatrie the c. till at last the concupiscence of the Cross And then I shall but ask this Diatribist whether he can heartily believe that the use of that ceremonie was really guilty of all those several transgressions of the Law of God and if he shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beseech him to examine over again his own affirmation here 1. Whether any one man hath said so fully what here he hath that voluntary and uncommanded worship is expressely against the 2d. Commandment they that onely reduce it thither fall short of him 2. Whether they that have thought fit to refer it thither by reduction have produced any cogent or satisfactory reason for so doing and the next time he affirmes this from them annex the reason such as may justifie a most rigid conclusion to the consciences of all others who may be concerned in it either in order to their own practice or the judging of others And I shall not farther exagitate this his first proof The 2d proof is the same we have had twice already for the asserting
be prohibited in that And if it were true what the Diatribist addes that Divination is the worst kind of Idolatrie sure that must be forbidden under the 2d Commandment also But in this I suppose Aquinas was in the right that made it a species of Superstition not of Idolatrie and so it must more fitly belong to the first Commandment and so must Illegitimate worship being an offence against the due manner of Gods worship But these are niceties that we are but little concerned in Thirdly this quarrel to his own Dr. Amesius for restraining Superstition to one Commandment which he will have ly common to all the four is certainly causeless For the worship of many Gods together with Divination c. and the undue worship of the true God do certainly belong to one Commandment viz. the first which by commanding to have no other Gods but that one true God excludes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or demon worship and by commanding the worship of that one forbids all undue manners of worship That he understood by the word Superstition no more but the tendering undue worship to God was indeed an error in Amesius sufficiently prevented and disproved by Aquinas and by the nature of the Greek and Latine words and so likewise that he confined it to the 2d Commandment when in all reason it belonged to the first But that being acknowledged his error this other of not extending it to many Commandments is no way imputable to him Fourthly when of that species of Superstition which he defines by the vice of undue worship tendered to God he affirmes that it is more properly Wil-worship this is but an unproved and improbable affirmation quite contrary to Aquinas and his own Authors as far as I can discern Amesius himself and a confounding of things very distant Fiftly when of Aquinas's illegitimate worship he gives his own gloss that he means that which is not commanded by God but instituted and appointed by men this is great injurie to that School-man What he means by that phrase will be best learnt from Aquinas himself who sets it down distinctly by distributing it into two parts For thus that 93d question De illegitimo Dei cultu Of the illegitimate worship of God begins Et superfluitate pravitate vitiatur divinus cultus c. The worship of God is vitiated both by superfluity and by pravity by superfluity if to the worshipping of God ought be assumed which neither by Divine nor Ecclesiastical appointment belongs to the glory of God nor to the subjecting either of the body or soul to the Creator by pravity if the external ceremonie contain any thing of falsity in it which may fall out saith he two ways either by the disagreement between the ceremonie and the thing denoted by it or by the publike ministers using any ceremonie contrary to the custome of the Church Thus far are the words of Aquinas and what could have been more destructive to the Diatribists pretensions then this description and branching of illegitimate worship if either here or before when Aquinas was cited this sense of his thus exprest had been considered That he may never cite Aquinas again in this matter I shall desire him to remember from that School-man these 4. things his undoubted affirmations by way of Axioma 1. That illegitimate is vitiated worship and so more then uncommanded certainly that which is prohibited and this according to the propriety of the word illegitimum which signifies not without but against Law Legitimum saith Chalcidius est id quod legem sequitur legitime is that which follows the Law or as Plutarch defines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the command of Law or that which is determined or commanded by Law adding that those good things which yet are not under precept are not to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legitime And so in Leo serm 1. de jejun 7. mens legitima are opposed to voluntaria as commanded to spontaneous Now what is Law saith Chalcidius nisi jussum sciscens honesta prohibens contraria but a command requiring honest things and prohibiting the contrarie And consequently illegitimum being the direct contrarie to legitimum will signifie in the contrarie sense to that which is commanded that which is prohibited by Law 2dly That the superfluity of it consists not in being superadded to God's commands onely but to the Churches appointment and so that which is ordained by the Church though not by God comes not under that style of superfluous or illegitimate upon that score 3dly That what tends to the glory of God or to the subjecting of the body as well as the soul to the Creator of both is neither superfluous nor illegitimate so it be ordained by the Church Lastly that the Ministers publike using any ceremonie contrary to the custome of the Church such is his sitting at the Sacrament and the like is a pravity and that is worse then a superfluity in the worship of God I suppose this may now be sufficient to arme the Reader against the fallacies to which the frequent citations out of Aquinas might subject him Sixtly That it is not to me imaginable how or why the barbarous ceremonies of Baals Priests c. should be an excess against the 3d Commandment or a taking Gods name in vaine which we know is by Christ rendred for swearing ones self and when they that cryed nothing but O Baal hear us from morning till night never used the name of God at all for sure Baal and God are not Synonyma's and so cannot be affirmed in vain to use it or take it Seventhly That dedicating holy days to Saints though Christ whose Festival we treat of be more then such is neither fitly paralleld by the Diatribist with Jeroboam's feast day at Bethel as we competently evinced in the last Sect. nor appropriated by him to Papists when we know such days were dedicated to the memory of Martyrs long before the name or errors of Papists were come into the world A competent evidence we have formerly given from the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna written on occasion of the Martyrdome of Polycarpe St. Johns Auditor where having described the passages of his suffering they conclude with their wish and hope that God will now permit them to meet together with exultation and joy to celebrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tho birth-day or natalitia so was styled of his Martyrdome adding the two great ends of such observations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the commemorating of such Champions constancie and the exercise and fitting of others for the future The circumstances of that Epistle make it clear that such celebrations and dedications of days were then of use before Polycarp's death and that they now expected that this of his should be added to that number and that so it was I shall now adde a 2d undoubted proof or testimonie of Primitive Antiquity
properly said to consider the worship of the true God unless it be the external part that of bowing down c. in the affirmative branch of it which had been the subject of the first Commandment and to that in all reason all false worship of the true God must be reduced and not to the second Sect. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. The Athenians the most devout of all the Greeks WHat he saith by way of dilemma § 19. concerning the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more Superstitious of the Athenians Act. 17. 22. If saith he they were so called because they worshipt more Gods then they were Polytheists If because they were devout or pious rather impious in worshipping the true God ignorantly in a false manner then their sin was against the 2d Commandment though true in some sense is yet nothing gainfull to his design which can thrive by no other means but by getting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Superstition to denote all uncommanded rites in the worship of the true God This it no way signifies in that place of the Acts but onely their worshipping a multitude of Gods moe then any other nation did and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or unknown God for one and so their being more pious in their course then other their heathen country men were or indeed then the Romans or any else That this is the truth and the whole truth hath sufficiently been evidenced in the Tr of Superstition § 11. and I now adde three testimonies more to that heap one out of Josephus l. 2. Contra Ap 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All men affirme the Athenians to be the most pious of the Greeks A 2d out of Sophocles Oedip 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any know how to worship the Gods with honors sacrifices and offerings to their Temples Athens excels them all The third even now intimated out of Phavorinus but here more fully to be expressed who having explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superstitious by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pious subjoyns this testimonie of the Acts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Paul saith I see that you are more Superstitious the very place which we have now before us brought by that learned Grammarian as an instance that the word is there taken in a good not ill sense yet not of any uncommanded worship of the true God but a pious though Ethnick devotion toward the multitude of their false superadded to the one true God which though in a Christian scale or judgement it cannot be approved because it is Polytheisme yet in comparison with other heathens which was S. Pauls business in that place it was truly by him lookt on as a greater measure of devotion then the rest of the heathen world were guilty of and that is all that was meant by that phrase and so t is not at all usefull to the end to which the Diatribist would have inclined it Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 25. Festus's scorn fals on the Jews not on Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own not theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an accusation Jesus put under the notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Festus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for a daemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Diatribists objections answered Superstition for Religion simply HIS 20th § is an arraignment of § 12. of Superst concerning the place Act. 25. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which I had rendred questions or accusations concerning his own Religion or Superstition or Worship and to explain what was meant by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one Jesus that was dead whom Paul said to be alive putting him under the notion of a dead Heros and so meaning the worship of him by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Against this the Diatribist excepts in 3. particulars 1. It is like saith he Festus spake in scorn not of Pauls onely but of the whole Jewish Religion as saith he the words may import and are translated by ours 2. That what I said of putting Jesus under the notion of a dead Heros or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a strein of Criticisme compounding things which are in the Text distinct for Festus sayes saith he they had many questions both concerning their own Superstition and also concerning one Jesus c. adding to confirme this that he was accused of questions of their Law c. 23. 29. and of sedition seducement profanation of the Temple 24. 5 6. 