worshipping of a creature or 2. Giving undue worship to God and neither of these will serve to prove the Diatribists conclusion Unhappy man I that cannot please the Doctor in any thing These kindes of Superstition would serve the School-man p. 17. n. 29. to prove an excess in Religion why not me Not the first sayes he for Then this must be his meaning that a man may be a * The word is many Gods any one or more with the true Polytheist a worshipper of false Gods Why that 's true and he that worships the true God and others with him exceeds in worship and is too Religious This he should have supposed my answer and have spoken to it but he leads his Reader away in a mist saying But I hope in this sense he that observes the Ceremonies of the Church of England and her Festivals will not be said to be a Polytheist he should say too Religious Still the same mistake we are not speaking now of the Ceremonies or circumstances of worship but whether a man may be too Religious but he is very jealous of his Festivals lest they should be charged to be Superstitious that makes him so often remind them Yet be it so it is not Polytheisme nor Superstition to observe Festivalls in the first notion of worshipping a Creature but may it not prove to be Superstition in the second of cultus illegitimus n. 30. Here he will be more particular in viewing and wieghing the words of Aquinas referred to by me And here he makes a large excursion to trouble his Reader to little purpose The question is this Whether unlawful or undue worship tendered to the true God be not Superstition and so an excess in Religion That it is Superstition is proved by this that it is made a Species of it by the School-man that it is an excess is clear because it is a branch of Superstition which is defined by an excess in Religion the sum he sayes is this That Religion is a moral vertue as being a branch of Justice in giving God that which belongs to him according to some equality in respect of God equality not absolutely because we cannot give God so much as belongs to him but considering what man is able to do and what God will accept All this is well enough Religion is a moral vertue a Branch of Justice which Justice stands between two extreames summum jus on the one side which is excess and nullum jus which is the defect so Religion stands between two extreames an excess and a defect But hear what he addes As for superfluity in such things as those which belong to the worship of God there can be none saith Aquinas as to the circumstance of quantity I cannot sayes the Doctor do too much in the worship of God I cannot offend that way all the superfluity possible is in other circumstances he names but three 1. Cui non debet exhibiting worship to a creature that was the first kinde of Superstition 2. Quando non debet at a time when it ought not 3. Prout non debet in a manner wherein it ought not Is not this full to my purpose that undue or unlawful worship p. 18. n. 31. for the matter or manner is superfluity excess and Superstition No this is no competent testimony to prove his conclusion That every thing in the worship of God which is not commanded by God is too much But first this is not my conclusion it 's falsly often fathered upon me I say not every thing in the worship of God thus he varies the words All uncommanded worship is an excess p. 12. n. 13. to evade himself and asperse me is too much but any uncommanded worship is too much and to this Aquinas testimony is full for that he calls cultum illegitimum which is not by Law commanded Sure sayes the Doctor every thing thing again not commanded is not presently forbidden and so offends not against the Prout debet as it ought I say not every thing not commanded is forbidden but every worship not commanded I say again is forbidden and we shall hear himself confess as much anon whence my argument is thus enforced All worship forbidden is unlawful and too much and an excess but all worship not commanded is forbidden ergo The Major cannot be denied the Minor is made good thus at present All false worship of God is forbidden but all uncommanded worship is false worship ergo What the Doctor will say to this I know not but shall leave it to his consideration For the rest in this and next number 32. let him and Aquinas agree the matter enough hath been said to them already But in my third proof from the Doctors own confession n. 33. I am charged first with non-sense partly because the Printer put in not and partly because I or he left out he Which if the Doctor had ingenuously considered he might have found both sense and reason also in the words alledged thus The Doctor grants there may be a nimiety or excess in Religion in adding * In adding in a mans adding and so he is an exceeder c. p. 19. n. 34. to the commands of Christ the Gospel rule those things which belong not to it and so he is an exceeder in the fear service of God But yet it will not pass First without a second the Doctor no where useth that phrase a nimiety or excess of Religion But this is a very nicety and strife of words in his very sentence he sayes such a man is an exceeder in the fear put sometimes for Religion and service of God Is not that an excess of or in Religion But that 's not all we shall have the words ere long n. 35. This fear of some thing which he fancies to come from God when it doth not is an excessive fear more then Religion suggests to him and yet the unhappiness is this interposeth it self in Religion Mark an excessive fear in Religion but enough of such trifles A greater matter then this is That fear neither is excess of Religion nor indeed excess of fear or of service of God but the meaning is this that in fearing and serving of God he is guilty of some other excess not of fearing God but somewhat else c. This first agrees not well with what is said below that this excessive fear argued a defect of love or Religion See p. 30. n. 28. not some other excess And second this is to say and unsay there is an excessive fear of God and there is no excessive fear of God Quo teneam modo c. He sayes again n. 36. of the man that phansies he ought by Gods Law to kill his Father and fears Gods wrath if he doth it not He is an exceeder in the service of God if he do that in the service of God which is contrary to it Mark an exceeder in the
is the Judgement of Scripture and the best Divines That said I which the Scriptures of the Old Testament call Additions the New calls Superstition Will-worship c. But I must not scape so n. 9. In those few words named last there are many infirm parts 1. That additions to the word are in the New Testament called Doctrines He cuts of my words I said Doctrines Traditions of men and so they are Matth. 15.6.9 By your Tradition opposed to the Commandment of God and In vain do they worship me teaching Doctrines the Commandments of men He flies to his old Muse Their teaching their own Traditions for Doctrines is adding them to the Scripture c. But then is it not evident 1. that their Doctrines and Traditions were Additions to the word 2. That these Doctrines concerned the worship of God and so Additions to the Rule of worship in vain do they worship me and are not these Additons excesses what sense then is there in his new coin'd gloss Doctrines thore simply signifying not that addition but that to which the addition was made What means he that Doctrines signifies the Scripture for to that the Addition was made so he sayes Adding them to the Scriptures what their own Traditions Then their Doctrines were added to the Scripture but were not Scripture and if not Scripture Additions to the Scripture 2. But my next infirmity is that I say Those Additions are called Will-worship The contrary whereof he sayes is proved in the Treatise of Will-worship I shall not anticipate the place All I say now is but this If it be Will-worship to devise new sorts of worship and to offer them to God for worship as the Doctor confesses it is pag. See p. 10. n. 11. p. 15. n. 24. 96. n. 6. Then those Additions may well be called Will-worship and such Will-worship may very well be called an Addition to the Rule of worship 3. This is yet another of my mistakes That additions to the rule of worship are any where in the New Testament called Superstition I desire he would shew me one such place for my concordance will not afford it me Let him not evade by those words Called Superstition That is in so many words and I will shew many places where the thing is apparant that Superstition is an Addition to the word and Additions to the word are Superstition But in stead of all I shall produce his own words Sect. 46. of Superst To affirm God to command when he doth not is Superstition under the notion of nimiety or excess because that man addes to the commands of Christ Which place will shortly come to be considered He sayes Those Athenians Act. 17.22 sure p. 23. n. 10. never medled with and so added not to the true rule of worship any otherwise then as all that abandon it adde to it live by some other false rule and minde not that and if they are for so doing to be stiled adders to the rule of worship adulterers are so in like manner and so every sin in the world is Superstition This is a strange gloss 1. Do not Idolatres Polytheists such as these Athenians were meddle with and adde to the rule of worship surely then none in the world do Is it not a moral Law written in the hearts of all men though blotted much that God alone is to be worshipped do not they that worship other Gods with or without him meddle with and adde to this rule of worship 2. Does it become the Doctors Learning and Divinity to make adulterers and so every sinner in the second Table to be with them afore stilled Superstitious when worship and so Superstition is onely in the first Table let the Reader judge Against my second proof exception is taken p. 23. n. 12. 1. Because I use the same medium as in the former proposition An heavy charge as if the Doctor did not know that one medium may prove several propositions The question is whether it proves the present proposition or no 2. Then he undertakes to put my argument into form but that I refuse and renounce his whole Syllogisme as none of mine upon this ground because he hath changed the question from uncommanded worship to uncommanded ceremonies and then playes his feats onely I shall remind him what he grants in his proposition 1. That worshipping of the Daemons is an excess opposite to Religion ergo Superstition is an excess 2. So also is the worshipping the true God after an undue and unlawful manner an excess ergo Superstition is of larger extent then the worshipping of Daemons which both the Doctor seems to deny Now I shall put my argument into form If profaneness the one extreme of Religion he a defect of Religion then Superstition the other extreme is an excess of Religion but the first is true and cannot be denied ergo If the Doctor did not intend to decline the force of this proof and to make a diversion to his Reader he would not have started a new Hare that himself might escape My next proof was from the Doctors own concessions p. 24. n 13. See p. 227. c. the numb 13. twice where he first espies a Numeral fault a figure of 4. twice Whether this was mine or the Printers fault he hath no cause to complain having 6. for 5. But that 's a trivial excursion yet ordinary enough First the Doctor grants Superstitiosus may denote such an excess an excess of Religion n. 16. What excess in Religion the super statutum every addition 1. Every uncommanded circumstance or ceremony in the worship of God thus he must mean if constant c. No such matter but every Addition of worship supra statutum above the command of God The question was of worship it self from the beginning not of Circumstances of worship If Superstitious signifie such an excess will it any thing help the Doctor to say so did Religiosus sometime signifie too Yes 1. Superstitio and Religio were among Heathens the * They were not the same see ad p. 70 n. 1. But one a vice the other a vertue same and 2. All such excesses are not culpable in their opinion If they once did signifie excesses in Religion and culpable it matters not what their opinions after were who were ill Judges of Superstition and Religion And what ever Religiosus may signifie let the Doctor shew us any Protestant Divine that ever took Superstitio or Superstitiosus in a good sense But what is the meaning of those words n. 17. My pretensions in that place were onely this that Superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess Does he mean that Superstition never in any Authors signifies a criminous excess That he cannot say or that all Authors do not take it for a criminous excess the words may bear both senses that 's too dilate for the Doctor to affirm It 's enough for us if in
is spoken of but one when it is spoken of both yea here both are one the will-worship is meant of those Gnostick Abstinences and those Abstinences were this will-worship these had a shew but neither power nor truth of Wisdom and said I can that be taken in a good sense Here I produced the Interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Latine Fathers Ambr. Simulatam Religionem Hierom. Superstitionem so vulg and all Popish Interpreters what was it that these Authours say was Superstition counterfeit Religion Sure it was those Abstinences and so they were both one that will-worship in Abstinences c. had neither power nor truth Yet hear what he says will-worship is rendred by Piety and unless Piety it self can be taken there in an ill sense will-worship must be taken in a good sense He had said before n. 3. The Gnostick Doctrines cannot have so much as a shew of Piety in will-worship unless will-worship real be Piety real and appearance of will-worship a foundation of an appearace of Piety But did not the Doctor say just now That the Fathers said it of the Doctrines of Abstinence That they had neither power nor truth of Piety Now he sayes will-VVill-worship is rendred by Piety not the Abstinences The truth is those Abstinences had a shew of Wisdom or Piety but were but Superstition so the word is most commonly rendred or Voluntary Religion which a man forges out of his own brain willing to seem Religious as Estius hath it that is say I will worship If then Superstition and such voluntary Religion cannot be taken in a good sense no more can will-worship which is the very same thing And the Doctor does but beg the question all along this debate That there is any real or true will-worship There is indeed a real salse will-will-worship in those Abstinences together with an appearance of Piety or wisdom I end this as he does certainly I need adde no more 't is pitty I should be required to say so much of this matter I had said the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies false Religion the composition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or will of man with it makes it worse He asks worse then what then false Religion p. 142. n. 7. This is fairly to resolve that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of the true God is worse then false Religion i. e. then Idolatry or Superstition I will not question the Doctors Learning here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstitiose Deo colo Suidas on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Thracians but his Ingenuity I do and that twice 1. That I meant worse then false Religion when I meant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or will made the word worse which he could not but see had not prejudice and a desire to slur or slander me blinded his eyes which appears more in the second 2. That I must fairly resolve that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of God is worse then false Religion c. When as his conscience knows and his pen hath often testified for me that I understand the question not of any thing n. 8. as he but of uncommanded Worship not of Circumstances of worship as kneeling in Prayer c. as he most injuriously would make his Reader believe Hence I do not conclude so absurdly as he would make me n. 9. All Inventions of men are Idolatry and worse then Idolatry but all invented Worship by men is Idolatry or Superstition and then this proposition is convertible I dolatry or Superstition is invented Worship and Invented Worship is Idolatry or Superstition Now Will-worship and Superstition being both one in some sense it will follow in spite of all gain-saying that all Will-worship is Idolatrous or Superstitious And he still begs that there is any Will-worship not Idolatrous or Superstitious And this may satifie that which follows n. 10. he that useth an uncommanded Ceremony in the Service of God provided it be not made a part of Worship doth not take upon him to be wiser then God but he that useth an uncommanded Worship As for his acts of uncommanded Devotion we shall speak to them in due time let him in the mean time consider how weakly he hath vindicated his third Argument and see if he can strengthen it better Here are some other things yet considerable but very briefly As first that he would fain get the learned Daille to be of his minde who is an enemy I believe to all Will-worship whereas his Interpretation is the same with our Divines He sayes p. 144. n. 15. The false teachers had a threefold colour of Wisdome 1. Will-worship 2. Humility 3. Austerity to the body for which three things they admire these doctrines of men But I pray what Interpreter Papist or Protestant does not so expound it By the way note he calls them doctrines of men not Commandments of God So had the worshipper of Angels a double colour of wisdom 1. Of Humility voluntary humility 2. Of Worship voluntary Worship will worship yet his practice was never the better for that and that Humility and will worship false and impious as hath been confessed But sayes the Doctor he defines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cultum sponte voluntariè assumptum nulla cogente Dei lege Why so does Beza Bishop Davenant and many of our own yet take voluntary worship in an ill sense as the learned Chamier his countrey-man also does whose sense no doubt Mons Daille knew well enough What more He sayes They were voluntarily undertaken out of abundance of zeal and Holiness And so in his opinion if abundance of zeal and holiness were taken in a good sense will worship must be resolved to be so takens As if all Idolaters the worshippers of Angels and Saints as Papists c. did not undertake their superstitious Worships out of abundant pretended zeal and Holiness Those Abstinences spoken of granted to be Gnostical and abominable were they not undertaken out of abundant pretended zeal and Holiness Thus Daille is easily vindicated As for Ambrose he is as much against him as any man he had best question the Authority of those Comments under his name For his words are these Englished by the Doctor Hence they think themselves to have some appearance of Wisdom p. 145. n. 18. because they apply the name of Religion to humane tradition and it is called Religion when it is sacriledge He speaks this of that will worship in those Abstinences where observe first He renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wisdom not piety as the Dr. does that he says they gave the name of Religion to their will worship 2. That this which they called Religion was but an humane tradition not held out as a Commandment of God 3. That this Religion or will worship of theirs was but Sacriledge what can be said worse of will
