This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.
CAWDRY'S Triplex Diatribe Concerning Superſtition, Wil-worſhip, AND Chriſtmaſs Feſtivall.
By H. Hammond D. D.
LONDON, Printed by J. Fleſher, for Richard Royſton at the Angel in Ivy-lane, and for Richard Davis BookOxford. 1655.
1. Cawdrey hath taken great pains to ſhew me the infirme parts of three little Tracts of Superſtition, Will-worſhip and Feſtivals, I am now obliged to take notice, and to deſign the vacancy of a few days to clear thoſe brief diſcourſes from all the miſpriſions and exceptions, to which ſome contrary hypotheſes of his (how true ſhall in due place be examined) more then the want of evidence in the Tracts themſelves may have rendred them liable.
2. What on the two former heads I wrote many years ſince, I confeſſe, I expected not to ſee arraigned at this time, being deſigned as part of an breach, at leaſt mollifie the Paroxyſme, by removing two of the five ſpecious charges, under which the blameleſs ceremonies, and cuſtomary practices, and obſervances of the Church of England were by diſſenters oppugned and rendred odious. And what was then ſaid, as I could not diſcern wherein it came ſhort of Evidence of conviction (if I had, I ſhould certainly either have cleared or ſuppreſt them) ſo it was never my fortune in nine years ſpace to hear from any, that it lay under an ill character, but on the contrary, that it had in ſome meaſure performed what it undertook, freed our Church from thoſe two accuſations, and demonſtrated them, as applied to us, to be perfect calumnies. And I have but one Petition to the Readtwo Treatiſes, with three more deſigned to the ſame end, and upon his ſtricteſt ſurvey advertiſe me, wherein I have failed in my undertaking.
3. But it is come to paſſe, what Arrian long ſince taught me to expect, that as when general diſcourſes come to be applied to particular caſes, then
Arr. Epict. l. 1. c. 22.the contention begins, ſo when the grounds, more univerſally laid for the juſtifying our Church, were in a tract conFeſtivals, and eſpecially the day of the Nativity of Chriſt, brought home to the clearing that celebration from either of thoſe two (as from all other) charges, then Mr. Cawdry's hypotheſes, in which, I ſuppoſe, his way of managing his opinion of the morality of the Sabbath had engaged him, found themſelves to be concerned, then the commemoration of the birth of Chriſt, though but by one anniverſary (being not eaſily reconcileable with the grounds which he had laid for the Chriſtians one weekly Sabbath in the 4th
Commandment of the Decalogue) was ſoindicted and, as in a Chancerie bill, all imariot of feſtivities being not ſufficient to render it odious, the more formidable charges of Will-worſhip and Superſtition muſt be revived, and by the neceſſity of this conſequence, to ſalve his ſubjects, though never ſo clear, muſt now be called to a ſevere examen, and ſo ſtore of new tasks provided for me.
4. And me thinks tis poſſible that old Elias Lev. Thiſh. p. 49.Nahum's word may not here be unreaſonable even this alſo for good, To which purpoſe I am willing to rememAlexander Aphrodiſaeus told the Emperors Severus and Antoninus, in his Preface to the Tract of Fatalitie
Free will, that whoſoever would point him out any doubt or difficulty, that remained in that matter, after the reading of his treatiſe, he would account it a great favour and honour to him, rendring this reaſon for it, becauſe it was not eaſy in one Tract, to do two things exactly, both dilucidely to expound the matters of which he principally wrote, and all thoſe other things alſo, which were uſefull to the explicating thereof.
5. And the ſame I deſire may introduce my addreſs to this Diatribiſt, and the tasks by him ſet before me, The ſubjects which he hath choſen to conſider with me being ſuch, as well deſerve ſome care from each of us, that we neither deceive others, nor our ſelves in them, I mean, perfectly practical, concerning a peculiar Chriſtian duty incumbent on us, in that of Feſtivals, and again a more univerſal duty, that of obedience to our immediSuperiors, and to the univerſal Church of Chriſt, from which we muſt not depart or be affrighted, upon preSuperſtition &c. and yet ought warily to ſecure our obedience from that and the like guilts, when there is any real danger of them. And beſide theſe, there is ſomewhat of a more ſublime conſideration (on occaſion of that of Will-worſhip) the freewill offerings which will very well become a Chriſtian to bring to Chriſt, rewardable in a high degree, though they are not under any expreſs precept, ſuch are all the higheſt charities, and devotions, and moſt heroical Chriſtian practiſes, which ſhall all not onely be degraded but defamed, if every thing be concriminous, which is not neceſſary, if all uncommanded practiſe be unlawfull.