3dly That Paul affirmed Jesus to be alive not in part as the Daemons were supposed but in the whole man as raised from the dead To these I briefely answer and first to the first For the scorn it no way appears to be meant by Festus against S. Paul or his Religion for Festus is at this time speaking in favour of Paul and slighteth the Jews accusations of him as matters of no considerable moment and so if there be any thing of sarcasme in the speech it fals on the Jews not on him and so cannot set any ill character on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in case that be S. Paul's and not theirs As for the Diatribist's phansie that the scorn should fall not on Pauls onely but on the whole Jewish Religion that cannot hold for when he speaks of the Jewes charge against Paul he cannot speak of that wherein Paul and they agreed but wherein they differed and that must either be their way which Paul opposed or Paul's way which they now accused him of Now which of these two it was is not determinable by the words in Greek for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may either be rendred his own or their own Yet that it must be interpreted his I offer this reason to perswade whereas the Diatribist pretends to none for the contrary but onely that so the words may import and that our English hath so translated The Jews accusation or charge against S. Paul is plainly mentioned in this place That is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they had questions or laid charges against him the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies a charge complaint inditement so c. 18. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if the accusation or charge be of a word Thus Satan who is so called as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an adversary in foro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an accuser is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to seek 1 Pet. 5. 8. and Luk. 22. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to require i. e. to accuse and charge men that so they may be delivered up to him as an executioner to winnow in one place and to devour in the other So to question a man among us vulgarly signifies to accuse him and that so it signifies here appears by v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the accusers brought no accusation of the things which I supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but some questions that must
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-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 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-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-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-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
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-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-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
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-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-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
2d Commandment and this text Col. 2. to justifie that assertion To this I hasten this brief reply 1. That this is not in any word to the point now in hand the occasion of taking Will-worship in an ill sense and t is evident that though all were true which here is said that I mistook the question and that no part of worship may lawfully be set up among Christians without the example or precept of Christ yet this of the Jewish obligation to do all according to the pattern in the mount may be occasion to give men prejudices to all that is not under particular command or according to pattern of Christs and his Apostles which was all I assumed in that Section But then 2dly 'T is most certain that I do not mistake the question nor can I mistake it who had the setting it my self unless I first set it one way and then handle it another And this certainly I do not For the very design of that Treatise was to inquire whether the observation of ceremonies used and prescribed in our Church of England were criminous onely upon this account because they were not commanded by God And in this I was then sure that I had adversaries enow who concluded it so upon this one way of probation because all Will-worship was criminous and the use and imposition of all uncommanded ceremonies were Will-worship And if this Diatribist be not in the number of those adversaries then hath he done himself and me and the reader very great injury in disputing against that conclusion which he doth not oppose then hath he most prodigally mispent and lavisht out all his pains in consuting or exercising himself upon this tract of which this was the onely design not to plead for any new kind or parts of worship but to justifie the use of uncommanded ceremonies and circumstances and such are days of worship and to shew that being unforbidden as well as uncommanded they were therefore lawfull and free to be used by Christian people or prescribed by Christian Magistrates And if he hath nothing to resist in this then why should he delight in this impertinent severity arreign and triumph over a poor innocent Tract that never thought to provoke any which allowed the use and observance of uncommanded rites and days of worship never attempted in the least to bring any new part or kind of worship into the Church Upon this and other visible reasons it will sure be needless here to examine again his two grounds which we have formerly been so oft acquainted with the 2d Commandment and Col. 2. 23. It was no small infirmity of discourse in this place to mention them The 2d part of his reply is that in worship that is condemned which is not commanded But 1. What is that again to the point in hand that particular occasion of taking Will-worship in an ill sense 2. I shall demand is that proposition universally true so as to extend to every ceremonie in worship If it be then it seems I mistook not the question as very lately I was told nor my adversary neither this Diatribist being directly contrary to me herein if he thus affirme that in the worship of God every ceremonie is forbidden which is not commanded To the place in Photius's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Philostorgius which I proposed and explained he acknowledges he hath little to say yet somewhat he is willing to note for his own advantage viz. that I seem to make it a fault to sit at the reading of the Gospel which the Ecclesiastical Canons did not command and yet make it no fault to adde a Will-worship of a mans own which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the divine law doth forbid To this I answer that the Diatribist ought in all reason to have markt what there I set visible before his eyes and then he could not possibly have mentioned this For 't is evident in that place 1. That I had taken notice of the reading of the Manuscript in the Oxford Publike Library which hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Gotofred's Printed Copie and 2. That as this latter reading imported it a fault to do that which the Canons commanded not for which very cause I examined and then saw reason to reject that reading so the former and right reading to which onely I adhered implied no more then this that it was a fault to act contrary to Canon to do many things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Ecclesiastical Canon did not admit or permit or which was not in use with the Church of God but the contrary viz. that of standing up at the Gospell If there need proof of this the plain words of Chrysostome or whosoever was the Author of the Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so it must be read as appears p. 974. l. 20. where we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is now Printed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When the Deacon is about to open the Gospell that Chariot drawn with four horses we all look very earnestly upon him and are still and when he begins to read and so to run his race in that Chariot presently we stand up and use this acclamation Glory be to thee O Lord. Certainly the Diatribist never expected that his Exercitations should be examined by any or but compared with the plain words of the Treatise to which they related when he thought fit to observe this He is pleased also to retain that rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divine Law which he must needs discern to have been there cleared by me to signifie not the Law or word of God but the Canons or unwritten customes of the Church as there appeared by Nicephorus reciting that place of Philostorgius and reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by many other evidences from Epiphanius and Athanasius and Pseudo-Clement and Nicephori Constantinop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superadded to the former store in the Annotation on Col. 2. published since that Treatise To all which I now adde Leo who having mentioned Divinarum Reverentia Sanctionum the reverence of divine sanctions soon explains his meaning first by quod publicâ lege celebratur then by quod universa Ecclesia suscipit that which was observed by publick Law that which the universall Church received Another parallel mistake also I there mentioned in our Anglican Councels Can. 60. Sub Edgaro where pilpoppunza is translated ficta ad libitum adorationes but should be rendred fontis adoratio not Will-worship but Well-worship for which I referre the Reader to the former place in the Annotations Sect. 16. The third occasion of the mistake cleared Worship of Angels forbidden not only not commanded The reviving Judaical worship not called Will-worship Col. 2. 23. Maimonides's words wrested to a distant sense by the Diatribist
nor shews any difference or reason why such sincerity may not in any pious Christian be capable of degrees as well as in Christ himself and the lowest of them be sinless and all the Superior voluntary oblations more then the strict Law required of us Suppose a man should in one ejaculation pray to God sincerely and ardently to avert an evill from him I shall ask whether he commit any sin in respect of ardency If it be answered yes he doth in case it be possible for him or any man else or Adam in Paradise to pray more ardently I shall then hope I shall have refuted his answer by the example of Christ who when he prayed ardently did not sin though he fell short of that higher degree which after that we find he used As for that which alone he addes in this matter that the example of Christ holds forth that great pressures call for inlargements of affections not as voluntary oblations but as duties I shall onely ask whether they did so call for that very degree of inlargement which Christ at last used If it did not then it seems this addition was little to the purpose If he shall say it did then how could he even now say that Christ did supererogate in this particular and that it was not appliable to men Sect. 10. My answer to the last objection of Supererogation A place in St Cyprian vindicated from the Romanists reading Imputare An act of mercy in God that our works are rewarded Supererogation wherein it consists The Diatribist's etymology of the word disproved Erogare Erogatio The Diatribists ways of Supererogating Pride Glorying More reward for eminent uncommanded excellencies superadded to duty The Diatribists charity and confession of us His censure of the Bishops unjust Now follows my answer to the last objection freeing this doctrin of voluntary oblations or of doing somewhat which is free and uncommanded from all lyableness to the suspicion of being favourable to the doctrine of Supererogation among the Romanists which is founded in their opinion that a man may by these performances make satisfaction for his own and other mens sins which I that no way believe or acknowledge cannot be charged as guilty of that opinion And to what is there said I must suppose with some evidence § 51 52 53. I shall here adde and apply one considerable saying of St Cyprian's in the Epistle ad Lapsos telling them that Qui in Ecclesiâ semper gloriosi granditer operati sunt opus suum Domino nunquam imputaverunt Those which have through all times wrought gloriously and heroically in the Church yet never thought their Master beholden to them That is the meaning of imputare to reckon their layings out charge him with whom they reckon to be in their debt For want of understanding of which or from some worse principle the latter edition of St Cyprian by Pamelius leaves out the word nunquam never which the old Basil edition doth retain and the sense evidently requires in that place By this which is my full sense in this matter and by what is already said in that treatise that objection is wholly superseded for I do not pretend that God becomes a debtor to any man for any of his most bountifull spontaneous oblations but that 't is an act of infinite mercy in God as the Psalmist saith that any the most excellent work of ours is