from Eccles 7.16 and gives his answer or rather his own gloss Be not righteous over much be not over much wicked The answer is obvious the former words are the worldlings objection taking that for excess of duty which brings any damage and is answered in the other words The fears and hence impious practises of worldlings are the readier path to ruine There are other senses given of these words by others and as obvious as this of the Doctors this for one Be not righteous over much neither make thy self over wise wiser then God in making more Commandments or duties then God hath made Be not over wicked neither be thou foolish to make fewer Commandments or lesser number of duties then God hath made both ways thou dost but hasten thy own destruction The Doctor came very near this exposition when pag. 16. n. 26. he glossed that text of Deut. 4.2 forbidding all Additions to the word thus 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 c. But let him abound in hug his own sense yet this advantage I make of it that it need not here be strange to say Too Religious or Religious overmuch when the Scripture uses the parallel phrase of righteous over much and over wise c. For extension p. 7. n. 5. or number of Ceremonies the Doctor is not so peremptory and express to deny excess therein but gives his vote That they be few and wholesom And then addes That not the Rites but onely the multitude of them is superstitious But doth he not again deny this when he sayes If they be wholesom tending to edification then there is little reason to accuse them of excess c. Multitude of Ceremonies if wholesom are no excess nor superstitious yet I said even the multitude of Ceremonies are prejudicial to the simplicity of Gospel worship and so Superstitious to which he sayes nothing here nor there Rites or Circumstances are absolutely necessary to Religion p. 7. n. 5. Ceremonies only n. 6. Circūstance of time or place or gesture p. 99. n. 15. Ceremonies and uncōmanded worship p. 36. n 12. which seems to make Ceremonies worship But before we go any further it will be requisite that we clearly understand what the Doctor means by Ceremonies for he is confused enough in this whole discourse sometimes he speaks of Ceremonies sometimes Rites and Ceremonies otherwhere Circumstances and Ceremonies and sometimes Circumstances alone as if he promisouously used them all for the same thing now Circumstances of worship some time some place c. are absolutely necessary to Religion so he of Superst s 34. So I said Superst s 28. and therein we are agreed But for Rites and Ceremonies to be brought into the worship of God besides what are commanded there is no necessity and it 's controverted he knowes whether any such may be instituted and added in the worship of God There is usually a difference put by Divines betwixt Rites and Ceremonies on the one side and Circumstances in Religion on the other I desire therefore to know what the Doctor means by Rites or Ceremonies if the same with Circumstances there is nothing more to be said but that the Doctor is confused and ambiguous if distinct then let him tell us 1. What he intends by Rites and Ceremonies giving the definition of them 2. Whether there be any distinction of Ceremonies in Religion of which some are lawful others unlawful For the first a Ceremony hath generally by all Religions been held to be an external part of Religion thus among heathens the School-man tells us Aq. 12. q. 99. a. 3. Cicero speaking of Religion sayes Cultum Ceremoniamque offert Ib. as all one In Exod. Tom. 1 p. 148. Ceremoniae vocatur quasi munia i. e. dona cereris ad significandum cultum divinum apud Latinos Amongst the Jews Ceremonies were certainly parts of the worship of God And amongst Papists they are so esteemed Hence that definition of Tostatus A Ceremony is a certain observation or special manner of worshipping God determined by the sole command of the Law-giver And that of Salmeron the Jesuite is to the same purpose Ritus colendi Deum A Rite of worshipping God cited p. 147. n. 24. In this sense a Ceremony or Rite and a necessary Circumstance in Religion are at a vast difference and should the Doctor take it in the ordinary sense he will be confuted by himself p. 11. n. 11. p. 12. n. 13. unless he can help himself by some distinction De effect Sacr. l. 2. c. 29. Bellarmine and his fellows will help him to one Ceremonies are either natural or instituted natural as to look up to heaven to lift up our hands and to bow our knees when we pray unto God These the Doctor acknowledges when he speaks of significant Ceremonies Superst s 36. When a Ceremony naturally signifies the thing I am about and properly floweth from it Of such there is no question between us Instituted Ceremonies are such as are determined by the sole command of the Law-giver as Tostatus said afore Upon which account Ceremonies will again be distinguished by the Authors the Law-givers that is they are instituted either by God or the Church Those of Gods Institution are lawful and necessary as those appointed the Jews and our Sacraments which may be called Ceremonies and fall under the definition given as Rites or Modes of worshipping God in the Gospel And these are Substantial parts of worship as well as Moral worship is For it must be remembred that the worship of God is either Moral which is the same with Natural worship such as to Love Hope Trust Fear God c. or Ceremonial which is the same with instituted worship Vbi supra The School-man said wel Ordinatur homo in Deum c. Man is ordered towards God not onely by the inward acts of his soul as those afore but also by some exterior works by which he professes his service of God and those works are said to belong to the worship of God which worship is called a Ceremony c. Now of such Ceremonies as are instituted by God there is no controversie The question then will come to this issue whether the Church may institute any Ceremonies in Religion which the Doctor so much declined to speak to when it was by me twice propounded once in my Preface and again of Fest but hither he must come will he nill he for of Ceremonies the judgement of the Romish party is this That all Ceremonies are superstitious which are not of divine Authority either immediately or mediately Thus the Jesuite Salmeron Omnis ritus colendi Deum qui à Deo non est nec a Spiritu Sancto per Ecclesiam traditus c. 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 Now if we take out but those words by the Church which is the very question betwixt them and Protestant Divines betwixt the Doctor and me whether the Church hath such authority to institute Ceremonies unless the Doctor will agree with them that the Institutions of the Church are from the Holy Ghost and Divine which yet he hath not asserted though he comes very near it as we shall hear below the former part of those words will conclude him guilty of Superstition in the judgement of a Jesuite Every Rite of worshipping God that is not delivered from God but invented by the will of man is superstitious Let the Doctor himself then state the question p. 99. n. 5. The controversie belongs onely to the Circumstances of time place gesture of the Churches appointing or voluntary observing thus he does it p. 85. n. 7. Whether every devised Rite or Ceremony not commanded by God be superstitious The affirmative whereof a Jesuite hath asserted for me and unless the Doctor equivocate in the words Ceremony or Rite and say he understands it of a Circumstance onely he cannot possibly escape the guilt of Superstition And this I foresee will be the onely Loop-hole whereout he will creep either making all Ceremonies but Circumstances of worship or all Circumstances of worship to be Ceremonies partly because it 's true that some in themselves considered Circumstances were by God made also Ceremonies or part of their Ceremonial worship as the Temple and Festivals and partly because I finde him thus evading hereafter p. 87. n. 13. The time or place when instituted by God himself is as truly a Circumstance of worship as when instituted by man c. Of which more in it's place at present I say Time and Place in their own nature are but meer Circumstances it 's the Institution of God that makes them Ceremonies or Ceremonial worship but I think the Doctor will not say so of the Institutions of the Church or if he do he will be self-confuted grant them that some Ceremonies are also Circumstances of worship yet are not all Circumstances also Ceremonies which they must be if the Doctor take them both for the same thing and this discovers his Ambiguities Equivocation and confusion in the several terms by him used of Rites Ceremonies Circumstances as Synonyma's in this discourse A second miscarriage here is that he takes for granted by his Adversaries That the use of Ceremonies when they are Significative may be allowed among Christians For so he sayes p. 7. n. 5. If the Disputers will but yield this that even when they are significative the use of Ceremonies may be allowed among Christians I shall then give my vote that they be paucae salubres c. Which he knows or may know they peremptorily deny except in such cases as I expressed sect 29. of Superstition To which the Doctor sayes just nothing having so fair an occasion offered him And if he take the word Ceremony for a Rite of worshipping God that is in the ordinary language of Divines for a part of worship as any one instituted by men will prove a Nimiety Excess and Superstition and not the multitude onely as he often asserts so in that notion by a part of worship himself hath renounced every Ceremony of mans devising and adding 3. n. 6. By granting they ought to be few one would think he granted there may be too many Ceremonies in a Church in Religion and then an excess in Religion and so the observers too Religious No sayes be this is no way a yielding a possibility that a man may be too Religious but when too many Ceremonies are accompanied with inward neglects there is not too much but too little Religion c. And why not both too much Religion in multitude of Ceremonies contrary to the Simplicity of Gospel worship too little in the neglect of inward duties certain it is those many Ceremonies are made Religious and are used in Religion the worship of God therefore the observers are too Religious and there may be and is an excess in Religion as his insectile Animals have too many legs but too little blood and so no calumnie proved For for want of a distinction he hides himself in equivocal termes in one sense he cannot be too Religious in another he may 1. To which purpose p. 8. n. 1. I gave a double distinction which he calls rather a perplexing then clearing the way I wonder with what eyes the Doctor looks upon other mens distinctions do's it not seem a paradox that a man may be too Religious in his Service of God to whom all is due needs it not an explication or distinction to clear it Did not the great School-man distinguish upon this proposition That Superstition is an excess in Religion Is not my first the same with his at least in sense A man cannot give God more worship then he deserves but he may give him more then he requires and his Will is the Rule of our worship But he excepts The two last members of both his distinctions are the same so too much a Tautology n. 2. and that is a Nimietie The Doctor was disposed to be merry and to shew his wit but sure there 's no great wisdom in this exception For 1. Are not both the distinctions true in themselves considered assunder if the former parts of them be distinct and not the same as they are not the distinctions are distinct and clear enough 2. The second proceeds by way of gradation upon the former that worship which God requires is either natural and there a man can hardly be too Religious or Instituted and there a man doing more then God requires may be too Religious that is In uncommanded worship the least addition of worship is too much and such a man may be said to be too Religious which are my words is not this plain enough The third and fourth number are spoken to already The next exception is His difference betwixt natural and instituted worship p. 9. n. 5. in this respect of Nimietie is perfectly vain and useless c. I pray why so is there not a difference between Natural and Instituted worship As also in respect of Nimietie that there can be no excess or very rarely in natural worship as in love filial fear trust in God c. but in Instituted there may a man may adde worship of his own to that which is commanded by God But his exceptions are useless and needless being but a strife of words First he sayes n. 6. Prayer is as properly a branch of natural worship as love or fear or trust being first inseparable from trust 2. A necessary and natural means of acknowledging Gods fulness and our wants 3. Containing under it thansgiving
c. Here are mistakes enough For first prayer is not as properly that is as fully a branch of natural worship as love c. For this is evident that there may be natural worship of love fear c. where there is no use of prayer as in the blessed Angels and Saints Of Super. s 27. I say prayer is natural and prescribed worship and besides prayer publique prayer at least is a part of Instituted worship 2. Hence it is not inseparable from trust love c. for they continue when prayer shall cease 3. Prayer and praising do also differ in themselves though we usually say praises or thanksgiving is a part of prayer and are not inseparable for prayer shall cease in heaven no need of prayer because want nothing 1 Cor. 13. last but praises shall continue for ever because have all things in God 4. Faith and Hope are natural worship as well as if not more then prayer yet they are not inseparable from love or prayer but shall cease with prayer when love and praises shall continue for ever the Doctor made this Exception to take occasion to empty his note book and to shew his Reading for no use at all of it otherwise unless it were in the close to vent a secret jear in these words Perhaps such evidences as these out of Naturalists are the Philophy against which the Reader was to be forewarned in the Title page As if no body had ever read them or understood them but himself But he excepts again p. 10. n. 7. to shew the uselesness of my distinction That it is as possible to exceed in trust in fear in love as in prayer Let him not equivocate n. 8. and then make this out Thus he that so trusts in God as not to fear he that so fears as not to love n. 9. he that so loves as not to fear c. is an exceeder in trust fear love I pray now first does he not grant what equivocally he hath denied that a man may be too Religious by excess in natural worship trust fear love Such a man is an exceeder in trust in fear in love 2. Hear his reasons He that so trusts in God as not to fear him c. is an exceeder in trust c. Which is as if he had said He that trusts not in God for such is he that fears not God is an exceeder in trust and so of the rest for this is certain he that fears not God or loves not God doth not trust him and vice versa he that trusts not God c. does not love him These graces are inseparable in a gracious heart and many more And if he speak of saving trust true filial fear and love of God there can be no Nimietie or excess in them A man may pretend to trust to fear to love God and do none of these in true Interpretation Saint John hath told us That he that loves not his brother loves not God let him make what pretences he please so it 's said of some hypocrites They feared the Lord served their own Gods 2 Kin. 17.33 in the next v. 34. They feared not the Lord they feared him with a slavish fear v. 25. because of the Lions but they feared him not with a filial fear which onely deserves the name of the Fear of God say the same of trust he that pretends to trust God and fears him not neglects means c. This man presumes but trusts not so the Doctor We are wont to express it by presuming But then I pray is not presumption an excess of hope as despair is the defect so is presumption an excess in Religion in a part of natural worship as despair is the defect in the same worship and so a man may be said to be too Religious Though it be true also in another sense those that so pretend to trust fear love God and do not are so far from being too Religious that they are not Religious at all and that 's indeed a defect What need then all this contention about nothing if the Doctor would but understand my meaning c. The sum is this He that in Religious worship addes any worship of his own devising is too Religious this is an excess in Religion And this is no perplexing nor leading the Reader into Maeanders and needs no Oedipus to resolve it Let 's hear how he will clear p. 11. n. 11. what I have clouded he asks me a question Doth be mean in these words more and addition any new Species of worship neither prescribed by the law of nature nor instituted by any positive Law of God or doth he designe onely some Circumstance or Ceremony which is not particularly commanded of God or the Word the rule of worship as time place gestures c. I answer clearly I mean it not of Circumstances named but of new Species or parts of worship I observe onely how he joyns Ceremony with Circumstance which ought not to be confounded as I noted afore But what then Before he take my answer he runs away with this error n. 14. the grand mistake of his whole book that I mean it of Circumstances and not of new kindes of worship and thereupon expatiates for many sections to fasten absurdities upon me to make me ridiculous to his Reader which will now revolve upon himself as one that wilfully mistakes and perverts the question and fights with his own shadow he knows and hereafter confesses more then once that I profess against this sense of the question what absurdity and Injustice then is this to fasten it upon me Yea here n. 13. he sayes If I mean it of Species or sorts of worship then he never doubted to affirm with me that all uncommanded worship is an excess if he please an error he should rather say a setting up that for worship of God which is not worship Now I appeal all Divines and indifferent Readers whether the Doctor hath not yielded the whole and main question between us My whole scope and intention being to beat down onely uncommanded worship not uncommanded Circumstances of worship no nor all Rites and Ceremonies unless they violate Scripture rules of which hereafter 2. Does not the Doctor here affirm with me that uncommanded worship is an excess an excess in Religion which he afore denied so peremptorily Let him call it error if he please there are errors in Religion in excess as well as defect this I call an excess in Religion 3. Yet fain he would evade all this by saying Setting up that for worship of God which is not worship nay perhaps quite contrary to worship If it be not worship then indeed it cannot be called an excess in worship But is not this a prevarication Is not false worship worship as well as true how else is worship distinguished by all and by himself into true and false do not the Species so he spake of new