6. Now this Diatribiſt having undertaken to examine what I then wrote, and done it with ſo little partiality to me, that I have no reaſon to ſuſpect he hath left any
minute difficulty unmentioned, I ſhall hope that the departicular ſurvey of all his objections will probably prevent any future miſtake in theſe matters, and upon this ſcore, as St Auguſtine thought it neceſſary for thoſe heathens which deiſied all their benefactors, to build one altar and pay ſome homage to their enemies, bebenefactors, ſo have I not grudged the tribute of my pains, at leaſt that of a ready, though laborious obedience to this call of the Diatribiſt, but apprehended this opportunity of removing all doubts, which can recur and require ſolution; entertaiſlender hope that the Reader may reap ſome ſmall benefit thereby in order to chriſtian practice; the one thing which I deſire to propoſe, as the end of all my meditations, and never to be drawn by the importucontention or ingagement, which hath not this aime viſible before it, the ſeaſonable checking and reformation of ſome vices, (ſuch ſure are thoſe which here I deſire to prevent and remove) or the confirmation and increaſe of virtue, to the glory of God, and the multiplying of fruit to our account.
7. That this hath been the onely aime of all hitherto publiſht by me, even of thoſe diſcourſes which are moſt polemical, I am ſo fully ſatisfied in my ſelf, that I doubt not to approve it to any, that can make queſtion of it, where difference of opinion doth not either by cloſe conſequence, or more immediately, lead into vitious practice, I ſhall never willingly contend with any man, or make recontentious: But in Doctrines which have immediate influence upon practice, tis obligation of charity to indevour the diſabuſing of all, and not to permit or ſuffer any ſuch fruitfull, and noxious error upon my neighbour.
rejecting of Children from Baptiſme, and find ſome objections, offered by Mr. Tombes, to what I have written on that ſubject, I have therefore drawn a ſhort defence of that Apoſtolical practice, and vindicated my former diſanſwers, and exceptions, which being offered to the Reader, as ſoon as the Printer will permit, I ſhall not doubt of his leave to ſhut up the Palaeſtra at this time, having ſufficiently cloyed him with theſe Spectacles.
9. And it is my wiſh for him that he may continue to have the eaſe (at leaſt) of a Spectator, that it may be his lot, though for ſome moneths it hath not been mine, peaceably and quietly with all men, a felicity of which we are all to be ambitious,
grace that we are all, not in prayer onereal indevours to contend for, and to hold it faſt, untill it be violently wreſted from us.
10. As it is, I have with patience fortified my ſelf for the preſent undertaking, and to make it alſo as ſupportable as may be to others, abſtained from tranſcribing the entire ſeverall Sections of his Diatribae, and onely repeated as much as exacts anſwer from me, not omitting (as far as my wit would ſerve me) any the leaſt particular, which can be thought to have energy againſt any of thoſe things, that are aſſerted by me in thoſe Tracts, ſave only when the ſame things once anſwered have again, whether in words or ſenſe, been repeated by him.
Title page will deſerve a curſory view, eſpecially the place of Scripture, whereadorn it, Col. 2. 4. 8. by which the Reader is directed to look on his threefold exercitation (as he is pleaſed to call it) with Dr. H. as an eſpeciall antidote againſt that Philoſophy, &c. of which S. Paul foretake heed in thoſe two verſes.