rewardable with him And that partly because we being sinners the utmost we can ever do can never make satisfaction for our sinnes and partly because whatsoever degree of perfection either by doing or suffering we can aspire to 1. It is still a work of God's good grace and strength in us for what hast thou which thou hast not received and then what place for glorying and 2. It is in no degree meet or worthy to be compared bears no proportion to the glory which shall be revealed and partly again because God wants neither our obedience nor our richest performances we onely are like to receive the benefit of them and so we onely are debtors to our selves and can claime nothing from him save onely on the account of meer mercy Now in his reply the first thing that he objects is that this distinction betwixt doing more then is commanded and doing something which is not commanded is new and sometimes coincident for he saith he that doth somewhat not commanded doth also somewhat more then is commanded And because he cannot but know my notion there of doing something more viz. doing all and and more then all he therefore presseth it farther that in this sense the Romanists in their supererogation doe not suppose that he which supererogates hath done all that is commanded him To this I answer by yielding that the Romanist is not so grosse as to affirm him that supererogates not to have sinned And therefore I never defined that to be the Romanists doctrine or that our doctrine was by that one distinction differenced from theirs but having by way of foundation laid that distinction as will appear to any that shall view the place § 51. I make the notion of supererogation to be founded in one of these two either in having paid all that is due i. e. having never sinned or 2. having been a debter i. e. a sinner in paying that debt by satisfaction And the latter of these two it was and not the former wherein I placed the Romanists opinion and wherein I conceived the doctrine of free-will oblations under the Gospel to differ from their doctrine of supererogating as appears § 52. And this he sees and sets down in his next words It was but the multiplying of my lines and his own that he could not earlier take notice of it To this 2d then at length after some prooeme he will proceed that still I cannot free my doctrine from some kinde of supererogation for saith he such works have not their denomination from satisfaction made by them but they are therefore called satisfactions because they are something more then the law required supererogare is as much as super quod erogavit lex By this at length appears what bottome all this Diatribists structure is built on the extraordinary etymology which his fancy or somewhat else hath suggested to him of the word supererogation which if it should hold I after all this debate thus farre prolonged am obliged to yield the cause to the Diatribist thus farre at least that I were a friend to one word made use of by the Romanists But I am so well assured of this Diatribists failings in this kind by the experience of his super statutum from whence he would have superstition deduced and lost his chief hold when that origination of the word was wrested from him that I may be allowed again to question his skill in that faculty That erogare signifies to lay out and not to require is evident enough erogare pecuniam in classem to lay out
more immediately lead into vitious practice I shall never willingly contend with any man or make reply to the contentious But in Doctrines which have immediate influence upon practice t is obligation of charity to indevour the disabusing of all and not to permit or suffer any such fruitfull and noxious error upon my neighbour 8. Under which head because I cannot but place the rejecting of Children from Baptisme and find some objections offered by Mr. Tombes to what I have written on that subject I have therefore drawn a short defence of that Apostolical practice and vindicated my former discourse from his answers and exceptions which being offered to the Reader as soon as the Printer will permit I shall not doubt of his leave to shut up the Palaestra at this time having sufficiently cloyed him with these Spectacles 9. And it is my wish for him that he may continue to have the ease at least of a Spectator that it may be his lot though for some moneths it hath not been mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to live peaceably and quietly with all men a felicity of which we are all to be ambitious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a grace that we are all not in prayer onely but by real indevours to contend for and to hold it fast untill it be violently wrested from us 10. As it is I have with patience fortified my self for the present undertaking and to make it also as supportable as may be to others abstained from transcribing the entire severall Sections of his Diatribae and onely repeated as much as exacts answer from me not omitting as far as my wit would serve me any the least particular which can be thought to have energy against any of those things that are asserted by me in those Tracts save only when the same things once answered have again whether in words or sense been repeated by him THE Contents of the severall CHAPTERS and Sections contained herein CHAPTER I. OF Mr. C. his Title Pages page 1 Sect. 1. Philosophy Col. 2. 8. Fables and endless Genealogies 1 Tim. 1. 4. Tit. 3. 9. The propriety of that Text Col. 2. to Mr. C. his discourse 1 Sect. 2. Mat. 15. 8 9. Gal. 4. 9 10. Deum sic colere quomodo scipsum colendum praecepit Christmass no irrational custome 3 CHAP. II. Of Mr. C. his Preface p. 4 Sect. 1. His discourse of the causes of my mistakes Comparing of Superstition and Wil-worship to Heresie Accounting Superstition our virtue 4 Sect. 2. Of being too Religious of the intension or degree The Messalians Neglect of Charity of particular callings Eccl. 7. 16. Of multitude of Ceremonies Too many Ceremonies no argument of too much but of too little Religion 6 Sect. 3. Mr. C. his distinctions of being too religious multiplied unnecessarily Frequency of duty if secured from other neglects no excess nor criminous Prayer a branch of Natural worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excess in trust c. as well as in Prayer The Species of worship and the circumstances thereof The wide difference between these Times of Prayer not limited by Scripture Set days of worship Gestures Prostration Mr. C. his 3. proofs examined Deut. 4. 2. considering Apoc. 22. 19. A view of Aquinas's doctrine in this matter 8 Sect. 4. Excess of Religion Super statutum Addition to the Rule Doctrines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. Act. 25. 29. Six concessions Superstitiosus Worshipping of Angels Superstitum cultus Slavish fear Religion in Epicurus Fear of punishment in sons in wicked men The necessity thereof Dogmatizing Placing more virtue in things then belongs to them 20 Sect. 5. The innocence of Wil-worship Analogie with voluntary oblationsunder the law Seeming Contradiction The authority of Chrysostome and Theophylact. The 2d. Commandment Reducing all sins to the Decalogue Addition to the rule Worship of Angels Other sins beside that of Dogmatizing 32 Sect. 6. The Lawfulness of instituting the Christmass Festival Of Church Laws 38 CHAP. III. Of Superstition peculiarly And first of his Prolegomenon on that Subject p. 41 Sect. 1. Answer to § 1. The method used to find the meaning of the word 41 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 42 Sect. 3. The species of Superstition Idolatrie belongs to the 2d. Commandment Superstition to the first It differs from Wil-worship The meaning of Illegitimate worship in Aquinas His opinion of Ecclesiastical rites Barbarous ceremonies of Baals worship belong not to the 2d. Commandment Holy days before Popery Two antient Testimonies for them The Jews scrupulosity in not resisting on the Sabbath day 49 Sect. 4. The Diatribist's method and caution in setting down the species of Superstition 53 CHAP. IV. Of the particular exceptions of the Diatribist to the Tract of Superstition p. 55 Sect. 1. Confidence of innocence no argument of guilt 55 Sect. 2. The nature of the word Excess of fear among the Epicureans Superstitio from Super and sto not statuo Aquinas misreported 56 Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the heathens for Religion so in Hesychius and Phavorinus 58 Sect. 4. False worship is not Wil-worship Imposition of hands 59 Sect. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. The Athenians the most devout of all the Greeks 60 Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 25. Festus's scorn fals on the Jews not on Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own not theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accusation Jesus put under the notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Festus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for a daemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Diatribists objections answered Superstition for Religion simply 62 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 66 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 70 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 77 Sect. 10. Strictures on some particulars in the remaining Sections
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
religio crederetur I should fear such abundance of officiousness would be rather believed superstition then religion and S. Augustine and out of him Aquinas tangis primam chordam qua colitur unus Deus cecidit bestia superstitionis the beast of superstition is destroyed by the first string of the Decachord the first commandment of the Decalogue prescribing the worship of one God or 2. cum Deo illegitimus cultus tribuitur giving undue worship to God and neither of these notions of superstition will be at all usefull to the Diatribist to prove his conclusion If from the former of these he should conclude that a man may be too religious t is plain that this must be his meaning that a man may be a Polytheist a worshipper of false Gods but I hope in this sense he that observes the ceremonies of the Church of England he that commemorates the birth of Christ on the 25 of Deber will not be said to be too religious As for the 2. that of cultus illegitimus or indebitus undue worship of the true God which alone can possibly be deemed for the Diatribist's purpose my answer shall be more particular by viewing weighing the words in Aquinas which are here referred to though the place be not set down by the Diatribist I suppose it must be 2 d1 2 d2 either quest 81. Art 1. or else qu. 92. Art 1. in conclus which indeed hath these words Religio est virtus moralis omnis autem virtus moralis in medio consist it Religion is a moral virtue and every moral virtue consists in the middle citing it with a sicut suprà dictum est from the former place qu. 81. Art 5. Now the summe of that Article is this that Religion is neither a Theological nor an Intellectual but a moral virtue as being a branch of justice in giving to God that which belongs to him and that the due medium wherein this as all moral virtue consists is to be taken not as the middle point between two passions the medium rei as ordinarily moral virtue is the moderating of passions reducing them to a mediocrity or temper or equilibration betwixt the excess and defect but according to some equality in respect of God medium rationis interpreting what he means by that viz. equality not absolutely because we cannot give God so much as belongs to him but secundum quandam considerationem humanae facultatis divinae acceptationis by considering what man is able to do and what God will accept As for superfluity in such things as these which belong to the worship of God there can be none saith he secundum circumstantiam quanti as to the circumstance of quantity I cannot do too much in the worship of God I cannot offend that way but as elsewhere he saith of this and the like tanto est melius quanto magis acceditur ad summum it is so much the better by how much it comes neerer the highest All the superfluity possible is as to the other circumstances and he names but three 1. cui non debet by exhibiting divine worship to him to whom it ought not to be exhibited 2. quando non debet by giving it at a time when it ought not when having formerly been acceptable to God t is now outdated 3. in respect of other circumstances prout non debet in a manner wherein it ought not By this it appears already how incompetent this testimony from Aquinas is to prove the conclusion proposed by the Diatribist that every thing in the worship of God which is not commanded by God is too much For sure every thing that is