sorts of worship even now partake equally of the nature of the genus Indeed in true construction of God false worship is no worship of him In vain do they worship me yet they worshipped though The Doctor may consider his Logick or Divinity here which he often jears me for hereafter But ex abundanti if the Doctor will understand the question not of Circumstances but of Ceremonies added to the worship of God and thereby say some made sorts or parts of worship I have I suppose proved that he with others does make some Ceremonies as Festivals c. not Circumstances but sorts and new kindes of worship the charge whereof he never goes about to remove It will be needless now to follow him in prosecuting his absurd inferences having removed the Antecedent whence they must proceed that I do not mean it of Circumstances unprescited but of uncommanded worship yet some things deserve to be taken notice of and some questions answered As 1. For prayer p. 12. n. 17. What hath the Rule of Scripture prescribed concerning the time of prayer as morning evening and that both positively and exclusively If so then by the standard of this Diatribist this Diatribist as this Publican Davids or Daniels praying three times a day must be criminous abominable c. and so he goes on with absurdities upon absurdities But whom do they fall upon but upon himself who knowes I mean it not of Circumstances but onely of uncommanded worship and yet goes on to scornful language enough If he cannot produce any such Scriture then is my Censor the guilty person the very Dogmatizer that teacheth for Doctrines or commandments of God his own Dictates and the doing so I cannot resist to be a Nimiety but not of Religion c. I will not recriminate let the Reader judge p. 13. n. 18. who deserves the name of Censor or Dictator in Religion most the Doctor or I. A second question is How many set dayes to be consecrated to the worship of God for Fasting or Prayer every week or year hath the rule of worship prescribed law or Gospel His answer to those will involve him in intricacies enough I answer clearly 1. For every week ordinarily but one day in seven extraordinary are left to Christian liberty and occasions 2. Both by Law and Gospel one day in a week By the Law in the fourth Commandment requiring one and but one in seven and by the Gospel designing onely one the Lords day as an holy day and a part of worship all other Jewish days being voided by the Gospel 3. By what words of the New Testament is the weekly observation of the Lords day commanded I answer for the number one in seven the fourth Commandment resolves it for the particular day the first Apostolical Institution which he hath oft confessed to be of Divine obligation 4. The observing of other dayes as Easter and Pentecost with the other Festivals if made parts of worship are expresly forbidden Gal. 4. If as Circumstances of worship onely they are besides the question And note this by the way that it 's no way probable the Apostle would cry down the Feast of the Passover and set up Easter in it's stead or Pentecost and set up Whitsuntide as parts of Worship I say for so they are by some made and accounted He that will resolve these questions any otherwise will finde himself involved in intricacies enough as I have elsewhere shewed His other demands p. 14. n. 19 20 21. concerning gestures in Prayer in Fasting in Alms-giving what proportions or degrees as also duties in the second Table c. they are all beside the question the three first as being but Circumstances of worship the last as being also no worship at all of which our question is But having thus digressed to give him satisfaction if he will take it we now return to consider what is said to my proofs of this proposition That a man may be to Religious or exceed in Religion The first is If addition may be made to the Rule of Religion then a man may be too Religious the consequence is proved because Addition to the Rule is excess in Religion the Antecedent from Deut. 4.2 where all Additions to Gods Commands are forbidden what sayes he to this He n. 22 23. sayes I prove Idem per Idem absurd enough if it were true but he must be reminded that the question was whether a man might be too Religious which he denied and after my explication of it by distinctions I proved by this argument afore which whether it be to prove idem per idem n. 24. let Logicians judge As for the matter he sayes The major is false in stead of clear If it be false it is in his sense and not in mine and if not clear it is by his obscuring it taking Addition to the Rule of worship for adding some Circumstance of worship which I meant for Addition of worship it self and he confesses That he indeed that introduces any new part of Divine worship is a presumptuous assumer doth more then be should because that which he should not do Just the same that I maintain Let him say He is too bold that doth so I and others say he exceeds in Religion and is too Religious presumption in the worship of God by adding worship to it being an excess But my Assumption is also questioned upon the same willful mistake I fear and my Scripture called to the bar Deut. 4 2. Doth he that prostrates himself in prayer adde to the word of God p. 15. n. 26. then sure he that walks in the garden doth so too c. How oft shall he be told we speak of adding uncommanded worship not of observing Circumstances of time place gestures in commanded worship But let us hear his learned gloss upon this Scripture The meaning is most evident that they were to perform uniform obedience to God not to make any change in Gods commands p. 16. n. 26. either to pretend more liberties or fewer obligations or again more obligations and fewer liberties but to set themselves humbly to the performance of his precepts That is his precepts concerning his worship as well as other duties of common life That is if I might gloss it neither to adde to nor detract from his commands of worship but to perform uniform obedience to God c. which is the very thing I have so long pleaded for My second proof was from the School-man who makes Religion a moral virtue standing between too extreams Superstition in the excess and Profaneness or no Religion in the defect This sure is plain and easie but not to the Doctor He grants the two extreams On the one side superstition on the other irreligion Then say I he grants an excess in Religion called Superstition c. But see what a dust he makes to cloud the business Superstition is of two sorts 1. The
some Authors both Heathen and Divine it signifie a criminous excess and if Superstitiosus so signifie so may Superstitio from whence it comes But he sayes when Superstitiosus is used in an ill sense as when we say a Superstitious person it 's clear that Superstition there signifies Heathen worship or worshipping of others beside the one true God c. That 's not true for the worshipping of the true God in an undue and unlawful manner is by the School-man and by most Divines yea the Doctor himself p. 24. n. 12. called Superstition And many other kindes of Superstition the Doctor hath acknowledged as appears in these concessions we are now upon which cannot signifie Heathen worship that is worshipping of others beside the one true God as we shall shew in those concessions that follow It 's true indeed that he that is Superstitions acts like one of those false worshippers and agrees with them in some eminent branch of their false worship As Papists worshipping Angels Images Bread c. act like Heathens but they are Superstitious in many other things that Heathens were never guilty of this therefore was but an evasion to take away the suspicion of Superstition from himself and his party by laying it upon others Secondly angel-Angel-worship is an excess and by the Doctor called that crime of Superstition But sayes he is this an excess of Religion or not rather impiety Might not a man wonder at this question It is both excess of Religion and also an Impiety It 's therefore Impiety because it exceeds the Rule of worship p. 25. n. 18. 'T is true sayes he this is an addition to the object of worship But is not an Addition to the object of worship an Addition to the Rule of worship God alone is to be worshipped Yes sayes he again As death is an adition to life i.e. destruction to the oneness of that and as adultery is an addition to marital love and fidelity What just so and no otherwise Surely death is the deprivation of not an Addition to life but worshipping others with the true God is not destructive of worship but onely addes false-worship to it and that 's another manner of Addition then of death to life It corrupts true worship but does not destroy worship But then the old Jealousie again What 's this to the prejudice of uncommanded Ceremonies Circumstances he should say Nothing at all for he knowes the controversie is about uncommanded worship The like answer is made to the next alledged concession The worshipping Daemons by Heathens and of Saints by Papists is called Superstition by the Doctor But sayes he The using of an uncommanded Rite is none of these That 's not the question n. 19. I asked why these are called Superstition but because they adde to the to the Rule of worship He likes not my reason It was visible enough in the naming of Superstitum cultus and the worshipping of them is Superstition Nor do I like his no-reason it answers not my question why is the worshipping of Daemons Superstition The answer he makes is idem per idem The worshipping of Daemons is Superstition because it is the worshipping of Daemons why is that unlawful because it is forbidden By what Law the first Commandment which Commands God alone to be the object of worship Then worshipping of others with or beside God is an Addition to the object and so to the Rule of worship Why so doth sacriledge adde to the rule of worship even when it robs God in this sense doing something which the rule commands not no nor permits and yet that is not Superstition This is his Capriccio a meer prevarication For 1. Sacriledge some refer to the eighth Commandment which sure is no Rule of worship 2. If it fall in the first Table it is rather to be called profaneness then Superstition not Adding but taking away from the worship of God 3. It does something which the Rule commands not nor does permit but so does adultery one of his instances against the seventh Commandment but that 's no Rule of Worship But we speak of worship and doing worship which the Rule commands not therefore worshipping of Daemons may well be called Superstition for this Reason for one because it addes to the Rule of worship Though uncommanded Rites if not made parts of worship are not called Superstition for this reason because they are not Additions to the Rule of worship There is a double fallacie in his words some thing for some worship and the Rule commands not for the Rule of worship Dolosus versatur in universalibus In the next we are like to be longer p. 26. n. 20. Slavish fear is granted to be Superstition because it is an excess of that fear which is a part of worship in the first Commandment For which I confess my mistake by haste I referred to Sect. 24 25. which should have been Sect. 13. There the Doctor speaking of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes It may sometimes perhaps be set to import a cowardly trembling fear Will the Doctor be so bold to defend such a fear as good the Superstitious man is Religious and cowardly fears the Gods and is afraid of them The Pious man comes to God without fear the Superstitious with much fear dreading the Gods as so many Tyrants The Religious man reveres God the Superstitious is afraid of him and consequently to that Religion is the worshipping of God See p. 58. n. 3. Superstition the wronging of him the Superstitious wishes there were no Gods as the Atheist thinks there is none All which I thought were a full description of Slavish fear the common Attendant on Superstition Upon that mistake of mine the Doctor takes advantage and playes upon me See p. 57. p. Who would have expected the Diatribist a favourer of the Sect of Epicurus as he must be if this fear of God which Epicurus called Superstition be by him looked upon as an excess of that worship of the first Commandment c. Who would have expected the Doctor should be thus rash to suppose or censure me to be a favourer of that wicked Sect when he hears me profess Superst s 21. What Epicurus Doctrine was or what Heathens though of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are not much sollicitous I looked not then at that fear of God which Epicurus would have cast out of the world but that fear of the Superstitious which the Doctor hath described from several Authors that I called Slavish Fear and an excess of that Fear commanded in the first Commandment This the Doctor calls the Ordinary Divinity concerning slavish fear p. 28. n. 22 and thereupon takes occasion to read us a Divinity Lecture concerning Slavish fear But first he must without me state the question And suppose that by it I understand fear of punishment as by filial fear a reverential obedience proceeding wholly from love without any thing
pag. 26. n. 20. from the Authority of Heathens who he sayes best knew the sense of the word and the nature of Superstitious persons A trembling and so a cowardly fear of God And is not a cowardly fear of God a slavish fear an excess in the fear of God an excess in Religion and justly called Superstition But he qualifies his concession As yielding the Dogmatizer to be a Superstitious person We must be content with what he will give for he is not very liberal but shall make this advantage of it that Superstitum cultus the worshipping of Daemons is neither the onely nor the chief sense of Superstitio or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the dogmatizer is yielded a Superstitious person and a cowardly fear of God is granted an excess and Superstition which is so far from worshipping of God that it hates and flies from him as a cruel Tyrant But if this be granted and much more n. 14. viz. Six senses p. 31. n. 30. wherein the Doctor hath yielded That excess in Religion may well be called Superstition Why might not this have saved me so much pains of affixing the contrary position upon him that excess in Religion is not well called Superstition Truely this may seem a ground of wonder and how to reconcile the Doctor with himself I know not For that he denies excess in Religion to be called or be Superstition yea that there can be any excess in Religion he denies is evident afore ad p. 20. n. 2. And yet forgetting himself confesses by several assertions that Excess in Religion mark that may well be called Superstition I leave him to agree with himself and proceed to the old exception n. 31. Mean while sayes he the Doctors Hypothesis is still secure this no wayes belongs to the using or prescribing Ceremonies in the worship of God c. I never said it did but onely to prescribing or using uncommanded worship But if the Doctor make his Circumstances or Ceremonies parts of worship as it will appear he does it will touch his coppy-hold and prove excess in Religion and no better then Superstition The last concession of the Doctor is now to be considered To place more vertue in things n. 32. then God or nature hath put in them is an excess because it addes to the promises of Christ and called Superstition Sect. 45. He fairly yields the cause This is another particular which I allow to be an excess and fit to be comprehended under the stile of Superstition Quod erat demonstrandum which was the thing I undertook to prove Onely we must gratifie him again that we do not charge him With yielding that the Ceremonies or Festivals of our Church are in the least degree guilty of Superstition provided he do not make them parts of worship more holy c. but meer Circumstances thereof And thus much of this second ground of his mistake The third is p. 32. n. 3. That Will worship is nothing but voluntary worship as innocent as the Free-will-offerings