C. had to expreſs ſuch unkindneſs to, and jealouſie of Philoſophy, (certainly not the ſame that S. Paul then had among his Coloſsians) but onely remind the Reader what is Annot. on Col. 2. a. and 1 Tim. 1. 2.Philoſophy there branded by the Apoſtle, was that which the Gnoſticks divinity was too full of, taken out of
Pythagoras and the Greek Poets, Antiphanes, Heſiod and Philiſtion, and eſpecially Orpheus his Theologie or Genealogies of the Gods, and ſo promiſcuouſly ſtyled by the Apoſtles
Philoſophy and vain deceipt, in this admonition to the Coloſsians, and fables and endleſs genealogies (how out of Night and Silence comes forth Chaos &c.) in his directions to Timothy 1 Tim. 1. 4. and fooliſh queſtions and genealogies, in his Epiſtles to Titus c. 3. 9.
three diſcourſes concerning Superſtition, Wil-worſhip, Chriſtmas Feſtival, muſt be diſcerned by his anſwer to all, or any of theſe few queſtions, 1. Whether any Gnoſtick principle of Theologie hath been diſcovered in any of thoſe three Tracts which he hath undertaken to chaſtiſe. 2. Whether it be a piece of Apoſtatical or heretical pravity, a branch of heatheniſme or Gnoſticiſme, to maintain the celebration of Chriſts Nativity to have nothing criminous in it, either under the head of Superſtition or Wil-worſhip. 3. Whether all inſtitutions of the Church, though in themſelves never ſo blameleſs, are yet to be lookt on, as diſpoiling Chriſtians, and little leſs then Sacrileges, and whether they are all comprehended under that ſtyle of Traditions of men, and rudiments of the world, in oppoſition to after Chriſt, of which the Apoſtle ſo carefully warnes the Coloſsians. Laſtly, whether all probable, or concludent, nay even demonſtrative diſcourſe, be to be warded and averted, as deceipts and beguilings, becauſe capable of that title of Apoſtle there uſeth, whether we render them literally probabilities of ſpeech, or with our tranſlation, inticing words?
C. hath accommodated any ſatisfactory anſwer to theſe few queſtions (all, or at leaſt ſome one of them) he may then be qualified to attempt juſtifying the charitableneſs of his title page, and the propriety of his ſelect Scripture, but till then, he may give his Reader leave to queſtion one of them.
exceptions to the title pages of his two other exercitations, and in like manner, 1. to demand, how commodiouſly the words of Chriſt, Mat. 15. 8, 9. condemning their worſhip as vain, which teach for doctrines the commandments of men, are affixt to the ſecond Diatribe concerning Wil-worſhip, when he cannot but know, that that Text is particularly handled in the firſt leaf of the treatiſe of Wil-worſhip, and demonſtrated neither to belong to humane laws in general, nor to any inſtitutions of the Chriſtian Church, but onely to the dogmatizing of Phariſaical hereticks, and particularly their urging ſome inventions of their own, as commanded, and under obligation by divine precept, now when the very Judaical commanded rites were ſo ſuddenly to be laid aſide, nailed to the croſſe, ſolemnly cancelled and aboliſht by Chriſt.
conſtancy to himſelf; that before the Diatribe of Chriſtmas, and other (ſure Chriſtian) feſtivals, he hath thought meet to prefix that text Gal. 4. 9, 10. of obſerving dayes, moneths, times, years, ſo peculiarly reſtrained by all circumſtances to the Judaical Sabbaths, New Moons, Anniverſaries, and Jubiles, but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly feaſt of Chriſts birth, then to the weekly of his Reſurrection.
aſſociate his two Latine ſentences, the one out of S. Auſtine of worſhipping God as he hath commanded; the other out of S. Cyprian, of the vanity of irrational cuſtomes, and remind him that we deſign no other worſhip of God upon Chriſtmas day, but ſuch as we are ſure he hath commanded at all times, that of prayer and thanksgiving &c. and that the incarnation of Chriſt was a competent reaſon to found a cuſtome of commemorating it after this manner, we ſhall finde a perfect harmony and conſent in all his diſcords, and that is all I ſhall return to his frontiſpices,
prejudices into the Reader, to blaſt before-hand, what he meant to anſwer.
entring, and yet there is a Preface ſtill behind, which expects to be taken notice of, as being a very friendly recapitulation of the grounds of my great miſtakes, the unhappy cauſes of thoſe my miſcarriages, which he hath diſcovered in the inſuing Exercitations.