not commanded is not presently forbidden nor consequently offends against the prout debet as it ought the due manner time or other circumstances of it If there be any difficulty in that phrase prout debet as it ought and it be conceived to signifie so as is particularly commanded by God and è contra that what ever is done being not particularly commanded by God is prout non debet as it ought not this is certainly a mistake and very distant from Aquinas's sense who means by cultus debitus due worship any acts of worship qui ad Dei reverentiam fiunt which are done to the honour of God with considering whether they be under precept or not and consequently with him cultus indebitus undue worship is such as is done to the dishonor at least not to the honor of God as when of Idolatry he saith that it exhibits divine reverence indebitè unduly to the creature In full accord with this it is that in that other text qu. 92. art 1. Superstition is by him defined to be a vice opposed to religion in the excesse whereby a man gives worship to him to whom he ought not or not in a manner that he ought meaning as he explains himself not that of quantity but in respect of other circumstances when either it is fastned on a wrong object divine worship to that which is not God which sure is against not onely without the command of God or done in a wrong manner i. e. when any thing is done in the divine worship quod fieri non debet which ought not to be done and he instances si quis temporibus gratiae vellet colere Deum secundum veteris legis ritum If any man under Christianity would worship God after the rites of the old law which sure are not onely not commanded but forbidden under Christ and so are a proper instance of the quando non debet the undue circumstance of time mentioned particularly in the former place and convinces that which I assigned to be the meaning of it I need adde no more in this place concerning the testimony of Aquinas Other mentions of his opinion in this matter will hereafter occur and then I shall have occasion to speake more to them His 3. proof is from the Doctors own concession who saith he grants there may be a nimiety or excess of religion and addes words in such a style as are absolutely nonsense even when the not which I suppose the insertion of the Printer is blotted out thus there may be a nimiety in adding and so is an exceeder in the fear and service of God But to pass by that I answer 1. that the Dr. no where useth that phrase a nimiety or excess of religion the words of religion are inserted by the citer and honestly put in different letters to note them to be his own The matter is plain I there speak of an excess of fear but not of religion see the beginning of § 46. of the Tr. of superstit and though I after say that he that thinks himself bound or obliges others as from God when God neither commands nor forbids and so addes to the commands of God and fears where there is no reason to fear is an exceeder in the fear
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that composition And if hereby I have gratified the Diatribist and yeelded the Dogmatizer a Superstitious person I wonder why this might not have been taken notice of in my behalf and so saved him the pains of affixing this position on me that excess in religion is not well called Superstition which 't is visible and by himself now confest that in this sense I affirme it to be see that 46. § of Superstition Mean-while the Drs. hypothesis is still secure for this no way belongs to the bare using in the private man or the Magistrates prescribing Ceremonies in the worship of God neither of them doing it upon pretense of Divine precept The very same reply belongs exactly to my last concession vouched by him that to place more virtue in things then God or nature hath put in them is granted to be an excess because it addes to the promises of Christ and called Superstition by me § 45. For this is another particular which I allow to be an excess and when it is not meer folly fit to be comprehended under the style of Superstition for this farther reason besides those which I there mentioned because such beliefs as these are mostly borrowed from the heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and are remainders of their practices as St. Augustine Ep 73. speaks of the ligatures Execranda superstitio ligaturarum in quibus inaures c. non ad placendum hominibus sed ad serviendum daemonibus adhibentur the accursed superstition of ligatures among which are the ear-rings c. used not for the pleasing of men but to serve devills This testimonie the Reader may subjoyn if he please to the Supellex already prepared for him in this kind § 26. of superst and discern how far I have been from denying what I am accused here to deny and yet as far from yeelding him any foundation of concluding that the Ceremonies or Festivals of our Church are in the least degree guilty of Superstition And so much for his second discovery of causes of my phansied not real mistakes Sect. 5. The innocence of Wil-worship Analogie with voluntarie oblations under the law Seeming Contradiction The authority of Chrysostome and Theophylact. The 2d. Commandment Reducing all sinnes to the Decalogue Addition to the rule Worship of Angels Other sinnes beside that of Dogmatizing THe 3d. part of his discovery of causes belongs peculiarly to that of Will-worship thus The third saith he is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Will-worship is nothing but voluntarie worship as innocent as the freewill offerings c. which proposition of mine I must suppose made up of these two parts 1 that Wil-worship is nothing else but voluntarie worship 2 that being so t is innocent and as innocent as freewill offerings And in which part of these one or both the mistake lyes I am not told but both together indistinctly are proposed as my 3d. fundamental miscarriage And then as to the first I cannot begin without some remarke that it should be possible to be lookt upon by this Diatribist as a paradox or mistake or miscarriage in any man and such as is meet to be noted as the most fruitfull mother of many more that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Will-worship should be affirmed to be nothing else but voluntarie worship Where I have no farther appeal to make then either to the ears of all men of common understanding or to the Glossaries and Interpreters of words For is there any the nicest difference imaginable betwixt Wil-worship and voluntary worship save that in the latter voluntary is of a latter origination from voluntas voluntarius but will though perhaps from the Latin originally is yet more antiently infranchised among us of England I shall make short work of this if it be taken for any part of the mistake by desiring one favour from Mr. C. viz. that he will translate either the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the English Wil-worship into Latine for me will it not surely be voluntarius cultus and is not that being turn'd again into English voluntary Worship What can be more evident then this But it may be hoped that this was not my mistake but what follows viz. that this voluntary worship is as innocent as the freewill offering But it is not possible that should be the mistake neither for freewill offerings under the Law were certainly one species of voluntary worship and so known by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary and therefore those being innocent t is certain that all the other fellow species of voluntary worship bearing proportion with these and having no circumstance to defame them which the other had not must needs be innocent also That thus it is and this is the notion of the word in the onely place where it is used in the New Testament Col. 2. hath allready been largely vindicated in the Tract of Wil-worship which the Reader is requested to resort to and the Annotation on Col. 2. where many more evidences are added to it which make it superfluous to adde yet more in this place Onely I must secure it from the Diatribist's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or objections And the first is by way of velitation that it seems a contradiction in adjecto that voluntary worship and uncommanded should be innocent There is no end of disputing about appearances That may seem to Mr. C. which doth not to other men and Ammonius tells me this is very ordinarily observable in this very matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many propositions seem indeed to be contradictory but yet are not such But I shall ask Is it what it seems or is it not If it be not why was this mentioned by one who can distinguish betwixt true and false colour and varnish reality and appearance If it be I desire to be instructed what Logician hath so defined contradiction as wil any way accord to this expression The onely definition or description of contradiction in adjecto that ever I heard of is when that which is added is contradictory to that which was first set and contradictions we know are affirmations and negations of the same thing in the same respect either formally which the interpreters of Aristotle call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diagonial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fighting one with another in direct forme of contradiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the enunciation every man to the negation not every man or interpretatively i. e. by certain consequence or implication as if I should say Socrates is not a man here were a contradiction in adjecto because in the subject of the proposition he that had the appellation of Socrates was supposed to be a man and yet in the praedicate that is denyed of him But certainly here is no such thing either formally or by implication in this proposition Voluntary or uncommanded worship is innocent Of forbidden worship this were true for innocence to be attributed to
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
satisfied with my own innocence that I cannot be farther gratified with the contemplation of others guilts And so much for his first exercitation having I hope competently secured the observance of the rites and ceremonies of our Church from being the introducing of any new worship or criminous excess against any of the Commandments of the first table and consequently from the charge of Superstition in any justifiable notion or Etymologie or acception of the word not taking that of Super Statutum to be such CHAP. V. Of Will-worship Sect. 1. The state of the Question Will-worship distinguisht from the circumstances of it The matter of mans will of three sorts The 6. several possible notions of Will-worship The application of them to the matter in hand The vanity of the Diatribists distinction The scope of the 2d Commandment IN the Diatribe of Will-worship the first complaint is that the Dr. had not as it became him distinguished the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek or Will-worship in English before he began his defence of them and to repair this unbecoming defect on the Doctors part the Diatribist is pleased to do it for him by assigning it a double notion 1. For voluntary spontaneous or willing worship i. e. willingness or freeness in worship commanded by God and then they were to blame saith he that put an ill notion upon them or 2. For worshippe devised by the wit and appointed by the will of man as contradistinguished to the will and wisdome of God and then it was not so much the ill fortune as the just punishment of them to pass under an ill notion c. For the scope of the 2d Commandment in the affirmative part being this God must be worshipped with his own prescribed worship and in the negative to forbid all devised worship of God by the wit or will of man the very name of will of man put to worship of God as opposed to the will of God the onely rule of worship is as a brand in the forehead of it to characterize it as condemnable in all This his first § I have thus fully set down as the foundation of his discourse on this subject and very fit for my direction how to proceed in the reply to it For if I shall now punctually obey his admonition and having in his opinion formerly failed of my duty speedily indevour to repair it 1. by distinguishing the Greek and English word though by giving it the exact limits in that one place where it is used in Scripture I had hoped well that I had formerly performed all that was necessary in this kind and telling him clearly in what sense I take it defending it to be no way reprovable and 2. by shewing the unfitnesse of his distinction here premised and the fallaciousnesse of the reason or proof annexed to it me thinks this should set me on a good way toward the end of this