c. To the former part of which he sayes Is there any the nicest difference imaginable betwixt Will-worship and Voluntary-worship c. Dolosus versatur in universalibus and hates distinctions as a thief does the light Doth not may not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie either Willing-worship or Will-devised-worship and is there no difference between them two Is here not the same distinction to be made of cultus voluntarius voluntary worship And do not most Divines take Will-worship and Voluntary-worship in an ill sense for Will-devised worship as I shew below and call it Superstitio in that one text where it is used which hath respect to uncommanded worship the same with Will-devised worship Doth then this tergiversation become a learned ingenuous Adversary But to the second part as innocent as Free-will-offerings c He sayes with the same evasion Free-will offerings were certainly one species of Voluntary-worwip therefore those being innocent so must this But I pray say were the Free-will-offerings Will-devised worship In that sense of voluntary that they were freely and willingly offered the kindes of that worship being prescribed by God we can grant them voluntary but that is not the controverted sense nor does the Doctor own that sense of the word but takes it for offerings or oblations not commanded by God but tendered to him by the will of man as hath been shewed and shall be shewed hereafter Will the Doctor allow these oblations this worship to be as innocent as the Free-will-offerings He must or he sayes nothing to the question yea he does maintain this paradox as we shall hear And that I understood Will-worship in that sense and voluntary for uncommanded worship p. 33. n. 6. he may see by my first Argument which was this It seemes a contradiction in adjecto that voluntary and uncommanded worship should be innocent for first it is expresly against the second Commandment c. His answer is That may seem a contradiction to Mr. C. which doth not to other men Is it what it seemes or is it not It was my modesty to say it seemes yet sometimes seeming is put for really so when I might have said it is so upon this supposition which I shall prove by and by that uncommanded worship is forbidden in the second Commandment For thus the Argument would be formed If uncommanded Will-devised-worship be forbidden in the second Commandment it is a contradiction in adjecto to say it is innocent But the first is true ergo To say then it is forbidden and not forbidden is a contradiction but to say it is forbidden and yet innocent is to say it is forbidden and not forbidden ergo The Doctor does but obscure the matter by his Logical notions of contradiction and I list not to follow him But consider what he sayes to the purpose In this proposition voluntary n. 7. or uncommanded worship is innocent there is no contradiction c. True first if he take voluntary for Willing-worship of willing performance of prescribed worship that 's innocent enough and no contradiction But secondly take voluntary for uncommanded worship and that 's not innocent I say uncommanded worship not uncommanded Circumstances to be innocent is a contradiction because uncommanded worship is by all men even the Doctor himself acknowledged to be forbidden and so unlawful or not innocent Hic aqua haerebit For he presently addes Of forbidden worship this were true for innocency to be attributed to that were a contradiction in adjecto c. But say I says he elsewhere all uncommanded worship is forbidden ergo The difference between forbidden and voluntary that is not Commanded-worship is none at all by his own concession if he take Voluntary-worship in any other sense he forsakes both the question it self his own sense of it formerly given Hence that proposition of his All being lawful which is not forbidden is a blinde It 's
Superstites essent prayed whole dayes and offered sacrifice that their children might survive and out-live them and then addes Ita factum est c. So it came to pass that the word Superstitious was a name of a vice and Religious of a virtue Whence it is observable from him first That Superstition was the name of a vice in it's first Origination 2. That the true Etymologie of it is not from Superstitum cultus but Superstites esse 3. That the notion of Superstition Postea pateit latius was further enlarged for so he sayes that is to signifie more that Superstites esse viz. Superstitum cultus and other things beside and 4. That Superstitiosus and Religiosus differed very much the one a vice the other a virtue which we shall have occasion to make use of again hereafter But thirdly for the sense of those words in Sacred Scripture no Heathen Authour as he floutingly speakes they are now under debate and must be Interpreted by other Scriptures 4. For Lactantius and S. Austin though both of them do refuse Cicero's Etymology of Religio and Religiosus à relegendo fetching it rather à religando and of Superstitio from Superstites esse yet Ludovicus vives a Learned Critick labours to reconcile them and Cicero in the latter For upon S. Austin lib. 4. ad Marcellinum c. 30. he hath these words Cicero does not onely say that they were Superstitious who prayed so for their children for he addes that Name was afterwards enlarged that is accommodated to many other things Cicero speaking of it in the first Origination of it and Lactantius in a second usage denominating them Superstitious qui falsam religionem colerent Superstitemque defunctorum memoriam who did set up a false Religion and Celebrated the memory of the deceased so he Yea Lactantius himself so speaks l. 4. c. 28. Qui novos sibi ritus assumebant ut in Deorum vicem mortuos honorarent hos superstiosos vocabant Nimirum Religio veri cultus Superstitio falsi Where he enlarges Superstition to all false-False-worship as well as Superstitum cultus But of the difference between Religious and Superstitious we shall have occasion to speak again Section 2. Superstition in the general notion of it is not unfitly defined by the learned School-man A vice contrary to Religion in the excess c. HE begins here with a mistake That I took Aquinas his definition out of Doctor Ames who hath it not at all which I took out of Aquinas himself p. 42. n. 1. setting the place in the Margine where I had it and after explain'd it partly by the words of Amesius and partly out of Aquinas himself because it may seem a paradox that a man can be too Religious Why the Doctor should thus impose upon me I know not except it were to make his Reader believe that I took up my Divinity or trust from some modern Casuist having never read Aquinas my self But let that go with the rest of his secret flouts But we are beholden to him that he agrees with Aquinas not in his definition of Superstition to be an excess in Religion for that he hath disputed against and refused to say any thing to it when it was objected to him in my Preface but in making the Worship of all but God and the Worship of God in any forbidden or abolisht manner to be species of Superstition First I would demand why he added the word abolisht If that be the same with forbidden it was a needless addition if it differ from it then there is another species of Superstition viz. To revive Abolished-worship which yet is contrary to another notion of the * Willwor s 3. p. 19. n. 32. Rites of the old Law are not onely not commanded but forbidden under Christ Doctor when these abstinences touch not taste not c. are imposed and taught as Divine obliging precepts this is an abuse of them which were otherwise innocent things c. Yet now sayes he makes the Worship of God in any abolisht manner to be a species of Superstition By those words out of Aquinas prout non debet in that manner which he ought not I understood not uncommanded Circumstances but Worship as I have often said Nor did Aquinas or Amesius own any such sense of those words but meant it the one of Illegitimeworwip that 's the title of that Question in Aquinas the other of Vndue-worship those are Doctor Ames his words Yet the Doctor taking that to be our sense flies out in this manner If Amesius have owned that sense then he was one of the Gasuists which I forementioned as the derivers of this prejudice into the Diatribist and if Ursine Doctor Fulk Master Perkins are rightly cited in his margine c. then we have perhaps the full catalogue of them and the Diatribist is now of age to consider whether they have proved or onely dictated in this matter Upon a meer mistake for they all four no Contemptible Authors with many more mean the same with Aquinas Worship not commanded but Added by the will of man My distribution of the Subject of the four first Commandments into 1. the Object 2. the Matter 3. the Manner 4. the Time of Worship he sayes p. 43. n 2. They are no way qualified for such a structure to conclude all excess in any of these to be Superstition there being scarce any one minute part of sound Doctrine in all this I am sorry to see the Doctor so poor a Catechist as no better to understand the difference of those four Commandments Not any one minute part of sound Doctrine in all this Then sure most of our reformed Divines are very unsound who make the same distinction in sense that I do as I could easily prove and shall make appear in all the particulars when we hear what he sayes to them In the first n. 3. 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 c. There is then this minute part of sound Doctrine in my words that the right object of worship though it be not the principal yet it is some part of that first Commandment Yea this is the principal matter or object of the Commandment in the express words God alone is to be worshipped without any rivals to or in that worship For the Commandhath two parts a Negative no other Gods an Affirmative but Me or before My face and both concern the object of our worship and not one word of the worship it self but that followes by way of Consequence If we have a God natural reason tells us he must be worshipped he must be treated with addressed to c. as the Doctor speaks which are not properly worship but the manner how we must come to him to tender our worship neither is there the least mention of parts of worship
in all his Ordinances c. I spare to produce any more of our Divines and return to the Doctor He says 1. Thou shalt not take the Name c. is undoubtedly no more then thou shalt not forswear thy self 2. Swearing simply is not reduced to this Commandment I demand then to what Commandment was common rash ordinary swearing reduced or were the Jewes indulged swearing as some of the Fathers seem to hold and to swear by the creatures also The Law Deut. 6.13 c. Thou shalt swear by his Name imports two things 1. That swearing there was not meant of Ordinary swearing in common discourse but upon just occasions before a Magistrate c. 2. That when they did swear they must swear by the Name of God that is by God himself and no other creature or thing That Law of Moses was not a permission as the Doctor calls it but a precept What then does the Doctor mean by swearing simply taken c. That it was sometimes lawful to swear upon just occasions That 's allowed also in the Gospel our Saviour came not to void that Law or that * See p. 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all is forbidden by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 3. Com. As if it were allowed by the Law before simple swearing either without perjury or ordinarily by the Name of God was permitted the * Seep 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all is forbidden by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 3. Com. As if it were allowed by the Law before Jewes by Moses This I suppose he will not say Yet faintly sayes the contrary Perhaps foolish wanton sure prophane blasphemous using of Gods Name may be resolved to be there forbidden by reduction Is it but perhaps foolish and wanton using of Gods Name may be resolved to be there forbidden It 's well he will yield that profane and blasphemous using of Gods Name is there forbidden Yet I would be bold to ask my Catechist one question more How can I say not foolish and wanton profane and blasphemous using of Gods Name be forbidden in that Commandment so much as by reduction if the taking Gods Name in vain be undoubtedly no more then thou shalt not forswear thy self Cannot men profane and blaspheme Gods Name but onely when they forswear themselves or have foolish and wanton using Gods Name by common swearing any thing to do with perjury I would but propound this argument To use the Name of God unreverently was ever a Sin against some moral Law but to use the Name of God foolishly wantonly much more profanely blasphemously is to use the Name of God unreverently and vainly ergo If against a Moral-law I ask again Against which Commandment if not against the third To shut up this the Doctor sayes Pract. Cat. p. 121. Swearing by other inferior things are now utterly unlawful What now onely were they not so in the Old-law It seemes not by the Doctor for he sayes this is something that Christ hath added to perfect the Law A Christian must not use any of those Oaths Belike a Jew might But why not a Christian now Hear his reason Because every of these are Creatures of God whose whole being consists in reference to him not to be subjected to their lust to be tost defamed by their unnecessary oaths Will not the same reason serve against the Jewes swearing by inferior Creatures were they not then the Creatures of God and the rest Why might not the Doctor have given this reason because it is a taking of Gods Name in vain which is much made known by the Creatures and against the Commandment which requires that when men do swear they swear onely by his Name But these would have marred his new gloss I leave it to him And now we are come to consider the subject of the fourth Commandment the right time his own appointed day Which he does not cannot deny for he hath granted it elsewhere but yet hath somewhat to say p. 44. n. 6. 1. Sure not so as to prohibit all others there were other Fast and Feasts appointed besides the weekly rest c. 'T is true but then they were of Gods own appointment who may dispense with his own Lawes and if appointed by men they were but Circumstances not parts of Worship as the Doctor confesses But I was speaking of Worship he knows In Religion or Worship of God four things are considerable the last whereof is a right Time his own appointed Day viz. as a part of Worship and so all other Days are forbidden But then secondly he hath another elusion Under the New Testament the first day of the week certainly was not the last which the Decalogue prescribed c. This will prove the Doctors mistake common to him with others That the fourth Commandment prescribed nothing but the seventh or last day of the week Which if it be true the fourth Commandment is as fully void as that Commandment which prescribed the seventh year Sabbath or any other particular Holy-day The Doctor himself hath granted that the fourth commandment requires that we give God not less then one day in seven which if it be true the principal matter of the fourth Commandment was not that seventh day for that is void sayes he say all but one day in seven but still of Divine appointment as being a part of Worship The Lords day then being one of seven and confessedly of Divine Institution by the Apostles whose appointments were Divine There is no asking why the Apostles should not either they or their successors institute other dayes as parts of Worship that must be minded the reason is because the Apostles had Divine Authority to institute the Lords day according to the fourth Commandment one day of seven but neither they much less their successors can produce any Commission to institute other dayes I say still as parts of Worship if as Circumstances onely of Worship it is nothing to the purpose as I have often said And now for all that is said the Subjects of the four first Commandments are distinct and clear as I have propounded them and will be a ground sufficient to build that on which is intended p. 44. n. 7. That Superstition may extend to the whole first Table when there is a nimiety or excess in any one of them To the further confirming whereof I now proceed But first the Doctor is willing to expose me to the scorn of all Readers for want of Ingenuity or Charity to make the best construction of my words He sayes n. 8. to perswade that assertion afore he commends one observation to us but such as I think never slipt from any man before him Surely the Doctor hath met with some Errata's in some Authors Printed which are as unreasonable or as much non-sense as these of mine are He might have said either it may be the Printers fault or some Inadvertency in the