Diatribe ſo inſtructed, or immiſadventure in thoſe diſcourſes, find it impoſſible for me to be edified by this his charity; I muſt be ſhewed my diſeaſe, before Hippocrates himſelf can point me out the cauſes of it, and therefore my briefeſt return to his preface, is but to beſeech him to reſerve his diſcourſe of cauſes, till the effects ſhall be ſo viſible, as to call for it; and if this be not a ſufficient reply to all of it, What is behind, will eaſily be referred to this one head, the injuſtices and miſtakes of the author of it, which I ſhall but briefely recite to him.
Firſt, that he hath thought fit to compare Superſtition and Wil-worſhip, as they are the ſubjects of my diſcourſes, with Hereſie; whereas, 1. Superſtition, in the proper notation of the word, which firſt I ſpeak of, and vindicate our Church, whether in the ceremonies, or obſervances, from all appearance of guilt of it, is the worſhipping of Demons or deified men, and that ſure is worſe then hereſie in every Chriſtians account, and ſo inconvenientcompared, ſo as to be equalled with it. And 2, whatever our
Church hath admitted, is cleared to have nothing of Superſtition in it in any other ſecundary notion or acception of the word; or if it had, yet as long as it is no more but uncommanded Rites or Feſtivals, which by the Diatribiſt himſelf are thus ſtyled, thoſe ſure, in any reaſon, will not be capable of this compariſon, or accuſation of being ſo bad as hereſie; and 3. will-worſhip in the one place where it is uſed in Scripture, hath no manner of ill, but good character ſet upon it, being joyned humility, which I hope is not yet condemned to be quite ſo criminal and abominable to God, as pride and hereſie is acknowledged to be; however in this Preface, before my interpretation of Col. 2. 23. hath been endevoured to be confuted, this ſo eminent criminouſneſs thereof was not with more reaſon, then charity ſuppoſed by him.
2. That he hath affirm'd, in a parentheſis, of ſome men that ſuperſtition is evidently one of theſe) their virtues rather then crimes; which again if applied to me, or I think to any Proteſtant living, is very unkind and unprovoked, having no ground in any part of my Diſcourſe.
3. That Wil-worſhip hath been by him elſwhere demonſtrated criminal as Hereſie, which in what notion ſoever he hath expreſt himſelf to underſtand the word, is with no truth aſſumed by him, as far as refers to theſe Diatribae; and if it be elſwhere atvindicate his own veracity, or elſe have recited the heads of ſuch demonſtrative arguments in this place; or in the ſecond Diatribe; and yet neither of theſe are done by him.
fourth miſtake is, that he hath recited it as one cauſe of my miſcarriages in this buſineſs that I affirm that a man cannot be too religious, and that I atteſt this both of the intenſion or degree, and of the extenſion or number of Ceremonies taken into the worſhip of God] Whereas that which I affirm, is evidently this. 1. That in reſpect of the degree, there is no ſuch thing as nimiety or exceſs in Religion; no poſſibility of being Religious in too high a degree, Sect. 33. and this is not denyed by Mr. C. nor can be by any pious man; who knows that all his faults are omiſſions and defects, but never exceſſes of piety or religion. 2. The Meſſalians, or the neglect of the duties of charity and the particular calling, incident to the intenſe practice of holy duties, were foreſeen and prevented there; the Meſſalians fault was not their exceſſive practice, but their laying that obligation on themſelves and others; the ſame that Tertullian and the Montaniſts were guilty of, in reſpect of other auſterities, and ſo 'twas their dogmatizing, in their impoſition of heavy burthens, wherein their hereſie (not their ſuperſtition) conſiſted: And the others crime is his idleneſs, and walking diſorderly, a crime cenſured by the Apoſtle, 2 Theſ. 3. 11. (yet far enough from Superſtition again) and in like manner his want of charity, and ſo not nimiety, but unſeaſonableneſs of piety, contrary to the expreſs words of Chriſt, I will have mercy and not ſacrifice.