second Stage and so do that which is most desireable to the Reader and my self confer much to our expedition in this journey For the first then I shall distinguish as formerly betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship whether the theological virtue or some act thereof together with the gradual intension and extension the degrees and also the frequency or number of those acts on one side and the external ceremonies or circumstances of it on the other side which are not parts but accidents of worship As in any other habit that of justice particularly may be exemplified It may beside the virtue of justice signifie 1. some act of that virtue or 2. the degree thereof and frequent repetition more or lesse of the acts of it but for the circumstance of time or place attending on any act of it they will never be called justice with any propriety Secondly For will the other ingredient in the composition of the word meaning thereby the will or choice of man it may be of four sorts distinguishable by the matter which is will'd or chosen 1. when the thing thus will'd by man is forbidden by God or 2. when 't is commanded and under obligation as far as the force of affirmative precepts extends of which the rule is true that obligant semper sed non ad semper they oblige us alwayes but yet do not oblige us to be always exercising some act of the virtues so commanded and so when it is done it is done in perfect concord with and agreeablenesse to the precept but yet for that time or in that degree it lay not under particular precept but might without disobedience or sin have been omitted 3. When the thing will'd is left free and indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden by God 4. When although it be not indifferent much lesse forbidden but good in an high degree yet it is not under particular precept and so may be omitted without sin when it is done it is highly rewardable by God I shall give an example of each of these branches also Of the first when a man himself commits or teacheth others to commit adultery adultery being forbidden by God and so his action or teaching an act of his will opposed to the will of God Of the second when I give to the poor yearly or weekly such a proportion out of my estate which I am able to give and so offend against no office of justice in giving and yet am not obliged to give by any precept of Gods which laies it as a duty upon me An instance of which is set down at large in the Tract of Wil-worship § 32. which together with other exemplifications of the point in hand very necessary to cleer my sense and yet in no reason here to be repeated I must desire the Reader to fetch from that place § 30. and so forward Of the third when I walk or sit still laugh or weep the law of God leaving it perfectly free for me to do or omit either of these as I shall choose Of the last all writers Jewish Heathen and Christian give us frequent examples Maimonides among the Jewes More Nevoch par 3. c. 17. mentions it as the common saying of the Iewish Doctors that Reward is by God given to him that doth any thing uncommanded Among the Heathens one for all Plutarch who instances in acts of fortitude freeing the city from Tyrants doing any great thing which saith he are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 required or commanded by Law For saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. if the Law command such things then all must be counted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedient and breakers of Lawes which deserve not reward in warre which let the Tyrants live an houre or which do not some of those other things which are accounted excellent and by consequence all such must be punished as offenders So Nazianzen of the Christian Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of our Law some things lay necessity on them
be many acts of worship many circumstances of worship yea and many heights of Christian heroical virtue which may bear proportion with worship that are not under obligation from any particular command of Gods and so remain to be acts of the will or choise of man which are perfectly lawfull acceptable yea some highly rewardable by God and so far from the guilt which Mr. C. affixes of high indignity or affront to the divine Majestie What he addes of the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they are but twice apiece used in the Book of Wisdome and alway in an ill notion which saith he is but little to the credit of the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might sure have been spared it being as certain and visible to him that the same word is used by St James c. 1. 27. in as good a sense as could be wisht with the epithets of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pure and undefiled before God added to it and v. 26. for the profession of Christianity though for want of actions bridling the tongue and the like that becomes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vain And as plain that the word is in it self equally applicable to the true as to the false indifferently to any religion to St Pauls religion among the Jews Act. 26. 5. the strictest sect of our religion to the worship of Angels Col. 2. 18. and so to the worship of Idols in the Book of Wisdome which yet can no more tend to the disadvantage of the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when that is not terminated on any prohibited object then the use of the Latine cultus sometimes for the worship of false Gods can prejudge voluntarius cultus voluntary worship when either the object is not specified or the mention of the one true God is added to it It being confest and supposed by both parties in this contest that the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship it self is not culpable save onely when the other part of the composition the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the interposition of the will or as he will style it the devise or appointment of man hath an influence upon it 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS 3d § is his entrance on the view of Col. 2. where onely the word Will-worship is to be found and in setting down his grounds of interpreting it 1. He citeth Beza and BP Davenant whose words are presently answered by adverting to the distinction formerly given between the essentials and circumstantials the parts and the ceremonies of worship 2dly He pretends to discover a mistake in me in that I observe from v. 22. that St Paul speaks not of commands but doctrines not of the prohibition of the Magistrate but of false teachers imposing them as the commands of God Whereas saith he the Apostle speaks expressely of these impositions that they were after the Commandments and doctrines of men v. 8. after the traditions of men to worship God by the observation of them Of which words of his if there be any shadow of force in them by way of exception against me the meaning must be that the Apostle there speaks of the commands or prohibitions of Magistrates in things of themselves perfectly indifferent and censures those commands under the style of Will-worship But then this hath no degree of truth in it for 1. The matter of the commands is no lawful matter but either the worship of Angels and that is criminous as the worshipping of a creature or the reducing of antiquated rites of Judaisme which ought not to be reduced being once cancelled and nailed to the cross of Christ 2. The commands were not commands of Magistrates but of men which had no authority to prescribe any thing especially so contrary to the doctrine which the Apostles had planted among them the Christian liberty from the Judaical yoke 3. The manner of imposing them was quite distant from that of the Magistrates giving laws Ecclesiastical or Civil those are by way of Canon as of things indifferent in order to decency and the like without ever pretending them to be in themselves necessary as commanded by God these are imposed as from God when they are not so and that is the known sin of dogmatizing to which I formerly applied the place And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commands signifies no more then so being joyned with and explicated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines i. e. such things as false teachers require all men to do in obedience to God or as if they were now commanded by him when some of them as abstinencies c. having once been required by God are now abolisht by Christ and the other the worship of Angels though it pretend not ever to have been commanded but onely to be acceptable to God is clearly forbidden by him So that here is a palpable mistake in the Diatribist who observes them to be commands meaning as he must if he censureth or opposeth me commands of Magistrates and not onely doctrines of false teachers when indeed commands and doctrines are all one both joyned together to signifie these dogmatizers pretending the things which they taught to be in force by Divine command by virtue of the Law given to Moses and not onely such as would be accepted by God as of the worship of Angels I suppose was pretended by those false teachers For this is to be remembred here once for all that the seducers spoken of in that Chapter were the Gnostick hereticks who made up their Theologie of Judaical and heathenish additions to the Christian truth from the Jews they had many abstinences such as were now abolisht by Christ and those they imposed as commands of God when they were not and from the heathens the doctrine of the Aeones or Angels as creators of this inferior world and so such as might with Gods good liking be worshipt by us Lastly Those commands of theirs are not censured by the Apostle as acts of Will-worship or blamed or put under any ill character for being such any more then for being acts of humility which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned with Will-worship in that place v. 22. but as intrenchments on that liberty purchased for them by the death of Christ v. 20. which had cancelled these Judaical ordinances to all that were dead with him i. e. to Christians and had turned all Daemon worship out of their hearts but had no way bound up the hands of his Apostles or their successors the Governors of the Church from instituting ceremonies or festivals among Christians When the Diatribist addes of Will-worship that it had a shew of wisdome but no more t is but a begging the question or if it pretend to be concluded from that text it is without
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
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-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-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-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
fill two spaces in his catalogue And for the onely Father now remaining St Ambrose if those Comments be his which go under his name they will bring no great prejudice to our pretensions for by paraphrasing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by simulatione religionis all that can be concluded is that those doctrines of abstinence had not any reality but onely a false guise of religion in them and so it follows there Hinc se sapientiae rationem habere putant quia traditioni humanae nomen religionis applicant religio appellatur cum sit sacrilegium Hence they think themselves to have some appearance of wisdome because they apply the name of religion to humane tradition and it is called religion when it is sacrilege And this I may casily grant and consequently that the Will-worship here and so likewise the humility were not either of them truely such and so offended in this that they were not what they pretended to be and would not have been criminous if they had been really such which still devolves all the fault on the doctrines and on the hypocrisie not on the Will-worship or Religion whose name would never have been pretended to by hypocrites if it had not been good See § 7. of this ch n. 10. Mean while I guess not how Theodoret which is acknowledged to be a Greek Father came to be ranked among the Latines and a Latine interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cited out of him However I never pretended that all either Greek or Latine or particularly that he concurred with me in this sense therefore am not obliged to give any farther account of his interpretation Onely this I am sure of that t is not the uncommandedness of the worships that he finds fault with but 1. Their teaching those for Gods commands which are their own That is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their introducing their own ordinances 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their unseasonable Judaical doctrine and 2dly Their