defigning the Species or kindes of Superstition c. First the learned School-man who makes but three kindes of it c. HEre I am first charged for wronging Aquinas saying p. 49. n. 7. he makes but three kindes of Superstition whereas it 's evident he makes four It 's true in the conclusion he makes four but in the body of that Article he reduces them all to three or rather he makes but two 1. when worship is given to the true God but in an undue manner 2. When it is given to a Creature and that sayes he may be divided into many species and he reduces them to three Idolatry Divination and vain Observations Ligatures c. Now it 's evident that the School-man is confused enough in designing the Species of Superstition and the last of Ligatures spells and vain observations c. may very well be reduced to Divination as done by assistance of the Divel as the Doctor if I mistake not hath somewhere refer'd them But this is but a strife of words certain it is he is not distinct enough in this designation nor hath discocovered all the Species of Superstition which the Doctor himself hath yielded some whereof will not fall well under any of those which Aquinas hath assigned unless they may be referred to his cultus indebitus For thus they may be ranged Superstition is of two sorts first when Worship is given to a creature which is due onely to the Creator or second When Worship is tendered to the true God but non prout debet indebito modo in an undue manner and of this there are many Species as Aquinas confesses Now that Aquinas is short in his distribution I prove thus from himself If Superstition be a vice contrary to Religion in general in the excess then according to the general Rules of Religion there may be so many kindes of Superstition But the first is his own definition ergo The consequence is proved because Superstition may extend as far as Religion Now Religion in general considers either the right object to whom Worship ought to be tendered God alone in the first Commandment or the right way how God will be worshipped and that is in there particulars first The right meanes as some call instituted Worship in the second Commandment his own prescribed Worship or 2. The right manner of tendering it with all reverence or 3. The right Time especially his own designed Day and so the kindes of Superstition vary according to these Rules of Religion Aquinas himself Art 1. there in Corp. thus concludes it Superstition is a vice opposite to Religion in the excess not because it exhibites more to the Worship of God then true Religion but because it exhibites Divine worship to whom it ought not or in that manner it ought not And that manner is threefold as I have said But it 's no heeding what Aquinas sayes in designing the kinds of Superstition who was himself drowned in the Romish Superstition which he would be tender to touch upon A second mistake charged upon me is in referring Idolatry to the first Commandment as some Divines do p. 49. n. 2. But sayes he Those Divines must needs be those that put the first and second Commandments into one as Aquinas did and I hoped the Diatribist had not been of his perswasion else those words Thou shalt not make to thy self c. being supposed to make a second Commandment no Divine can be so irrational as to deny Idolatry to be prohibited there I could answer first That the Doctor may well be placed among those Divines who put the first and second Commandment into one as was shewed above But I say further this will prove but a strife of words For if Idolatry be taken strictly for the worshipping of an Idol or Image so it belongs to the second Commandment but if it be taken for the Worship of Heathen Gods c. as often it is then I hope the Doctor will not deny but Idolatry may be found in the first Commandment Is not Polytheisme Idolatry is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the worshipping of Daemons or Angels Idolatry not against the second Commandment for that prohibites onely Idol or Image-worship sayes the Doctor but Angels and Daemons may be Worshipped without any Image Shall we take the Doctors own former thoughts of this matter He told us a good while ago That the Heathen Idolatry Of Idolatry Sect. 65. p. 42. was the worshipping of the many false Gods first and then of the Images of them Mark here two sorts of Idolatry whereof the first is not the second and therefore not in the second Commandment but in the first or none And when I said Divination which is a consulting with the Divel is the worst kinde of Idolatry as worshipping the Divel the worst of Creatures instead of God I hope the Doctor will not deny it to be Idolatry bad enough I demand against what Commandment not the second for that he sayes prohibites onely Image-worship but those that use Divination do not alwayes Worship the Divel in an Image and therefore that Idolatry is not forbidden in the second but in the first Commandment I suppose then the Doctor doth mistake with Aquinas rather then speak truth with me when he sayes He supposes Aquinas was in the right in this that made it a Species of Superstition not of Idolotry and so it must more fitly belong to the first Commandment and so must Illegitimate Worship being an offence against the due maner of Gods Worship But first Divination may be a Species of Idolatry and of Superstition too if Idolatry be as it is a species of Superstition 2. How he can say So it must more fitly belong to the the first * So he says n. 3. Commandment I do not well understand for he said just before If Divination be Idolatry sure that must be forbidden under the second Commandment Unless he will have it belong to both Commandments the first as it is Superstition the second as it is Idolatry which I see not how he can well say thirdly That Illegitimate Worship being an offence against the due manner of Gods Worship must also belong to the first Commandment is neither agreeable with the truth nor with with Aquinas who makes the Species of Superstition to respect the * To worship the true God by an Image is it not a sin against the manner of his Worship Object of Worship cui non debet and 2. the mode or manner of Worship to the right Object the first whereof must needs belong to the first Commandment and the other to other Commandments These are indeed but niceties but such as the Doctor is pleased to exercise us with and do not a little concern himself It is confessed by the Doctor p. 49 n. 3. That it was an error in Amesius to understand by the word Superstition no more but the tendering of undue Worship to God
ancientest Latine Christian Authors who speaks fully the Language of our Reformed Divines Siquidem quae sine ullius aut Dominici aut Apostolici praeceptae authoritate fiunt ea non Religioni sed Superstitioni deputantur affectata coacta curiosi potius quam rationalis officii Where he gives an example of such Superstition There were in the Church at that time certain that contrary to the custome of the Church would * Sure this was not Superstitum cultus put off their cloaks when they went to prayer placing some Religion in that Ceremony as Heathens used to do to whom he answers Quod utique si fieri oporteret Apostoli qui quae de habitu orandi docent comprehendissent And comes off with an elegant Charientismus Nisi sequi putant Paulum penulam suam Adv. Marci l. 1. c. 5. in oratione penes Carpum reliquisse And the Doctor himself hath cited another like place out of Tertullian p. 16. n. 28. to put a difference between Superstition and Religion speaking of worshipping of two Gods Vererer nè abundantja officit Superstitio potius quam Religio crederetur Where abundantia officii may well signifie an excess in Religion 5. From Lactantius who in the place cited above upon another occasion though he approve not the notation Superstition nor yet of Religion given by Cicero à Relegendo yet clearly put 's the difference between Religion and Superstition Quid ergo est Nimirum Religio veri cultus Superstitio falsi Religiosos se putant cum sint Superstitiosi 6. From Saint Austin cited by Aquinas as the Doctor recites it p. 16. Cecidit bestia Superstitionis The beast of Superstition is destroyed by the first Commandment of the Decalogue prescribing the Worship of one God Tract of Superst s 13. He would not surely call that by the name of Religion And Austin is affirmed to say Deum à Religioso vereri à Superstioso timeri and consequently to that addes the Doctor Religio Deum colit Superstitio violat as Max. Tyrius compared a Pious man to a friend a Superstitious to a flatterer the Pious man comes to God without fear the Superstitious man with much fear This beside much more that might be produced out of Saint Austin is enough to shew Austin took Superstition for a vice contrary to Religion 7. From the great School-man and all his followers in the Romish School whose definition of Superstition we have so often heard clearly differences Superstition from Religion It is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess making worshipping of Creatures to be but one Species of it and illegimate-Illegimate-worship in general to be the other which also hath several Species under it as we have shewed Before him the Gloss Interlin gave this Superstitio est Religio supra modum servata on Col. 2. Which what is it but Religion so called in the excess 8. From all our Reformed Divines Forraign and Domestick who all generally take Superstition in an ill sense as an addition to or excess of Religion and never in a good sense All this and much more the Doctor knew well enough and yet shakes them all off as of so small authority that scarce worth producing as we shall hear anon But perhaps the Doctor will say p. 71. n. 4. He never imagined Superstition truly so called to have no ill in it But what does he truly call Superstition nothing willingly but worshipping of Daemons Hear what he sayes See n. 7. The thing which I contest is not this that the Worship of Daemons is or ever was true or lawful but that beside this adding the like of illegitimate Worship there is nothing else n. 9. which hath been lookt on as simply bad in Superstition particularly not the excess as that signifies unprescribed uncommanded Worship which is the onely matter of the present contest with such as the Diatribist But first does he not say Illegitimate-worship is lookt upon as simply bad as well as Worship of Daemons what difference is there between Vncommanded Worship and Illegitimate Does not Illegitimate signifie Unlawful Worship and is not Uncommanded Worship also unlawful His meaning is as afore that Illegitimate signifies that which is forbidden by Law which is more then Vncommanded No it 's the very same for what Worship soever is not commanded is forbidden 2. If this be all the contest with me and such as I am the controversie will soon be at an end For I mean by Vncommanded Worship nothing but forbidden Worship and that the Doctor hath granted or cannot deny to be an excess super statutum an addition and simply bad and unlawful I shall therefore accept of his condition offered and invert his own words Never to apply the word any otherwise n. 5. then the Scripture and Christian writers do for Daemon Worship or undue Illegitimate Worship upon condition that he will grant that in that sense the word signifies an excess in Religion in any part of Uncommanded Worship I say Vncommanded Worship not Uncommanded Circumstances or Rites unless made parts of Worship The contest not being at all of the latter as is confessed Yet renounced again in the following words p. 37. n. 10. He must set the question as elsewhere he doth of excessive as that signifies no more than Uncommanded Worship without the addition of being false it being evident that I defend not false Worship of any kinde to be good but that Ceremonies or Institutions of Worship not commanded by God may be perfectly lawful and that is the onely question between us Is not here first a contradiction to that he said before that the onely matter of contest was of excess n. 9. as that signifies Vncommanded Worship now it is onely of Ceremonies c. not commanded by God 2. Is not here a second contradiction that he defends not False Worship to be good and yet defends Vncommanded Worship which is False Worship And 3. Is it not a third contradiction to say that I elsewhere set the question of excessive as that signifies Uncommanded False Worship and yet to say I must set it as it signifies Ceremonies or Circumstances c. not commanded which he confesses oft I do disclaime Here are as many mistakes as well could be in so few words The rest concerning Acts 25.19 17.23 have sufficiently been spoken to before and I pass it by Onely one thing must be taken notice of and explained to rectifie the Doctors understanding of those words of mine p. 76. n. 20. Supérstitiosus in the positive signifies excess more then in the comparative which sayes he are not very intelligible to him at least But the fault was none of mine but the Printers for want of a Comma after excess then the sense is clear thus n. 21. Superstitiosus in the positive signifies excess more then that is much more then in the comparative which exceeds the positive Superstitiosiores given
signifie a Nimiety or Excess in Religion c. THere is nothing said to these Sections p. 82. n. 1. but what hath been said many times heretofore and therefore I lightly pass them by Onely desiring the Reader to take notice that the Doctor having given three reasons against my Assertion That Superstition signifies an excess and I having spoken to them all he replies not a word to them but seemes to yield all and yet upon my Preface denies that ever he denied Superstition to be an excess See ad p. 20. n. 2. His onely evasion is That those Divines condemn Superstition but mean not by it every excess in Worship not prescribed as that comprehends all Ceremonies and Festivals not commanded by God and those are the men he meant when he said They are so few modern of so small authority that scarce worth producing But first I am confident the Doctor cannot produce one modern Divine of note that ever simply condemned all Ceremonies and Festivals c. for themselves did observe some Ceremonies and Festivals taking occasion to preach upon them c. they onely condemn'd them as they were made parts of Worship equally holy with the Lords Day c. 2. I provoked the Doctor to give us the names of those many Ancient Authentick Fathers c. that take Superstition in a good sense He uses not to be so sparing c. and yet not one produced Whereas I have given him many that take it in an ill sense p. 82. n. 2. for excess in Religion All Divines condemn Superstition but mean not by it every excess in Worship not prescribed as that phrase comprehends all Ceremonies and Festivals not commanded by God But first all Divines do condemn Superstition for this reason because it is an excess or addition of Worship not prescribed according to the School-mans definition of it before given and therefore must necessarily mean it of every excess in Worship not prescribed 2. If Ceremonies and Festivals not commanded by God be made parts of Worship by men as they are by Papists and the Doctor himself they mean by that phrase to comprehend all Ceremonies and Festivals not commanded by God And these Divines are many and of no small Authority though the Doctor slights and contemns them And I might ask the Doctor Why is Daemonum cultus called Superstition but because it is an excess in Worship adding the Daemons or false Gods to the object or Rule of Worship in the first Commandment Just so it is in all the other three Commandments the Superstition in them is an excess in the matter manner or time of Worship not prescribed by God Section 30. Of this kinde are those three sort of significant Ceremonies c. I Expected here n. 4. p. 83. that the Doctor would have shewed his opinion of significant Ceremonies not those mentioned by me and him but used in our Church as Cross in Baptisme Surplice c. have declared his Judgement whether such significations put upon them by men do not make them Religious Ceremonies and so parts of Worship and consequently superstitious But he wisely waves the debate and falls upon the observation of Decency Vniformity and Obedience to Superiors which he must mean of Circumstances of Worship not of new sorts or kindes of Worship No Obedience is due to Superiors when they command such But he as wisely lets go the rest when they are taught as making the observers more Religious then others or more acceptable to God c. I ask now if a man should put Religion * That a man is heard non said it in a gesture in a place c. Or think that it will make quia precatur sed quia ibi He knows what B. him more acceptable to God Whether this would not make them parts of Worship and so superstitious ergo If a man should place more Religion Holiness acceptation c. in praying in a Church privately in kneeling at the Supper then in sitting or standing all being left indifferent let the Doctor say whether this be Superstition or no I believe many of our Ignorant and Formal Protestants do so though the Doctor himself perhaps will say he looks onely at the command of his Superiors enjoyning that gesture Sect. 31.32 But herein the Doctor is again mistaken that he sayes c. THe Doctor confesses That in the Church of Rome p. 84. n. 6. there is a great multitude of Ceremonies and Festivals which may be capable of the title of weight and yoke but the Church of England is far more sparing As if he had said the Church of England laid a weight and yoke upon her members but not so great and heavy as Rome layes upon hers This is but little for her Commendation Fatemur Ceremonias non esse nimis multiplicandas Bellar. de effect Sacr. c. 30. But were not the Ceremonies in the Church of England many in themselves and compared with other Reformed Churches Besides the old ones of Cross in Baptisme Surplice bowing as oft as Jesus was named kneeling at Sacrament c. and all those many Holy-dayes which some people found to be a heavy yoke the New ones that were by some well affected to Rome even near upon imposing as bowings and cringings at Church door in the midst and Chancel and at the Altar and what else God knows would not these be a reasonable number to deserve the name of a multitude And then I would know what number of Ceremonies will make a burden and a yoke will 20. or 30. or more do it and if under 10. will that be no yoke let the Doctor state and settle his number Then I ask again why are 30. or 20. a yoke is it because of their number why then 10. is number sufficient to make a lesser yoke But if the reason be as indeed it is because they are but Traditions of men Gal. 5.1 prejudicious to Gospel simplicity and to Christian liberty where Christ hath left us free then any one such Ceremony I say not necessary Circumstance is a little yoke Who made them judges or dividers of tasks to their brethren p. 111. n. 8. p. 85. n. 7. and why should any Church assume a power to yoke and burden those whom Christ hath left free And this was Chamiers reason against Bellarmine though the Doctor thought good to take no notice of it to give it any answer He says I ask a subtle question Whether if a Jew had observed some Jewish Ceremony not foreshewing Christ to come or had devised any new Rites or Ceremonies c. would not the Apostle have blamed them for that as superstitious He must remember we are speaking of Ceremonies made parts of Worship as those Jewish were before what sayes he to the question He answers confidently to both the parts No * Yet often hath said that those rites of the old law are forbidden under Christ. p. 19. n.