objection be offered from the words of the Preacher, Eccl. 7. 16. (which yet this Diatribiſt hath not thought fit to offer) Be not righteous overmuch, why ſhouldſt thou deſtroy thy ſelf? I ſuppoſe the anſwer is obvious, that thoſe words are the intimation of the wordlings objection, who taketh that for exceſs of duty which brings any damage or worldly deſtruction
next verſe with this ſolid Aphoriſm of eternal verity, Be not thou overmuch wicked; why ſhouldeſt thou die before thy time? The fears, and from thence the prudential, but oft times very impious practices of the worldling are far the more probable path to the moſt haſty ruines.
untruth, nor miſcarriage, nor cauſe of either in my diſcourſe.
extenſion or number of rites and ceremonies taken into the worſhip, that there cannot be too many of them, is as far from being my aſſertion, as that which is moſt contrary. For upon that head my concluſion is, that as ſome rites or circumſtances of time and place and geſture are abſoluteneceſſary to Religion, and the ſignificativeneſs of them is no manner of prejudice to the uſe or inſtitution of them, ſo if the Diſputers will yield but this, that even when they are ſignificative, the uſe of Ceremonies may be allowed among Chriſtians, I ſhall then in ſtead of pleading for the multitude of ſuch, give my vote to the confirming the old Rule, that they be paucae & ſalubres, few and wholſom; and particularly few for five reaſons, ſet down in the following words, Sect. 39. and ſure that is contrary enough to his reporting of my opinion, that there cannot be too many of them, and ſo that which was no part of my belief, could be no cauſe of any miſcarriage of mine in that buſineſs.
few (and ſo that there may be too many) Ceremonies in a Church, is no way the yielding a poſſibility that a man may be too religious; but on the contrary when the too many Ceremonies either cauſe, or occaſion, or are accompanied with inward neglects, there is not too much but too little Religion, too much formality, but too little devotion, too much outward Phariſaical waſhing, but too little inward Chriſtian fervor, as there may be praying (I may adde too many offers of proof, but too little reaſon) and reDiatribiſt that this was expreſly ſaid before in the end Mat. 6.Sect. 39. by the token of the inſectile animals, whoſe want of blood cauſed their multitude of legs, I ſhall then ſure have given him ground of conviction, that there were more then one calumnie
aſſignation of the cauſes, particularly in this of the firſt cauſe of my miſcarriages.
diſtinctions, by which he is willing to clear his way, that a man may be ſaid to be too Religious, either becauſe he gives more to God then he deſerves, but ſo he cannot be too Religious; or, becauſe he gives more then God requires by the Rule of worſhip. 2. That in regard of worſhip commanded, eſpecially natural worſhip, a man cannot be too religious in reference to the intention (I ſuppoſe it ſhould be intenſion) of the devotion, is in love, fear, truſt in God (adding in a cautious parentheſis, that in inſtituted worſhip a man may be too religious, as if he pray or faſt to the waſting his health or neglect of his calling:) but in uncommanded worſhip, the leaſt addition to the Rule of worſhip is too much, and ſuch a man may be ſaid to be too religious.] I cannot imagine how he hath by either or both of theſe attain'd his end, but rather perplexed, then cleared the way for the Reader, which was perfectly ſtraight, and abundantly explicate, before he took upon him to be the harbinger..
members of both his diſtinctions are ditoo much of his diſtinctions, tautologie I ſuppoſe is ſuch a nimiety, and ſuch ſure is this [A man that gives more then God requires by the rule of worſhip is too religious] and [in uncommanded worſhip the leaſt addition
to the rule of worſhip is too much, and ſuch a man may be ſaid to be too religious.]
Secondly, for his Parentheſis, it was perfectly prevented in the tract of Superſtition § 33. and ſo was a 2d. nimiety, being added without all neceſſity or uſe, it being there acknowledged that in a frequent or intenſe practice of holy duties there might be ſome infault, viz. neglect of duties of charity or particular callings; and waſting of health through faſting immoderately, bears analogie with theſe.
forewarned, that the fault herein was not the exceſs of Religion, but omiſſion of other neceſſary duties, and that demonſtrated by this, becauſe if that frequency, whether of prayer or faſting, wherein is the ſuppoſed exceſs, be either in another man, or in that man (whoſe exceſs is accuſed) at another time, ſeparated and ſecured from thoſe neglects, or omiſſions of thoſe other duties, the very ſame frequency and intention were his virtue not his crime, which therefore ſtill prejudges this from being an inſtance of the thing in hand, that a man may be too religious.