bare shew of piety and humility without the truth of either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas by by his conclusion it is most evident that the abstinences without the doctrines would not have been deemed by him reproveable and so not the bare uncommandedness of the worship for thus we have it in the close 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For abstinences ought to be by counsell not as from detestable but as from the most delectable things Which is the very thing which all this while we have endevoured to conclude from that place After these his Latine Fathers he hastens to later interpreters and those are two Salmeron and Estius and those two are one again the one taking from the other as the manner is without any considerable difference But to give his Testimonies their full weight we will view them distinctly Salmeron begins with observing that whereas the Vulgar Latine reads in Superstitione and humilitate non ad parcendum corpori the Greek hath onely three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which three saith he sunt tres colores ostendentes rationem specimen sapientiae are three colours shewing a specimen which by the way is more then speciem or bare shew some real evidence of that wisdome to which those doctrines of abstinences pretended And the first of these saith he signifies cultum spontaneum sive voluntariam religionem a spontaneous worship or voluntary religion pro arbitrio cujusvis abstinendi a cibis of absteining from meats as every man shall think fit and afterwards illâ voce alludit ad voluntarias oblationes legis quae nedaboth dicuntur Deut. 16. Amos 5. By this word he alludes to the voluntary oblations of the Law which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then I shall desire the Diatribist to consider how fitly Salmeron was called out to give testimony against me he and one more in the name of all later interpreters when it is evident from these words that he saith the very same thing which all this while I contend for if I could have thought fit to have defended my self from singularity by his Testimony T is true indeed he conceives the words to allude to v. 18. volens in humilitate religione and so goes along with Estius and others in that mistake which I had taken notice of in them and that might have easily led him into farther mistake if the evidence of the truth or some other better guide had not rectified him But as it is I have no reason to complain of him as to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is now before us Somewhat more he addes of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifying saith he the virtue of humility is here used for a feigned humility which is contrary to the Gospel because by it the Judaizers Evangelio legem admiscebant mixt the law with the Gospel And as this is also perfectly concordant to my notions so to this it is that he brings the testimonies of Augustine and Thomas and not for the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Diatribist cites them out of Estius However to manifest my care of profiting by all his animadversions I shall view those testimonies also The one thing which Salmeron cites from both of them is this that omnis ritus colendi Deum qui à Deo non est nec à Spiritu sancto per Ecclesiam traditus sed voluntate hominum inventus superstitiosus est every rite of worshipping God that is not delivered from God nor from the holy Ghost by the Church but is invented by the will of man is superstitious Where it seems that which is delivered by the Church being by him supposed to be from the holy Ghost doth in no degree fall under this censure And then the Diatribist hath free leave to make his best advantage of this citation As for Estius his main endeavour in the interpretation of the verse is to evince that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies speciem in genere sive veram sive falsam a species in general whether true or false which is very little for the Diatribists advantage for granting it to signifie species if that should prove a true one then that is perfectly destructive to his interests for such a species of wisdom nothing could have in Will-worship if Will-worship were supposed to be impious and foolish And if it should prove a false species and so a bare shew of wisdom yet is that very reconcileable with the good notion of Will-worship as hath oft been shew'd What followes in him is saith he secundum Augustinum Thomam according to Augustine and Thomas that these abstinences have rationem sapientiae non verae sed ejus quae sita est in superstitione humilitate quae falsa est sapientia not true wisdom but that which is placed in superstition and humility which is false wisdome But where Augustine or Thomas give him authority to pretend their accord with him
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
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
this life In a word the word Perfection is capable of two notions either it may signifie the perfect obedience of never sinning and of this onely St Hierome speaks both when he saith it is not attained in this life and when he addes that whatsoever is less then this is sinfull Or else it may signifie any higher degree of exercise of any particular virtue chastity mercy fortitude c. And of this onely it is that I speak and St Hierome in the words cited from him appears not ever to have thought of it and to this onely my affirmation belongs that there are degrees in that perfection and that he that hath attained to any of those degrees sins not against Christs precept of perfection though he was not arrived to the highest degree But saith he the Doctor goes on If there be any perfection attainable in this life t will be capable of degrees and growth also and then he addes whether he be of their mind who hold perfection possible in this life I cannot say but this I can say he speaks contradictions for perfection admits of no degrees or growth Here I see the Reader may be abused if I do not give him a true narration of my words in that place § 46. Having mentioned one interpretation of the perfection which Christ commands us to aspire to Mat. 5. 48. viz. that it signifies mercifulness Lu. 6. 36. I adde if that sense will not be admitted yet if it be any perfection acquirable in this life t will be capable of degrees and growth also Now by a slight change of if it be into if there be this sense is quite altered and made lyable to suspicion that I teach perfection I suppose he must mean the unsinning perfection spoken of by St Hierome possible in this life and to the charge of speaking evident contradictions that I can talk of growth in such perfection Truely there was little of justice in this I hope he will be sensible of it The perfection which I there speak of be it love and mercy to enemies or be it any other Christian duty set under precept by Christ is certainly in some degree attainable in this life by them which have sinned and do still sinne through infirmity in other things and perhaps in some circumstances of this and then I hope there can be no heresie in this to say that by the grace of Christ one may obey such a precept of Christs love his enemies c. when St Paul professeth unlimitedly he can do all things through Christ that strengthened him And then what contradiction can there be in affirming that in this virtue of loving enemies of mercy c. there are degrees and consequently possibility of growth Of mercy it hath oft been exemplified that it is so and whatever particular virtue it be that can be phansied to be meant by Christ by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfection I doubt not but it will be as visible when that virtue is named But the Diatribist attempts nothing that way onely mistakes perfection for some other thing either for a sinless perfection or for such a state as cannot be increased knowing well enough that that is not attainable in this life and certainly is not the matter of Christ's precept Mat. 5. and as certainly is not the perfection that there I speak of Once more what I said in this matter that if the perfection spoken of in the objection be not acquirable in this life 't is certainly not under Evangelical precept now citing that of Mat. 11. of Christs light and supportable burthen and his commands not grievous i. e. possible to be performed by us falls under his very sharp discipline This saith he is strong and strange confidence His language I shall not onely willingly bear with but thank him for it I shall onely examine the reasons which he offers for thus accusing me They are three First because the Law requires perfect obedience of Christians as the rule of eternal righteousness adding that all orthodox Divines have maintained this against the Church of Rome Onely the Doctor is of the Church of Romes mind and charges the Law with imperfection citing it from Pract Cat p. 94. Here are many misadventures I shall but name them 1. That the Law requires perfect obedience of Christians meaning by that the Mosaical Law for that onely be knowes it is which the Doctor chargeth with imperfection The Law indeed sometimes signifies the Covenant of exact unsinning obedience and of that Law or that Covenant it is most true that it required perfect as that signifies unsinning obedience But then 1. This was the first Covenant and is not now in force with faithfull penitent Christians who are not under this Law but under grace i. e. under a 2d Covenant which requires not innocence but repentance sincere not perfect obedience And therefore 2dly It cannot truely be said that this Law requires this perfect obedience of Christians nor consequently that it is the rule of Evangelicall righteousness i. e. of that righteousness by which believers are now said to be justified I shall not insist on the proving of this here because it is but a digression in this place and is abundantly explicated elsewhere in the Pract Cat. concerning the two Covenants 2dly That he makes this doctrine of the Law 's requiring perfect obedience of Christians to be one of the Doctrines maintained by the orthodox against the Church of Rome when it is indeed but a contention of words that the Diatribist it seems and some others have espoused against I know not what adversary 3dly That the Doctors charging the Law with imperfection is a thing wherein he complies with the Church of Rome when t is evident in that place of the Catech that 1. The words of Christ that he came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill up the vacuities of the Mosaical Law and 2. The many express examples of his doing so in that 5t. of Mat. his additions to the Law in so many particulars introduced with It was said of old But I say unto you and lastly the uniforme suffrage of all antiquity joyning in this interpretation of Christs words was the ground whereon I built my affirmation and if in this the Church of Rome were of my mind as I do not find it is making some of those additions Mat. 5. counsels not all of them precepts I should never disclaime the doctrin upon that account any more then the articles of the Creed which the Church of Rome is acknowledged to believe with us His 2d proof is that the Gospel cals for the perfection of the law Be ye perfect as he is perfect Mat. 5. and be ye holy as he is holy 1 Pet. 1. 15 16. I answer 1. this proves not his proposition viz. that it was strong and strange confidence in me to say that if the perfection be not acquirable in this life t is not now under Evangelical precept
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