32. and just now that they were interdicted Christians p. 84. n. 5. n. 8. he would not and to the last first in asking the question I beg the question which is sayes he whether every devised Rite or Ceremony not commanded of God be superstitious No such matter the question is of Vncommanded Worship not of Circumstances of Worship no nor of Rites and Ceremonies if not made parts of Worship And is it probable that the Apostle would cry down the old Ceremonies appointed by God and parts of Worship and give them leave to set up new ones of their own Head To the former part of a Jewes observing a Jewish Ceremony c. he answers as confidently by a question n. 8. What thinks be of the abstinence from strangled and blood a Jewish Ceremony and observed by Christians yet not blamed as Superstitious I say this first as it was observed by Christians so it was ordered by the Apostles who might do more then any Jew or Christian 2. It was not made now a part of Worship as before it was but onely to prevent a scandal to the weaker Jews which is evident by this besides other reasons that after the Jewes were better instructed or hardened the custome ceased And if the Doctor had a mind to plead for a Ceremony he might better have pleaded for continuance of this both for the Antiquity of it before the Law under the Law and under the first plantation of the Gospel observed by Christians many ages says the Doctor and also for the Authority of it from the Apostles themselves He cannot produce so much for his beloved Festival His other instance of the old Sabbath is just the same He hath the practice of the Christian Church of the Apostles and purest time who continued the observation of it with the Lords day for some hundreds of years But I would say further 1. The Apostles did not observe the Sabbath day as now a part of Worship as afore but to take occasion to preach the Gospel at their Assemblies which they could not have on other dayes 2. The following Churches finding it in being amongst the Jewes continued it a while to gratifie them 3. If they continued it as a part of worship I would ask the Doctor whether they did well or he would justifie them seeing it was before annul'd and interdicted as he sayes 4. I must profess there is much more to be said for the observation of the old Sabbath by the Jewish Sabbatarians than can be said for any of the Doctors Festivals the Antiquity of it the Authority of it the Apostolical practice sayes the Doctor and the Churches observation of it for many ages clearly manifested in stories Whereas the Festivals especially his darling Christmas have no Apostolical Authority or Practice nor of the two first Ages of the Church that can be made appear I leave these to his consideration The 32. Section of mine p. 86. n. 9. he overlooks most of it that most concern'd him to have answered about his number of wholsome Ceremonies of the efficacy put in them by some to procure grace c. and who shall be the Judge of their number and wholesomness All this is waved but a flaw or fault is found in my words which takes him wholly up that I affirm him to say If Ceremonies be but harmless or negatively wholsom there cannot be too much of them Truly he that reades the words in his 41. Section might easily be mistaken if he attend not heedfully to them thus they are Ceremonies must be few and wholsom yet if they be wholsom not onely negatively but positively not onely harmless but tending to edification for so salubrity imports then there will be little reason to accuse them of excess Would not a man at first sight take the meaning to be that which I have given If they be wholesom negatively harmlesly though not onely so but positively and tending to edification c. especially if he eyed not the parenthesis following which all know may be left out and the sense be still entire But I shall freely acknowledge my Inadvertency and beg his pardon I am sure he needs mine much more in mislating of the question so often I say not willingly as if the controversie was only Whether every Rite or Circumstance not commanded by God be Superstition n. 7. when he knows it is about Uncommanded Worship Sect. 33. This question of a competent Judge c. THe Sophisme charged upon me n. 10. will rather reflect upon himself I said what is Superstition but folly and vanity in the Worship of God In vain do they Worship me c. This is says he a parologisme supposing things to be convertible which are not every Superstition is folly and vanity but every folly and vanity even in the Worship of God is not Superstition Duplex superstitio perniciosa vana seu superflua Filuc Trat 24. c. 2. Foolish and vain Ceremonies or superstitious But that 's the Doctors mistake I dare maintain that every folly and vainty in the Worship of God is Superstition which I prove from the definition of Superstition Every excess in Religion of mens devising is folly as proceeding from mans Wisdom which is folly with God and vanity as wanting ground of it's performance but every folly and vanity in Religion of mens devising is an excess in Religion ergo And from his own words In this case of too many Ceremonies though any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault yet this not the fault of Superstition but of folly and vanity He was speaking of store of inordinable unfit Ceremonies in the Church of Rome are not they Superstitious yet are they also foolish and vain And when he sayes any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault how will he reconcile this with what he had said before If the excess be in taking too many Rites and Ceremonies into the Worship of God then he hastily assumes this by this it is granted Any one Ceremony if made a part of Worship as the word signifies is a Nimiety and excess in Religion and superstitious not the multitude only as was said above the Rites and Ceremonies themselves are not Superstitious but the multitude onely But now he sayes Any one may be a Nimiety and that a fault Now that cannot be if onely the multitude of Ceremonies makes them superstitious suppose ten Ceremonies all singly indifferent and lawful which of the ten is a Nimiety and a fault they are supposed all equally good or if the number onely make them Superstitious how can so many goods added together make them bad either therefore there must be some Rule in Scripture how many Ceremonies may be instituted and yet not be superstitious unless they exceed that number or else the Adding of one any one Ceremony to the Rule is a Nimiety and faulty in Superstition Let the Doctor resolve us in this case Section
without any Spiritual advantage To this he answers p. 109. n. 4. This is sure very short it being evident that the imposing these out-dated observances is not onely not advantageous but hurtful deadly destructive But first the Doctor varies the question it is not spoken of imposing them by false Teachers but of the Ordinances or Abstinencies themselves which all are to perish with the using as used by the Colossians whom they had seduced 2. He that sayes they were to perish in the using does not exclude their hurtfulness even to eternal destruction there may be as oft there is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 less spoken and more intended so Saint Austins words cited by him import But as for Saint Ambrose he reads the text Quae sunt ad corruptelam ipso usu as ours do and hath these words upon it Quia praecepta doctrinae no◠Dei sed hominum sunt in quibus vana spes est And again Hinc se sapientiae rationem habere putant quia traditioni humanae nomen Religionis applicant ut religio appelletur cum fit sacrilegium quia quod contra Authorem est sacrilega mente inventum est Ambr. in textum Where these things are observable first that he reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corruptelam corruption not destruction 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he renders ipso usu 3. Gives the reason why those abstinences lose their vertue which formerly they had because they are not the precepts and doctrines of God but of men in whom hope is vain 4. That he makes the crime to be because they made them parts of Religion or Worship which is not Religion but Sacriledge and gives the reason because they are invented by a Sacrilegious mind by men against the Authority of God And now I hope the Doctor will never cite Ambrose more in this point He knows Hierome and the Greek Commentators take the words in our sense referring the words to something understood viz. meats which are in interium ipso usu So the vulg So Estius and all Papists that I have seen Will-wor s 5. besides all our reformed Divines That sense says he is sufficiently improbable because the Apostle speaks not of the meat but of the commands of abstaining And this supposition of his is as sufficiently improbable p. 109. n. 3. because as himself says The antecedent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which is Touch not Taste not c. But then the words must be meant not of doctrines or commands for they can in no good sense be said to perish with the using as we read or are to destruction by the abusing as he reads but of the abstinences themselves commanded or as used or practised by the Colossians they being now out-dated perish in the using and are destructive to them that make them necessary parts of Worship and therein abuse them But that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abuse should belong to the the Doctrines of abstinence can be no good sense which Doctrines of abstinence are to destruction by the abuse But this is good which abstinences are to destruction by the abuse viz. of an ordinance some time since profitable as a part of Worship but now abusively continued to that end Besides the Doctor sayes The words Touch not c. denote other abstinencies besides that of meats particularly that of marriage But these are the Doctors second thoughts for in his former Tract of Will-worship he saw not this of marriage or the Gnosticks that after prohibited marriage as abominable Humane out-dated Judaical Constitutions Will-wor s 14. So Touch not c. noting thereby those doctrines which affirm men obliged to fasting or abstinence from such or such meats the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to touch signifying to eat c. Not a word of abstinence from marriage then thought of though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might signifie to marry as I said above 2. Let marriage be taken in with meats if that will please him yet as the speech would be improper to say marriage perishes in the using as he objects to us so also to say marriage perishes by the abuse If he say he reads thus which abstinence from marriage is to destruction by the absue So it might be said of any other gift of God and then the Apostle sayes little to the purpose in the particular case any creature abused is to destruction But the Apostie here speaks of Ordinances of God abstinences under precept lately but so was never abstinence from marriage but now used or abused to a wrong end being abolished by Christ Now wherein that abuse consisted comes next to be enquired The Doctor placed it in this onely n. 5. That those abstinences were imposed as Divine precepts this is an abuse of them otherwise innocent c. To which I said 1. There is little or nothing in the text to import this He replies something angerly what will with him be accounted great I know not but something there is to incline it this way 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doctrines signifie those things which are taught as from God Matth. 15.9 as formerly hath been shewed c. This indeed was asserted before p. 3. n. 1. but not proved at all and here it is again asserted more largely without any convincing proof yet he says It 's evident from the form of speech Col. 2.22 The words are After the Commandments and doctrines of men as both one In vain do they Worship me teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men where the Commandments of men are taught not as such but as doctrines of God It 's much to sight with what eyes men look upon objects To me and others the contrary rather appears For first if I might play the Critick a little I would say there is not in the text to be found the word for The words are thus teaching doctrines the Commandments of men that is doctrines which are meerly the Comandments of men 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does no where that I know signifie to teach things to be Divine precepts which are not The word sayes the learned Professor signifies D. Dav. in locum teneri vel abstringi dogmatib magistrorū nostrorum as the Academicks were bound to receīve the dogmata the Doctrines or opinions of Plato the Peripateticks of Aristotle c. But sure they did not teach or impose their doctrines as Commandments of God 3. The very text produced confutes the gloss where the doctrines of the Pharises are called the Commandments of men and opposed to the Commandments of God vers 3 6. Yea the Pharisees themselves called them the Traditions of the Elders vers 2. c. This he would thus evade They were so really Commandments of men p. 110. n. 6. yet were by false Treachers imposed as Commands of God and therein their false
hear 3. These practices of Abstinence c. abstracted from the errour of dogmatizing but yet made a part of Worship as by Papists they are have they not a shew of Wisdom in them and yet are odious to God The Doctor still layes all the crime upon dogmatizing which may be abstracted from them and yet the things sinful and unlawful as now we see n. 16. The worshipping of Angels supposed now a corolary of the Philosophy ver 8. said to be all one and the same Superst s 7 that also hath a shew of Piety in humility Now suppose this abstracted from the error of dogmatizing will the Doctor say this man practises a special piece of humility And hath not this humility thus impious as he said an influence upon the Abstinences following Does not he that with the Gnosticks abstains religiously from meats and marriage practice humility as well as self-denial and may not the humility in both be equally vitious in a will-devised Worship sure the placing of Religion or worship in those Abstinences is as criminal as the worshipping of Angels both being forbidden by God There is only one * Vnless that the n. 19. is twice p. 121. n. 20. thing more in this Section worth taking notice of the rest being but a contention about words 1. That he is by me charged with presumption in changing the text from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though he desire my pardon for which is not usuall yet he seemes not to take it well All I shall say to it is but this That as it is presumtion in an Interpreter to alter the reading of the Scripture text having no ancient Copy to favour it so it may seem an itch of singularity to make a Criticisme to help to confirm that which he believes to be false as he does Will-worship Sect. 12. and which will not advantage his cause if it were granted to be the true reading Yet still he is at it Again If they had the least degree of Piety in them reading somewhat of Piety then that was in this respect c. p. 123. n. 3. when he hath of acknowledged they had onely a shew as above and being nothing but the Gnostick Abstinences as he will have it he cannot imagine them to have the least degree of Piety in them As for the particle p. 121. n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omitted by him his defence is easily broken I know not why he should neglect it in his paraphrase for to that place my exception lies unless it were to colour his reading the better Which things have some true c. For it were no good sense regarding the Apostles scope to say which things have indeed some true notion of Wisdom or Piety c. This were to commend them and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be not an extenuating but an amplyfying particle But enough of this Sect. 8 9. That the last part of the verse not sparing the body c. IN the eighth Section nothing is excepted to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 123. n. 4. and in the ninth nothing but a strife of words in a point beside the main business Whether the Abstinences were well comprehended under free-will-offerings and whether they may be called positive things Wherein I shall not contest to swell this Discourse but leave the Doctor to his own opinion though much might be said therein onely these things might be said to shew the difference 1. The Doctor understands these Abstinences of the Gnosticks detesting of marriage p. 122. n. 2. making it damnable c. sure such are not comprehended under Free-will-offerings 2. These Abstinences are condemned by the Apostle as destructive whereas those Free-will-offerings were allowed and commendable 3. The Free-will-offerings were by him made parts of Worship but I think he will not say so of the Abstinences from meats and marriage If he should I would say he is nearer the Gnosticks then I was the Epicureans who pretended them to be as he does here acts of voluntary oblations or voluntary Worship and so acceptable to God Had they not defamed marriage and brought in those abominable filthinesses the Doctor and they might have shaken hands Yea in making Abstinence from marriage a part of Worship and a state of greater perfection then marriage pronounced honourable in all by the Apostle both they and he do implicitly defame marriage Offering to God a free-will-offering of abstinence c. p. 119. n. 5. p. 123. n. 4. n. 5. That the Doctor makes fasting and Virginity or self-denial in matter of meats and marriage a part of Worship may appear 1. By the Phrases he uses in commending of it Designing it to the honour of God looking on it as that which will be acceptable to God though not commanded and as such dedicating it to God this sure will be a Free-will-offering This was spoken of Fasting but then he addes The same is as visible of Virginal chastity c. That is so designed to the honour of God so acceptable to God so dedicated to God All which imply the things are put into a Religious state and made Holy Abstaining for Religion or Piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 133. n. 19. So Salmeron p. 146. n. 21. p. 123. n. 4. and parts of Worship 2. That he calls them voluntary Free-will-offerings which confessedly were parts of Worship 3. That here as hereafter he gives it the title of greatest perfection Now to place perfection in things which God never placed in them is a species of Superstition as was discoursed in the former Tract But the Doctor to gratifie me will throw a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an apple of contention before me which he is very good at having thrown abroad more such apples of contention then almost any man of late except but J. G. That such the Abstinences * We speak of those Gnostick abstinences not of such as he will fain may he that they safely and fitly may be comprehended under the selfe-denials and Free-will-offerings He instances in two particulars Fasting and Virginal chastity That these are or may be acts of self-denial is true that is when God calls for them otherwise they are not acts of that self-denial which our Saviour requires as the first lesson in his school Fasting is then acceptable when God calls for Fasting Isa 22.12 by either some publique or private and personal occasion and yet then is not a Free-will-offering as being then necessary nor a part of Worship but an help to Worship as our Divines generally hold But for a man to set apart dayes of Fasting twice a week as the Pharisee or oftner as Papists as an Act of Religion and Worship of God when God by no just occasion calls for it is no acceptable service of God but rather displeasing and abominable as prescribing self-devised Worship Say the same of Virginity or single life either God