Thirdly, his difference, in this reſpect of nimiety, betwixt natural and inſtituted worſhip, is perfectly vain and uſeleſs to his deſign, even as he himſelf hath explicated it, placing love, fear, truſt in God under the firſt head, and prayer and faſting under the other.
prayer is as properly a branch of natural worſhip, as love, or fear, or truſt can be imagined to be, being, 1. inſeparable from truſt, 2. a neceſſary and natural means of acknowledging Gods fulneſs and our wants, 3. conthankſgiving, praiſing God, which is the prime way of honouring God (He that praiſeth me honoreth me, ſaith David) and ſure that honouring of God, a moſt peculiar branch of natural worſhip, dictated by the nature of a creature, and taught by all naturaliſts that acknowledged any God, (Pythagorean verſes, honour the Gods, and God in Phocylides) and both the petitory and the Euchariſtical comprehended under the worſhiping the Gods, in Plutarch, which Xenophon tells us is the primeval law acknowledged
among all men, and Hierocles, having defined Piety to be the the captain of all virtues,
as having reſpect to the divine cauſe, he addes that the precept concerning that in the golden verſes, had juſtly the precedence and deference before all lawes, to give the Gods that honor which is due unto them, and all things elſe according to that order
which the creative law (that ſure is the Chriſtians law of Nature) together with their being, had afforded them. But perhaps ſuch evidences as theſe are the Philoſophy againſt which the Reader was to be forewarned in the title page, and therefore,
Secondly, I muſt adde, to demonſtrate the uſeleſneſs of his diſtinction in this place, that it is as poſſible to exceed in truſt, in feare, nay even in love, as it is in prayer; Thus he that ſo truſts in God, as not to fear; he that truſts him with the end, ſo as to neglect the means, parallel to him that prays and neglects his calling; he that truſts and relies and hopes, but doth not purifie, (perEvangelical condition) every one of theſe is, in proportion with M. C. his inſtances of prayer and faſting, an exceeder in truſt, we are wont to expreſs it by preſuming.
2. He that ſo fears, as not to love, that fears where no fear is,
that walkes accurately
as a fool, he will be as properly an exceeder in fear.
3. He that ſo loves God again, either as not to fear God, or as not to love his brother alſo; he that hath a zeal to God, but not according to knowledge, he is in like manner an exceeder in love. And yet all this while none of theſe are religious too much, but too little, though they exceed the bounds of one part of duty, they are defective in another, and tis this defect, not that other exceeding, that is criminous, Theſe things ought they to have done, but not to leave the other undone; and theſe omiſſions are their crimes, and as truly ſo in the natural as in the inſtituted worſhip, though if the inſtituted worſhip in any branch be preferred before any branch of natural duty, or be more intenſely and frequently practiſed, to the neglecting thereof, this may be a greater fault then if one part of natural worſhip be intended to the detriment of another either ſuperior or equal to it, as if Sacrifice (which I acknowledge an inſtituted worſhip) be intended or preſt to the omiſſion of neceſſary charities, ceremonies to the ſlacking of the inward fervor, or the like.
Diatribiſt's ſubdivided diſtinctions have done for us (beſide diſcovering his own miſtakes) is onely this, to propoſe one ſort of things, wherein in his opinion, a man may be too religious, viz. in giving God more then he requires by the rule of worſhip, or, as again he expreſſeth it, by the leaſt addition to the rule of worſhip, which, ſaith he, is too much, and ſuch a man may be too religious. And this being the onely product of his diſtinction, is, as I intimated, ſo far from clearing, that it is the perplexing and intrieating the buſineſs, which was formerly clear enough, the leading the Reader not out but into Meanders, an intanglement of the clue, a Sphinx inſtead of an Oedipus.