imaginable Sect. 8. How the comparison holds between the Lords day and Christmas day Institution usage Apostolical for Festivals No law in Scripture for the Lords day NOw followes his view of what I had said of the Lords day not instituted by Christ or God himself but by the Apostles without any mention in the New Testament of any prescription or law for the observing of it To this he is very glad to proceed hoping for some great advantage from it let us see what the success will prove And 1. saith he there want not learned men who think that Christ did designe the day But I must demand whether he can imagine that those learned men were in the right in this or have herein exprest any of their learning If he cannot think they have why doth he lose time and gain nothing by the mention of them If he can why doth he not so much as offer their grounds of thus opining when he knowes nor Scripture nor antiquity saith any thing of it and when it were as tolerable in any opposer to offer his opinion also that Christmass day was by Christ himself designed also But then 2dly saith he if the Apostles did institute it that 's more then he dare say of Christmass day And what if it be Doth that prejudge the observing of Christmass supposing it certain as I do suppose that it was either of the Apostles or the succeeding Church Suppose some feasts of the Iewes instituted by God or Moses others by the Church of the Iewes and not by Moses as the Purim and Encaenia Are not these latter as lawfully to be kept to all posterity of the Iews as those former But then 2dly the parallel that I set betwixt the Lords day and Christmass day was only this that as neither of them was found prescribed or by law commanded in Scripture so the want of such law should be no prejudice to the one more then to the other as long as by some other way it appeared of the one that it was derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church as of the other that it came immediatly from the Apostles It being evident that if the Apostles usage gave to one a divine authority the usage of the succeeding Church must be next to that though not divine and the latter lawful yea and obligatory as well though not in so high a degree as the former as the Encaenia were as lawful as the Passover and were obligatory also though not by the same authority By this it appears that there is certain obligation for the observing of Christmass though there should be no certainty of the Apostles instituting it Next he demands If the Lords day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ do not their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law I answer that if by institution be meant giving Law for the observation of it then there is no doubt of his proposition the predication being identical institution in this sense is prescribing or giving Law But 't is possible that institution of the Lords day by the Apostles may signifie another thing viz. that the Apostles practice assembling weekly on the Lords day should have the force of an institution or a Law with the succeeding Church though indeed the Apostles gave no Law for it or if they did no such Law appears from them The examples of the Apostles are the onely way of conveying some usages to us without any their prescript Law And accordingly in this sense also I consent to the Diatribist that their institutions carry in them divine prescription or Law and so I shall no way contend with him in this matter Onely upon these grounds I shall demand that whatsoever else shall be in the same manner derived to us through all ages of the Church from the times of the Apostles themselves may be acknowledged also to carry a divine impression upon it And then to omit Episcopacy which he cannot but know hath perfectly as much to be said for it in every respect as the Lords day I shall insist onely on the feast of Easter which hath been demonstrated to be derived from the Apostles and so is an instance of all that I pretend in the point of Festivals leaving Christmass day to the equity of proportion and the other evidences that are produced for the antiquity of it Next he proceeds to what I farther say of the no Law that appears in Scripture for the Lord's day In order to which I said that if any thing of that nature be sought there it will rather appear to belong to the annual then weekly feast of the resurrection naming 1 Cor. 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast and the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day Rev. 1. 10. by some thought to belong to the annual day also Against these he urgeth some authorities of some ancient and modern writers which saith he do not seem to understand these places thus And though t were no impossible thing to answer those testimonies yet I shall never discourage him in that very reasonable course of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers and other such Learned men but yielding him all he desires of both these places I must only desire him to remember that this will no whit advantage him or prejudice me unlesse he can bring out of the Scripture some other places which are more apodicticall evidences of Apostolicall Law for the weekly Lords day then these are for the annual For the matter is clear all that I was there to prove was no more but this that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them Sect. 19. Aërius 's herisie that Festivals are unlawfull St Augustine's testimony added to Epiphanius ' s. The Diatribists inconstancy The testimony of the Church of Smyrna an evidence of keeping the days of tho Apostles martyrdome The Testimony from the martyrdome of Ignatius according with it Testimonies for the antiquity of Festivals IN the 32th § to Epiphanius's censure of Aërius as of an heretick for affirming festivals unlawfull his answer is that all is not heresie that Epiphanius calls so nor all Aërius's opinions justly censured as heretical And so indeed the Diatribist is concerned to think both in respect of this and some other interests that especially of Episcopacy But for the averting of so great a crime it would well become the accused to offer some reason for the clearing himself and not onely to have mentioned the name of Osiander the Epitomizer of the Centuriators wose words are not affirmed to belong to this particular of Festivals and if they did whose authority is sure so Incompetent to weigh with Epiphanius in setting down the sense of the ancient Church that in all reason some evidences should have been annexed to adde weight to him As it is I must not thing strange that they which transcribe that affirmation from Aërius will not allow it to be heresie
before that edict of Iustinus at which time saith the Historian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that were called Christians of all ages assembled in the Church to celebrate the nativity And to that it seems he hath no other return but his advertisement that Nicephorus saith it was Maximinus that was thus bloody Maximianus I suppose he would have said who reigned with Diocletian and then it comes to the same passe and the truth is acknowledged which soever the name were So against resolving the day of this festival to be Decemb. 25. his proofs are extraordinary 1. from the Doctor himself that it was called Midwinter day which is a fortnight before But that hath already been answered the variation being evidenced to be from the want of exactnesse in our Calendars not from any doubt of the day 2dly From the opinion of many Divines that our Lord died when he was 33 and halfyears of age or neer unto 34 as saith he the Doctor saith Qu. 1. § 10. What Divines these are that thus calculate I am not told nor how competent they are to be confronted to the censual Tables from whence S. Chrysostome fetches the day of his birth But the luck of it is that citation from the Doctor was easily consulted and on view of the place there is no more but this that Christ preacht the will of his Father three years or foure together which I thought had signified no more then for some uncertain space betwixt 3 or 4 yeears And if he were born in December and died in April what difficulty is there in this calculation or what needed the Diatribist to have cited from the Doctor the words neer 34. when he knowes there is nothing to that sense said by him The 3d thing without which his undertaking to mention many will be a faileur which may make us doubt of the truth of the calculation is the yonger date of the Arabick Codex of the Councels But when that Codex was dated he hath not told us And if it were later then I thought it may yet possibly speak truth and so that will give us no reason of doubting His last proof is that the Doctor is upon Ifs and T is probable And I heartily wish the Diatribist would but speak probably and till he doth so that he would not have such aversions to the Doctors Ifs I mean that he would use diffidence when he pretends not to demonstrate I adde nothing to his returns about the Epiphany but leave them to be judged by the §§ to which they are opposed And for the large view of the place in Chrysostome and his dispute against that Father my answer is very brief that all that I attempted to prove from Chrysostome was the due timing of the feast on the 25th of December and that being done beyond controversie I pretend not to derive other decisions from that testimonie but leave them to stand on their own basis Only when from some words of Chrysostome he at length concludes the authority of the Church in constituting and celebrating this festival in all ages much shaken I must reminde him that that Fathers words which affirm it a question at that time belong not to the Festivity it self but only to the particularity of the day whether it were to be kept on the 25th of December or on some other day and accordingly his proofs proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this is the very time And though some doubted whether this were a new or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ancient day of the festivity yet saith he others defended it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was old antient or original so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies and is all one with Tertullians quod ab initio as that with quod ab Apostolis and from these ancient if not these first timas as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly imports and so again in Tertullian ordo ad originem recensus it hath been manifest and illustrious to all that dwell from Thrace to Gadeira from East to West that sure with him signifies all the world over And so still this dispute which side soever was in the right is founded in a supposition of the feast it self being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original and from the beginning And indeed if the first proof which he offers for it be considered t is not imaginable how he should say more to the asserting of the Apostolicalnesse both of the Festivity and the day also That this is the season saith he on which Christ was born the first demonstration is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the feast was so speedily promulgate every where ascended to so great an height flourisht adding that as Gamaliel said of the preaching of the Gospel that if it were of men it would come to nought but if of God ye cannot dissolve it lest ye be found fighters against God the same he might say confidently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this day not of the Gospel as the Diatribist afterward saith he thinks he means but cannot really do so in this place against such expresse words that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing or because it is from God therefore t is not only not dissolved but every year advances and becomes more splendid and yet farther adding in the words recited by the Diatribist and by omitting the former rendred capable of being misunderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the preaching of it certainly i. e. of the day or else it can have no coherence with the feast or antecedents and whole contexture in a few years took possession of the whole world though tentmakers and fishermen unlearned and idiots brought it amongst them How farre this is now from doing prejudice to the Vniversal observation of this day in the Apostles times I leave the Reader and if he please the Diatribist also to consider Sect. 21. The Diatribists answer to my conclusion Strictures on some passages in it WHat now remains is by way of reply to my conclusion that the fastidious rejecting or not observing the Festivals of the universal Church must be lookt on as an act of affected departure from the universal Church of Christ in all ages and not only from the reformed Church of England This saith he is an heavy charge if it can be proved And for that I must now referre my self to the premisses in that treatise and in this defence nor indeed can it be reasonable that I descend to any other way of probation or vindication till this which I have used be invalidated For a conclusion being as this is deduced from the premisses what more can be required to establish the conclusion then the confirmation of the premisses And therefore as it is against all laws of Discourse for the Diatribist to confute or deny or make answer to the conclusion any