crime of compliance Sure this must be where those few Papists are in the right and the most of Protestants and Papists are in the wrong which if the Doctor should affirm to be the present case he begs the question and wrongs those many learned men of the contrary judgement And when I said n. 4. I did believe his Interpretation was without any precedent Protestant or Papist s 7. I meant not absolutely to a man but for the most part as after I said Chamier sayes the same yet after instances in Bellarmine taking it in a good sense and so does Salmeron too hereafter But Estius as judicious and ingenuous as any Papist I ever met with sayes in confutation of those that will needs take it so In locum Docere non poterunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usquam accipi in bonum They can never teach or prove that Will-worship is taken in a good sense But that the Doctor will undertake to prove first p. 127. n. 1. Because it 's joyned with Humility I said Humility was not the laudable Christian vertue but a pretended humility c. He answers That serves his turn very fitly for still they are associated pretended Will-worship with pretended humility then the fault is in the fainedness of them both but when they are truly such they are Christian vertues c. This was spoken to partly before Here was not onely a shew of Will-worship but real Will-worship in those observances and not onely a shew of Humility but real Will humility and Will-self-denial for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applyable to all three as I noted from Estius Pretended humility may be in a commanded Worship but affected in a VVil-worship Now Will-humility which is more then pretended Humility is an Humility affected not of Gods command or allowance and so sinful as well as the Will-worship Besides in the 18. verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports a voluntary uncommanded Humility and is joyned here with Worship and both confessed by the Doctor to be impious Why may it not be so understood here those Abstinences being as impious as worshipping of Angels There was in both a shew of Christian true Humility but there was also a real Will-humility as a real Worship or Will-worship Say the same of Will-self-denial or will-devised wayes of mortification I instanced in the Romish Penances made parts of Worship To which he sayes p. 128. n. 4. It is not their making it the Worship of God that renders it culpable but ridiculousness and unfitness to the end designed Let the Reader mark this to make new sorts of Worship such as Romish Penances are is not culpable And yet the Doctor hath condemn'd all new sorts of Worship as impious and unlawfull more then once I wonder not now that he justifies Will-worship But he hopes to help himself by saying it is not that but the ridiculousness and unfitness And why not both these for they are both He knows there are other Ceremonies or practises named which are not ridiculous nor cruel laniations of themselves but seem sad and grave exercises of devotion as their Pharisaical Fastings from flesh their Caelibate Religious orders c. wherein they place much Religion that is make them special parts of Worship will he say this does not render them culpable If so he will say I know no great reason but he may in most of their VVill-worship joyn with them and I fear does make some things parts of Worship which are as like theirs as one egge is to another In his vindication of his second argument he again rejects that notion of some truth or reality of VVisdom to be meant by the Apostle yet comes of with a mind to have it thought possible The bare possibility that it might so signifie n. 5. See p. 140. n. 3. and n. 25. If it should be so taken c. supersedes the proof from this text for the criminousnes of Will-ship When he knows if he will not offer violence to the text there is no possibility it should so signifie in this place It was ill done to dazle the eyes of his Reader with such vain notions as this We are next to consider the sense of 1 Tim. 4.8 Bodily exercise profits little or is profitable for a little as he reads it I said p. 129. n. 7. there was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it 's hurtfull and abominable The Doctor jests it away first comparing it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 26.28 But I say there 's a great difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this text and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other which must be taken from the context here for the sense look back to the former verse 7. Avoid profane and old wives fables but exercise thy self unto Godliness for bodily exercise c. Now ask Interpreters what is meant by profane and old wives fables Chrysost will tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others refer it to those Jewish fables which he censured 1 Tim. 1. Some to the Fables of the Simonians of a good and an evil God c. But the best is to consult the context at ver 3. where he tells of some that should in time to come ver 1. depart from the faith so far as to forbid marriage and command to abstain from meats These were those profane and old wives fables and call'd by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercises of Piety and mortification To these the Apostle opposes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Godliness that is the true and right VVorship of God as Estius well explaines it Exercise thou thy self in the true VVorship of God for those bodily exercises though pretending to much Piety profit nothing that is made matters of Religion and parts of Worship as they were by some Hereticks in those or in following times are hurtful and abominable Those exercises of Religion in abstinence from meats and marriage were long ago exemplified in the Gnosticks of whom with the Romanists this is a prophesie and perhaps in some in the Apostles times not yet come to detest marriage as damnable c. but onely placing some Religion in them and calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of these the Apostle speakes modestly they profit little that is nothing though he mean they are hurtful and indeed abominable And if the Apostle had meant it of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Doctor understands by them he would not have said they profit a little but very much not to the body onely as some but to the soul also to make more * See p. 131. n. 15. n. 17. The excellencies of Fasting De jejunio non potest hic locus accepi quia non est corporalis exercitatio sed spiritualis Estius in locum vide laudes jejunii The Doctor makes Fasting VVorship p. 130. n. 12 13. and so Piety and not a bodily exercise acceptable to and rewardable by God as
under no command and being voluntary oblations and Free-will-offerings which sayes the Doctor may expect greater reward in Heaven then any commanded service Besides the opposition of Godliness to those exercises argues they were considered as ill and hurtful by the Apostle For abstinence from meat and marriage those bodily exercises in the Doctors conceit of them are great parts of Religion Piety Devotion and therefore could not well be opposed to Godliness the Apostle certainly looks at something before under the notion of bodily exercise else he could not say so abruptly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for bodily exercise before intended and expressed in some other terms whether the Jewish observations or abstinences from some meats ver 3. as Chrysost or those abstinences of fore-prophesied hereticks from meats and marriage ver 3. Ad p. 109. n. 4. profits nothing that is is hurtful and destructive as the Doctor said above And these are the grounds of my Interpretation If the Doctor have any better let him impart them or enjoy his own opinion Somewhat he sayes to that which I said of making those abstinences parts of Religion or Worship which he calls an help at a dead lift p. 130. n. 10. n. 11. and disputes against that notion saying They that make abstinence from marriage a thing acceptable to God and a state of perfection do not count it a Worship unless in a genervl sense as every vertuous act performed to God may be stiled Worship and so this a Will-worship Here first we have a distinction of Worship which should have come long ago that we might know in what sense the Doctor took it when he speaks of Will-worship Something was said of the word worship p. 93. n. 3. but then it was onely distinguished from external Ceremonies or Circumstances which are not parts but accidents of Worship And nothing was called Worship but the vertue it self or some act thereof together with the degrees and number of those acts But now we have a distinction of Worship in a special and a general sense as every vertuous act of the second Table may be stiled Worship which is most improperly 2. What meanes the Doctor to talk of will-Will-worship and voluntary Worship if they be not Worship but in a general sense as every virtuous act of righteousness c. may be stiled Worship that is not an Elicite act of Religion or Worship but an Imperated act of it as visiting the poor and widow is by Saint James called pure Religion If thus he meant why did he not tell us so at first to prevent both mistake and trouble 3. Those abstinences forbidden by our Apostle were formerly acts of Religion and parts of Worship properly and were so held out still by the false Teachers not Worship as every vertuous act may improperly b◠called Worship 4. The Papists for certain do make them parts of Worship place Religion in their Caelibate Fastings and Religtous Orders c. not in a generall sense but proper and special Worship Will the Doctor yeild that they that do so make them parts of Worship are superstitious and this is unlawful Will-worship I shall ask no more Lastly to make things more acceptable to God because not commanded to place more vertue and more perfection in things then God hath placed in them is confessed to be superstitious But this the Doctor does sufficiently and this we call Will-worship And that we may not go far for an instance the Doctor makes Fasting a Sacrifice n. 12. and a species of Worship as well as prayer and almsgiving and calls it an acceptable worship of God as Papists do p. 130 n. 13. See p. 14. n. 20. Fasting and Alms two sorts of Gods Worship which our Divines deny to be Worship but onely an help and furtherance to worship By the way the Doctor as he makes Worship of that which is not Worship so he degrades some Worship and makes it none p. 131. n. 14. Hearing of Sermons is not any acknowledged branch of Worship I know he addes the word bare to hearing but bare hearing of the word by profession is Worship though not pure and right Worship as bare praying with the lips is Worship but vain Worship In vain do they Worship me c. and bare preaching of the word is Worship though not true VVorship But the Doctor makes hearing of Sermons no Worship when he sayes Hearing of Sermons in case it should be taught or assume to be a part of Gods VVorship As if to teach it to be a part of VVorship were an assumption or presumption Indeed this is some of the old language that Preaching and hearing of Sermons was no Worship but the whole VVorship of God stood in reading and hearing the Liturgie That the Doctor placed the illness of those bodily exercises in this when they are taught as necessary to the defaming of meats and marriage I found no fault with but that he placed it in that onely I expected that he should have spoken to my question p. 133. n. 19. If they taught them not in that sense but onely placed Religion and the VVorship of God in them as Papists do were they not ill To this he sayes just nothing but empties his Note-book to prove what is not denied By all Interpreters I meant the greatest part p. 134. n. 22. and he cannot name any it seems before Grotius a Neoterick n. 23. c. Cassandrian Authour As for his question and what here he again repeats it is spoken to before upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall onely adde that he varies the question by altering and putting in words not in the text piety for wisdom and in respect of Will-worship the words are a shew of Wisdom in Will-worship that is those abstinences wicked enough made a Worship by those men And here it is that some would have the adversative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood but in Will-worship that is in False-worship devised by the will of men it hath a shew of Wisdom but is but Will worship which supposes the VVill-worship to be ill and impious And the Doctor himself sayes n. 24. I confess that supposing VVill-worship as ill as the Diatribist would have it a thing may be foolish or impious in respect of VVill-worship To clear this change but the word VVill-worship into * So the vulgar and others read it Superstition or Idolatry and then ask may not those abstinences have a shew of Wisdom in respect of Superstition in them or and yet be but Superstition which most Interpreters take to be the sense of the words Now Superstition amongst Christians is alwayes taken in an ill-sense as hath been proved above put another like question may not worshipping of Angels have a shew of Wisdom in Idolatry or and yet be but Idolatry All the question then is whether there be any VVill-worship good which as we deny it concerns him to
worship The vulg Latine and others call it Superstition Ambr. calls it Sacriledge But the Doctor leaves out the foregoing words where he says they are the precepts and doctrines not of God but of men As I cited it above ad p. 109. n. 4. As also the following words why he called it Sacriledge because what is against the Authour the Authority of God is invented with a Sacrilegious minde Will the Doctor grant all this and yet say they offended in this onely that the will worship and humility were not what they pretended to be Let him go on to maintain himself by begging For Theodoret the reason if he will needs have it why I cited his sense of the word amongst the Latine Authours was because I found it cited by a learned Divine in Latine But what sayes the Doctor to his Interpretation First he fairly rejects his sense as not pretending that all either Greek or Latine concurred with him in this sense This is too favourably spoken for himself for he might more truly have said That few either Greek or Latine concurred with him I am sure none of our own Divines do and therfore he is very glad of the company of Bellarmine n. 14. and Salmeron n. 21. and whether any more I know not But this he says he is sure of p. 145. n. 19. That it 's not the uncommandedness of the worship that he findes fault with but first their teaching those for Gods commands which are their own that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their introducing their own ordinances their unseasonable Judaical doctrine 2. The bare shew of Piety and humility c. But I doubt the Doctor strains his conscience in this gloss for first I observe that Theodoret did not understand the Gnostick Abstinences but Judaical unseasonable doctrines yet the Doctor will needs have it meant of them and hath not one Interpreter for his notion that I can finde 2. That the Doctor interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Gods commands which most properly signifies the contrary their own doctrine or Ordinances And yet he sayes By his conclusion it 's evident that the Abstinences without the doctrines would not have been deemed by him reproveable This runs upon the former false supposition That these Abstinences had no fault but onely that they were held out as Commandments of God When as we have proved that they were sinful because they were made Religious and parts of Worship But enough of this afore The Ancient Fathers then are not for him but rather against him he must now seek for assistance from some Modern Authors not amongst our own or forraign Protestant Divines they are all against him To Papists then he must go Bellarmine he hath closed with above as one whose authority were alone considerable enough if there were not some others n. 14. But he is not alone Salmeron another Jesuite hath the very same notions of this text as if the Doctor had learned his Interpretation from him p. 146. n. 21. this learned Jesuite renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by Speciem that might possibly signifie a bare shew but by Specimen which is more some real evidence of Wisdom which sense the Doctor hath oftentimes renounced yet fain would have it so 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes the Jesuite signifies cultum spontaneum sive voluntariam Religionem pro arbitrio cujusvis abstinendi à cibis just so the Doctor only with this difference that the Doctor takes in the Gnostick Abstinence from marriage also which Salmeron thought not of 3. Alluding by this word to the voluntary oblations of the Law called Nedaboth Free will offerings How sweetly all correspond n. 22. But yet Salmeron is not thorow-paced with the Doctor For Salmeron conceives the words to allude to ver 18. In voluntary humility and worship c. And so goes along with Estius and others in that mistake Truly if Salmeron take the words in allusion to the 18 ver he confutes his own Interpretation of this 23. ver For surely that Worship of Angels and Impious humility is nothing of time with the Free will offerings And I rather take him and Estius to be in the right in this allusion then in his former Interpretation with the Doctor upon that reason But they will differ yet further unless the Doctor will turn Papist in the Divine Authority of the Church in that which follows p. 147. n. 24. Omnis ritus c. Every rite of Worshipping God that is not delivered from God but is invented by the will of man is superstitious I never said so much of every rite if rite signifie a circumstance of worship or a ceremony if not made a part of Worship But will the Doctor say Amen to this of Salmeron I much fear it He will rather evade and tell me I leave out some of Salmerons words Not delivered from God nor the Spirit of God by the Church I did so but not to conceal them for I would ask the Doctor whether he agrees with Salmeron in this notion That what is delivered by the Church is from the holy Ghost i. e. is of Divine Authority If he do not why does he cite it seeing it is as false to him as to me And yet I see a reason for this it would serve to blinde his Reader and to jear me for thus he sayes Where it seemes 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 And so would the Doctor suppose and say too if it were not for open shame that the Traditions of the Church are from the holy Ghost and so not superstitious But of this afore and anon again ad p. 162.10 As for Estius he sayes indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here taken for Species in genere sive vera sive falsa but yet addes licet verificatio fiat pro specie imagine falsa And he cannot take it otherwise in his sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is an affected and fained Religion or Worship and an affected and fained humility joyned to an affected Religion And now the Doctor hath free leave to make his best advantage of this citation of Estius n. 26. Whether Augustine and Thomas gave him authority to pretend their accord with him let them agree among themselves and the Doctor with them Yet that which the Doctor cites from August Non sit Religio c. Let not our Religion be placed in our fantasmes c. is little for his advantage for sure the Church of Rome and our Doctor with her doth place much Religion in her own fantasmes p. 148. n. 27. And yet we have the Doctors full consent to this That all fictitious false worship is to be avoided c. If I list to