difficult, ſo involved, of ſo incertain and dubious ſignification as this which now he calls [giving God more then he requires by the rule of worſhip] and explains by [uncommanded worſhip, and, the leaſt addition to the rule of worſhip.]
clear again what he hath clouded, by asking him but this one queſtion, Doth he mean in theſe words [more] and [Addition] any new ſpecies or ſort of worſhip, neither preſcribed by the law of Nature, nor inſtituted by any poſitive law of God? or doth he deſigne onely ſome circumſtance onely, or ceremony, which beintrinſick nature or eſſence of worſhip, but onely accidental to it, is not particularly commanded or preſcribed by the word of God, the rule of worſhip? ſuch are the time, the place, the geſtures, and ſuch outward, but ſome of them inſeparable attendants of worſhip.
obſcurity and miſtakes, and therefore to be as explicit as may be; Prayer is a ſpecies of worſhip; praying on the Lords day, on Chriſtmas day, obſerving conſtant hours of prayer, thrice, ſeven, ten times every day, is each of them a circumſtance adherent to Prayer; ſome time is neceſſary and inſeparable from Prayer, but every of theſe times forementioned are not ſo, he that prayes but thrice doth not pray ſeven or ten times a day, So again the place of prayer may give it a different denomination, either of publick or private; the manner may render it more or leſs ſolemn, the geſtures more or leſs reverent or irreverent, the increaſe, letting down of ardor,
devout or formal, and there are many ſorts, and degrees of each of theſe, but theſe do not conſtitute new or ſeveral ſorts of worſhip, but all are accidents of one and the ſame ſpecial of worſhip, viz. of Prayer.
ſpecies or ſorts of worſhip, then I never doubted to affirm with him, that all uncommanded worſhip is an exceſs, if he pleaſe, (an error, I ſhould rather ſay) a ſetting up that for worſhip of God, which is not worſhip, nay perhaps quite contrary to worſhip; and this ſure was never juſtified by me explicitely, or implicitely, in concluſions, or in grounds and principles of thus concluding, and ſo ſtill this hath not been uſefull to me to diſcover any miſtake of mine.
miſadventure of mine, that it will devolve all abſurdity upon the Diatribiſt.
rule of worſhip, i. e. the Scripture, any where preſcribed the times, the places, the geſtures, and all the circumſtances of the worſhip of God, and that both poſitively and excluſively, ſo that he that prayes oftener then the Scripture expreſly commands, or on any day not aſſigned to that purScripture, ſinnes in ſo doing, addes to the rule, gives more then God requires, doth too much, is too religious, is criminous and abominable to God in ſo doing? every of theſe muſt be the affirmations of this Diatribiſt, if this 2d. meaning be his, and the like he is obliged to ſay again of him that prays in any place, in any manner, in any geſture, which the word of Scripture, the rule of worſhip hath not commanded.
Book is perfectly caſt away, a meer beating the air, without me or any man elſe to be his adverſarie, I ſhall at the preſent ſuppoſe it ſo, and ſhew him, as deictically as he can wiſh, the abſurdities of it.
times of prayer, I demand, What hath the rule of worſhip, the Scripture preſcribed? hath it preſcribed morning and evening Prayer, and that both poſitively, and excluſively to any more? If ſo, then by the ſtandard of this Diatribiſt's doctrine, Davids or Daniels praying three times a day, adding
the noon day ſeaſon to the other two, muſt be criminous and abominable: or if he ſhall pitch upon any other number of times, as preſcribed by the Rule, then I ſhall add an unite more to that number and demand, whether that addition will adde abomination to his performances? If he ſaith it will, though I might preſs that affirmation with abſurdities enough, yet I ſhall ſpare it, and onely demand the proof from the Scripture for this aſſertion, and when he gives it me forfeit all my pretenſions to the underſtanding that ſacred book; but if he cannot produce any ſuch Scripture, then is my Cenſor the guilty perſon, the very dogmatizer, that teacheth for Doctrines or Commandments of God, his own Dictates, which I muſt ſuppoſe to be the traditions of a man, and the doing ſo, I cannot reſiſt to be a nimiety, but not of religion, that I yet diſcern.