otherwise then by refuting the media which have inferred it so must it be in me to reply to such offers of answer which can never signifie any thing as long as my premisses stand in force especially if it proceed by denying those things which this vindication hath undertaken to prove without offering answer as without the spirit of divination it could not to those proofs For example The Diatribist here begins with this affirmation that I have not proved that the universal Church of the first age hath observed any of the Festivals And I have here evidently proved that Easter was observed by Philip and Iohn the Apostle and from them received by the Asiaticks or Eastern Christians and so likewise by the Western from S. Peter and S. Paul and so sure there is no farther need of refuting this affirmation And the same might in like manner appear in each insuing step of his answer and the rule by which he is content to be judged applied exactly to the condemning him in this very business of the Easter Festivity which is of as much force as if it equally appeared of every other of the great Festivals But still this were to repeat what hath here been already said and vindicated from all his exceptions In stead whereof I shall only gather up what hath any thing of newes in it And 1. let me admire his candor when he will not stick to grant this rule to be good that whatever doctrine or practice hath the concordant attestation of the Churches of the Apostolical time while they were yet alive it was Apostolical but withall addes as if he had been too liberal that the negative is a surer rule to judge by as if indeed any predication could be surer then that which is identical Next his argument against the concordant attestation of the primitive ancients concerning Apostolical tradition drawn from Papias's affirmation of the Milennium had not I confesse formerly been produced but it falls out that I have elswhere sufficently cleared it Thirdly his citation p. 197. from the Pract. Cat. p. 181. that Christmas was not universally solemnized till about 400 years after Christ and after a little more to his advantage till at least the 400 years p. 201. is both as to the words and as to the sense very much misreported The place is ready to be seen and lies thus The authority by which this festival stands in the Church is that of the practice of the Primitive universal Church and this made appear 1. from the immemorial observation of it 2. from the ancient Fathers speaking of it as an ancient usage in the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even now given 3. by the testimonies not only of the author of the Constitutions ancient though not Apostolical but of Origen of Cyprian of Ammianus Marcellinus speaking of Iulian 1300 years since and mentioning the Epiphany as a known festival of the Church and so both that and Christmasse of a far greater antiquity then the time of Iulian. Lastly by the words of Chrysostome that though the particular day December 25. was not fixt at Antioch till his time yet from Rome over all the West it had been so observed from the most ancient records of Christianity Upon which my conclusion is that it appears at least to be an Ecclesiastical constitution very early received over all the West the far greatest part of Christendome and within 400 years universally solemnized and this a very competent authority when withall t is so probable that it may be more according to a rule of the Fathers That very ancient and general usages whose beginnings are unknown may be resolved to be of Apostolical institution or practice c. This I have thus transcribed from that place to demonstrate what fidelity there was in this citation not only in applying that to the Festivall which belonged peculiarly to that particular day Dec. 25. but also in affirming from me that it was not universally solemnized till about 400. yeares and till at least the 400. yeare which leaves it free to be of a dote yet later when I say t is so probable that it was of Apostolicall institution or practice that the feast of Epiphanie was spoken of as a known festivall long before that time and the feast of Innocents attending this of Christmas affirmed by Origen to be by the holy Fathers according to the will of God commanded to be for ever celebrated in the Church and onely added that it appears to be at least an Ecclesiasticall institution very early received over all the West and the farre greater part of Christendome and within 400. years universally solemnized What can be more visibly unjust then this or what heed can be given to testimonies thus transformed into shapes which the writer never dream'd of and yet from them conclusions deduced such as here follow in this place of the Diatribist that my rash zeale hath carried me beyond the bounds of Reason and Religion To which expression of his all that I have to say is 1. That my conclusion was inferred out of premisses not dictated by zeale 2 dy That it affix'd no censure on any person belonging onely to those who should be found guilty of it and so was wholly designed to ends of charity to reforme not to reproach any 3. That if there had been any thing of rash or bitter in it it might have admonisht the Diatribist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be so soon guilty of greater sharpness As it is I must onely inferre that it seemes the guilty person hath the priviledge of accusing and judging in any form of language and so I shall not be so unseasonable as to admonish him of the injustice of it at a time when it is so improbable he will reap profit by it There is now nothing behind but his fastidious reflexions upon three Quaestions which I had return'd to the Author of the 16 Quaeres But because I see he likes not the Quaestions in my termes and in his proposing of foure others inserts particulars wholly rejected by mee as that of parts of worship adding as it is propounded § 9. but I hope not by me so propounded of abuse to superstition and profaneness c. I shall be as little obliged to accept them in his termes or tempted by the nature of the task or by the probability of the success of it with this Diatribist to begin new desputes at this time It is not amiss that we shake hands for a while and commune each with his own heart in stillness And so I heartily take my leave of him The End ERRATA Page Line Read 1 38 so full 3 26 if we 12 3 species 14 10 whither with 18 22 without 24 29 superstitious 25 38 destructive 26 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 38 3 that without 39 8 in it 42 7 of other 45 11 dele to 48 13 rerumque  25 I shall 75 24 worships 80 34 of
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
Original of angel-Angel-worship Vain worships Clemens confounding of Col. 2. 18. with 23. Worship of Angels c. a forbidden Will-worship The imposing of virginity and abstinences as from God the only 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 A Third occasion of the mistaken ill notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I had taken notice of to be the confounding of two verses very distant the 18th and 23d of that 2d Chap. to the Colos the voluntary humility and worshipping of the Angels in the one and the shew of wisdom in Will-worship and humility in the other To which end I at large cleared the difference between those two phrases To this he replies that the distance pretended between them is so little that they may easily be reconciled that respecting a new devised worship only and this the reviving an old out-dated worship To this I answer 1. that the worship v. 18. being expressely the worship of Angels that sure is much more then Will-worship in the Diatribists notion hitherto expressed of it and therefore 't is strange he should now labour to perswade us they are all one or easily reconciled Will-worship as he hath hitherto defined it is bare uncommanded will-devised or men-devised worship and that he hath still pronounced unlawful upon that one account because not commanded But can he think the worship of Angels to be such Is not that distinctly forbidden in the first Commandment Certainly it is And if it be hath it no other guilt by being so forbidden above that which is onely not commanded 2 The Will-worship v. 23. is not truly affirmed to be the reviving old out-dated worship For 1. the abstinences from mariage there spoken of as well as those from meats had never been commanded among the Jews 2. T is not there affirmed of one or other abstinence that it was Will-worship Only those doctrines of abstinences of both sorts are said to have a shew of wisdom in respect of the Will-worship discernible in them and so likewise they are said to have in respect of the self-denial and the worship of Angels in respect of the humility that either is or is pretended in them And yet I hope it will not be said that humility or self-denial is the reviving of Judaisme But however some advantage he resolves to get by that § and having no other means to acquire it he will have it out of some words which I had cited out of Maimonides the words are these that the greatest part of Idolatry came into the world existimando hanc varietatem esse Dei voluntatem by the opinion that God was honoured by the worship of his Angels or officers and that it was his will to have men exercised in this variety of worship From hence the Diatribist subsumes that the error that brought the greatest part of idolatry into the world was that men conceived and taught that vain worships and superstitions were the will and pleasure of God Here I must demand what he means by vain worships doth he mean bare will-devised uncommanded worships which have in his opinion no other crime in them but their uncommandednesse If so then hath he much Maimonides's words as must be visible to him those clearly belonging to the worship of Angels and others beside the one God which all men are strictly forbidden to worship And then what a confusion of things most distant what an injustice is this But if by vain he designed false forbidden worships such as are by him fitly joined with superstition and such as the worship of Angels was then indeed he knowes or must in charity believe that 't is as much mine interest and inclination as his to fasten an ill character upon them and to believe as much of the danger and criminousnesse of affirming them acceptable to God as Maimonides could teach or the Diatribist wish me to believe I shall not fail therefore I hope to obey his admonition if it be really such and be abundantly cautious neither to justifie nor imitate what I so much dislike and abhorre in them that are guilty of it What he next addes of Clemens Alexandrinus confounding those two the 18. and 23. verses was by me produced and willingly confest and made an evidence of the point there in hand that some have though without all reason confounded them and it is not imaginable how this which so evidently proved what I brought it to prove evidencing the occasion of the mistake should be so speedily mentioned to the disproving of it or be farther argumentative against me then I had before acknowledged by producing it For sure the Diatribist cannot pretend that Clemens his reading was the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he can all our copies of the New Testament will abundantly confute him And then it is no very good indication of the truth of his cause which is fain to catch hold on such supports as this which is acknowledged a mistake in him from whom it is produced and so in all reason will cause mistake to any that borrowes it from him But the Diatribist inlarges in two long Sections more to enervate what I had said to shew the difference betwixt those two verses And I need make no farther reply to them then to refer the reader to the two parts of the observation § 22. and 23. of the Tract of Will-worship to which his answers are applied the second of them clearly answering all that he hath objected to the first if he would but have had patience to have lookt so much forward and as clearly preventing what he hath said to the second The short of it is that the worship of Angels being not only not commanded but forbidden by God the voluntary worshipping of them is acknowledged by me to be a fault but that resulting from the unlawfulness of the matter which is under interdict in the first Commandment of the Decalogue not from the voluntariness or uncommandednesse of it And the same I shall not doubt to yield of the abstinences from meats and mariages Christ hath given perfect liberty for the using of both and they that dogmatize and impose either or both those abstinences on Christians as from God are false teachers and so that is their fault in imposing and the like in those who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject themselves to those ordinances And yet for all this a spontaneous abstaining from meats at some time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for exercise not for detestation in a religious fast not out of opinion of the unlawfulnesse of meats being in it self perfectly lawful and so likewise celibacy or virginity in him that can receive it there is no pretense from the uncommandedness of either or both of these that they should be deemed culpable or made parallel to that other sort of uncommanded worship where the