principle upon the second Commandment which will fully conclude this point which must be often repeated to silence his confidence this it is God is to be worshipt in a way peculiar to him and appointed by him Then all Worship not commanded by him is forbidden let the Doctor now go on and say Certainly none no word sounds that way unless every Ceremony devised by man c. not particularly under precept be presently metamorphosed into a graven Image But the thing is proved sufficiently above by Scripture and testimony of most approved Authors to which I remit him And now let him consider how well he hath vindicated his six reasons for a good sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this one place Sect. 17 18. We have done with the first undertaking c. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well rendered by Superstition by the Romanists and by the learned and ever renowned Master Calvin may easily be made good from the definition of Superstition given by the School-man which is justified above and by the description of it by Mr. Calvin which is this Vox ipsa Superstitio c. The word Superstition may seem to be so called because not contented with the manner of Worship prescribed it heaps up a superfluous heap of vain things Calv. Instit l. 1. c. 12. n. 1. For will-Will-worship partakes of the definition it is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess and is an addition of superfluous and vain Worship And I said not Superstition and Will-worship are all one as he charges me to say but clearly otherwise Superstition or will-worship p. 157. n. 6. are more general then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Daemonum cultus which is but one species of Superstition They differ as genus and species all Will-worship is Superstition but all Superstition is not Will-worship strictly taken as was discoursed above ad p. 41. n. 1. But if Will-worship be a species of Superstition they that interpreted the word so did but call the Species by the name of the genus which is very ordinary And that Superstition is more general then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is evident because that 's but one species of Superstition there are many more given by the School-man and himself above But now we shall hear him distribute wil-worship into species The truth is n. 7. that the general 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 Here we have three sorts of VVill-worship Jewish Heathen Christian The first uncommanded the second forbidden the third not commanded But first the Jewish out-dated Worship is forbidden so the Doctor said above p. 19. n. 32. and so agrees with Heathen Will-worship 2. The Christian is no VVorship but acts or circumstances of Worship commanded and then it is no VVill worship upon this he brings all to two species VVill-worship will-devised VVorship may be of two sorts as the generical word VVorship may either true or false Heathen or Christian and as the one is ill so the other is certainly good But first Worship is either true or false true when commanded by God false when devised by men that 's VVill-worship and will he divide false-worship into true or false Christian or Heathen 2. Are Christian or Heathen the same with true or false the one ill the other good Is there no good VVill-worship among the Heathens no bad among Christians so it seemes by the Doctors words 3. He gave us above six if not species * He calls them six species of VVill-worship p. 97. n. 14. yet notions of VVill-worship ad p. 96. n. 6. and now he brings them first to three then to two as if he were confounded and knew not where to fix And to speak properly VVill-worship hath no species though Superstition have onely there may be some particulars as there are of false-worship which the Doctor may call Individua if he please but not species as ergo VVill-worship is Heathenish Jewish or Christian this is not a distribution into species but in adjuncts or subjects Now true it is the Doctor takes VVill-worship in a good sense for true and lawful Worship but I take it in an ill sense for false worship and the Doctor must not beg his sense nor I mine both must prove it or relinguish it And now let the Reader judge who is in the right I shall but propound this argument and leave it to him If worship be therefore onely true because it is commanded by God then all worship not commanded by God devised by men is false But the Autecedent is most certain the consequence also undeniable to any reasonable man let who will make out the conclusion But hear again The falseness consists in its being devised by mans will p. 158. n. 10 not simply but in opposition to Gods i. e. when it is forbidden this we accept of and say all worship devised by mans will stands in opposition to the will of God and is forbidden the Negative part of the second Commandment is God will not be served by any worship not prescribed by himself and no addition may by man be made to the rule of worship The Doctor hath so long dream'd of uncommanded Worship in contradistinction to forbidden Worship as if VVorship uncommanded by God the same with devised by men were not forbidden when as it is therefore forbidden because not commanded by God as I am forced by the Doctors importunity to repeat too often No says he VVhat is forbidden is more then not commanded It is so in the second Table but in the first of worship not commanded and forbidden is all one The Doctor therefore supposes what is not to be granted when he says n. 11. That worship which is supposed not to be forbidden is resolved not to be false He must say that worship devised by men which is not forbidden is not false but that implies that some worship devised by men is not forbidden which now he may see if he will to be false Gods not commanding he says implies his permission and so a liberty allowed by God c. If this were true the Heathens and Turks VVorship were all lawful for they are not commanded ergo permitted He will say They are forbidden which is more then not commanded This is not to be seen in that former proposition but I close with him and say All worship not commanded is forbidden I conclude this Section with a memento to the Reader to take notice how much the Doctor hath forgot himself to plead for VVill worship worship devised by men which both is contrary to his own assertions heretofore and presently again he pleads not for new sorts or kindes of Worship not commanded by God and to his present designe
them let them produce that warrant and we are satisfied warrant I say not for circumstances of Worship which is yeilded but for their Will-worship uncommanded Worship Before then that this instance will serve the Doctors turn he must prove these things first That this Free-will-offering of David was a part of Worship for so they are asserted to be under the Law and yet he will not be obliged to make good the parallel so far for his Rites and Festivals p. 186. n. 19.2 That Davids intention was sure a pious intention being absolute which pious intention he asserts numb 9. 3. That it was commended and accepted by God as it was absolutely intended by him It was indeed approved by Nathan ver 3. but rashly without consulting with God and therefore both Nathan and David are better informed and in a sort rebuked for that resolution to undertake such a business without command from God If Nathan failed in his allowance of Davids purpose as it 's evident he did then David also failed in his too absolute purpose which God after disallows And thence we may raise this argument It was not lawful for David to purpose absolutely the building any Religious house for Gods Ark without Gods special command or warrant therefore it is not lawful for men to institute Religious Ceremonies without the same warrant I still say a Religious House and Religious Ceremonies which are thereby put into a state of Religion and so parts of Worship which meer circumstances are not and such the Doctor says he makes time and place but indeed makes them parts of Worship as we have often said Hence it is that n. 2. he talks of uncommanded acts of Piety and n. 9. makes Davids intention a Pious intention and being uncommanded an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a will-Will-worship of God parallel to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in debate He must not mean it of an Imperate act of Piety or Religion for that is no part of Worship and may be in a civil thing or vertue as acts of Charity visiting the sick c. are by St. James called pure Religion But of an elicite act of Piety which is it self a part of Religion or Worship but then it holds not parallel with his Will-worship which is denied to be any part of Worship As for example if a company of people wanted a convenient place to meet in for Religious performances Aquila or Philemon accommodate them with a room in their house or some good devout Centurion builds them a Church This were an act of Piety not elicite but imperate which doth not make the place a part of Religion or Worship but an accommodation to Worship The instance of Paul not taking Hire of the Corinthians when he might c. I said was as little to the purpose for it was not in a matter of Worship p. 184.2 but an action of common life and also a due debt For the first he answers He no where said it was in an action of common life it is misreported c. Let him review his 30 s of Will-worship and he will finde that he says There be many particulars both in the Worship of God and in actions of common life Particulars he means of Free-will-offerings Now the first thing he would have observed in them was That they were a part of the Worship of God s 29. to which he ought to have confined himself and not to go out into actions of common life which have no plea to be parts of Worship and this instance of maintenance I took and still take to be one of them and not to his purpose What says he to it 1. He appeales to my self Whether I can doubt whether an Apostles exercising his office be not an act of Worship Truly I did not formerly doubt it but the Doctor hath said something to make me scruple it for he seems at least to deny that preaching by a minister is any part of Worship Hearing and Preaching are relates and either both or neither parts of Worship See p. 131. n. 14. But Hearing of Sermons is not says he any acknowledged branch of Worship Some body would hence infer Then Preaching is no branch of Worship It may be he will say Apostolical and perhaps Episcopal preaching is a part of Worship but not of Inferiour officers If he will say so let him enjoy his own opinion My answer is otherwise I meant that maintenance and so refusing or receiving it was a matter of common life and not a matter of Worship whereof we speak But mark his inference And consequently any but circumstance thereof a circumstance of Worship Who can once doubt but any circumstance of Worship is a circumstance of Worship there is no great depth in this But we are speaking of Free-will-offerings which were parts of VVorship and he tells us of a circumstance of VVorship such was Pauls cloak when he wore it in Preaching and his cap c. circumstances of Worship yet more Pauls not receiving hire was either an action or in an action of Worship or both and so surely a Free-will-offering I list not to make any inference upon this but leave it to the Reader That his refusing his hire at that time and place was a due debt n. 4. I proved from learned Chamier and from the Scripture it self But our new glosses will not down with this learned Antiquary He had rather run into errour with some Ancients then hold and speak truth with Moderne Divines Let us hear their and his gloss the text is 1 Cor. 9.17 For if I do it willingly I have a reward but if against my will a dispensation of the Gospel is committed unto me i. e. what is my reward then c. The Comment is this The preaching of the Gospel was committed to him and was under precept and so no Free-will-offering of his That is his meaning when he saith if I do this willingly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a volunteer so saith Theophilact If I had not been Commissionated to Preach but had done it of my self if I did Preach the Gospel without any command so no necessity to do so if of my self spontaneously I have the reward this would be rewardable in me i. e. the very Preaching would without any other honourable circumstance to inhanse it but if voluntarily if I am Commissionated to Preach and so my Preaching be an act of obedience to a plain command and so necessary ver 16. then all that can be said of me is being trusted with a stewardship I discharge it it is manifest that I do it not spontaneously but I perform my Lords command c. And so there is nothing of excellence in this this wil bring me no reward what in this whole matter shall bring me in any reward To which he answers that Preaching the Gospel I do it freely without making it chargeable to the Auditors that I make not use of my power that
some others with little less if not the same Superstition and Will-worship besides the Riot with them at Rome And however the Doctor say p. 248. n. 3. That nothing could be more unjust and improbable at once then what is suggested of corruptions in the most ancient primitive Church Yet himself is more unjust in straining and misconstruing my words For I spake not of the primitive Apostolical Church but of some ages after wherein I supposed those Festivals were invented suppose in the third or fourth Century and it were too easie to prove that corruptions crept into the Churches both in Doctrine and Worship in those ages though more in after ages And though its true the Governors of the Church did oppose all fundamentall errours n. 4. against the * Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbu lentarum personarum scandala devitanda improbare non audeo August Epist 1 9. p. 249. n. 7. Natures and Person of Christ c. as the Apostles had done yet corruptions in Worship might and did creep in Good men being loath to oppose them thinking them errours that would increase piety as the Dr. Faulk observed And though the Church did oppose and censure corruptions in Doctrine and Worship as she was able yet had she in all times some undutiful Sons that corrupted both and of their Errours I meant the Church of Rome and the Romish Religion as distinguished from the Reformed is a bundle And what great advantage thereby I have given to Papists by this Affirmation I see not For this is not at all an agnition that the most accused Romish practices now adays are the same which were delivered to them from the primitive Church They were not delivered to them by the †The gates of hell in idle Ceremonies did assault the Church The Fathers in them declined from the simplicity of the Gospel Doctor Pulk Rejoyn'd to Mart. ar 1. see also a. 3. Church of any age much less by the Primitive but they like flies fell upon and followed the corruptions of former times and like Spiders suckt poison out of sweet flowers If the Doctor enter his discent to this I am sure many as true Sons of the Church of England as himself have said as much and will subscribe their Assent unto it Sure I am he hath given them much more advantage against the true Church of England in justifying their Superstition and Will-worship in their Festivals by his Pen and Practice as will appear ere we part The next debate p. 249. n. 1. in order should be about the power of a Church universal or partiular to constitute ceremonies for it self as it shall judge most useful c. and in special to constitute Holy-days and Festivals The Doctor let fall those words That this Anglicaene Church was invested with unquestionable power to institute Ceremonies for it self which may not without temerity be changed or abolished by any To this I put in a demur and desired to see it proved as tending much to the decision of the present controversie To which end after some explication to state the question right I gave in some arguments for the Negative All which the Doctor will not touch with one of his fingers but wisely leaps over four leaves of mine together but goes on to beg the question in three particulars 1. n. 2. That this Church of ours was first planted by some either Apostle or Apostolical man which cannot easily be proved 2. n. 3. That the Feast of Christmas was set up that 's an Institution but corrected or celebrated by those that first planted the Faith here i. e. some Apostle or Apostolical person which is more improbable 3. That what was by so good authority introduced having no equal reason to supersede it may not without temerity now be abolisht by any c. And this is the main question which being founded upon the two other unproved suppositions falls together with them Yet the Doctor will prove this last by induction Not by any other persons Pope p. 250. n. 4. or Consiscory because none hath power over a Church founded by the Apostles and not subjected to any But this supposes it founded by the Apostles and that that onely makes a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her own supreme head whereas if she were planted neither by an Apostle nor Apostolical man but by an ordinary Minister she was free from subjection to any other head Not says he by the Church it self What may not the Church it self alter her own Institutions are her Canons unreversible No because it cannot be now supposed to have any such persons in it as may be fit to compare with the first founders of it But then the Feast of Easter on the Jewish day might not by the after Church be abolished as it was because no such persons as John and Philip could be supposed there And besides it would make all the Apostles observations unchangeable and Divine yet there 's one help left Not without some greater reason for the changing and abolishing then they may appear to have had for the using of it This will come again in hypothesi to be considered I shall onely ask now what better reason had Constantine to change the Jewish day to the Lords day when the Asian Churches had the Gospel and Canon of Faith to found their custome on But see the Application of his discourse 1. I granted the English to be subject to no forrain power n. 5. he demands Whether it be subordinate to it 's own Sons or to any but the legal Fathers of it and then goes on with his scornful language sufficiently To which I shall give no other answer but this to demand whether it be subordinate to its own Fathers the Bishops for them he means and the reason why I ask it is because he said even now That which was by so good Authority introduced as his Christmas he says was by some Apostle c. may not without temerity be abolished by any not by any person not by the Church it self for reasons there given unless he will say his Bishops are persons fit to compare with the first Founders otherwise neither Sons nor Fathers might change or abolish it But I question'd the unquestionable power of the Church to institute Ceremonies and to make them unchangeable n. 6. The Doctor complains of change made in his inference he never assirmed of those Ceremonies once instituted that they might not upon good reasons be changed and abolished His words are may not be changed and abolished by any Of Fest s 9. and he n. 4 not by any person not by the Church it self by the same power which instituted them But if it be impossible to finde the same or equal power in the Church with them that instituted them it cannot be supposed to have any such persons in it fit to compare with the first Founders