ſet days to be conſecrated to the worſhip of God, for faſting or for prayer, I demand how many every week or every yeer hath the Rule of worſhip preſcribed? Or what rule of worſhip ſhall be appealed to? the Law of Moſes, or the Goſpel of Chriſt? His anſwer to this queſtion will involve him in intricacies enough: If the Law of Moſes be the rule, then he knows all the New Moons and feaſts of the Jews, and Sabbatick years and Jubilees muſt return upon him: If the Goſpel of Chriſt, which hath certainly aboliſht all theſe, and, as he ſuppoſeth, ſet up the Lords-day, inſtead of them all, then 1. I demand in what words of the New Teſtament the weekly obſervation of this is commanded? and 2. in what words the obſerving all others but that, parFeaſt of Eaſter, the annual commemorative of the Reſurrection, is interdicted, and whether the weekly remembrance of ſo great a mercy, being ſo acceptable to God, it be reaſonable to think the annual, abominable before him? And the ſame queſtion ſoon extends it ſelf to the day of Chriſts Incarnation, Paſſion, Aſcenſion, &c. and if of each of theſe he ſhall define and pronounce them unlawfull, without teſtimony and verdict from the Rule of worſhip the Scripture, then he is the Dogmatizer, that hath added to the Rule, more interdicts then are there to be met with, and ſo ſtill he is the man guilty of the nimiety.
geſtures in the worship of God, I demand, What
geſture of prayer, preſcribed by the Rule? Is it ſtanding, ſitting, or kneeling, any, or all of theſe, or any fourth ſuperadded to theſe? If the Rule have preſcribed none, then according to his doctrine again, any of theſe muſt be criminous additions to the Rule, abominable, &c. If the rule have preſcribed ſome one, then all others, beſide that one, muſt fall under the ſame ſeverity, that that one, had done, if it had not been preſcribed: and if all three are under ſeveral precepts, and ſo the whole Rule obeyed by rethree, then ſtill I ſhall mention a fourth, that of proſtration, whether will the old penitents, in the porch, or on the pavement, every man in his cloſet and receſſe, and ſtill the queſtion returns, whether this be criminous, and by what part of the rule of worship it appears to be ſo?
Necdum finitus the enumeration of the Diatribiſts inextriend, but infinitely multipliable by every act of Religious Faſt, and of Almſgiving, the two oGods worship (as Aquinas (owned here by the Diatribiſt) hath defined from the ſixt of Matthew) the proportions or degrees of each of which are yet no where defined in the Scripture. But I ſuppoſe it cannot now be neceſſary, that I farther confirm what is ſo evident already.
duties of the firſt to the ſecond Table, and demand whether any thing that is done (out of the ſervice of God) for which there is no command, be a criminous exceſs? Certainly the Analogy will hold, God having given the Rule for juſtice and charity, as well as worship, and then whatſoever of any kind is not under precept, muſt by this argument be under interdict, and ſo there will be nothing left indifferent in the world: A concluſion that ſome men which have held Mr. C. his hypotheſis have rationally inlarged to, finding it neceſſary, and unavoidably deduced from thence: But I diſcern not yet, that Mr. C. hath thus improved his principle, though ſure whenſoever it is for his turn, it is thus improvable.
C. hath added three proofs to his affirmation, and how unreconcileable ſoever with common notions that is, yet thoſe muſt deſerve to be heeded; And his firſt proof is this, If a man or Church may adde to the Rules of Religion, then be or they may be too Religious: But Ergo.
prove, was this, that in uncommanded worſhip the leaſt addition to the rule of worſhip is too much, and ſuch a man may be ſaid to be too religious: And this, ſaith he, I prove, 1. If a man or Church may adde to the rule of religion, &c. Of this 1. I deſire to be told, whether it be not a meer idem per idem, a proit ſelf, and whether that be not contrary to all rules of ſyllogizing, where the medium of probation is never to enter the concluſion, as here moſt evidently it doth.
form, tis not needfull that I ſay any thing to the matter of this proof, it being the very thing that I have ſpoken to all this while, and by that diſtinction, of the ſorts and circumſtances of worſhip, I have competently ſhewed, that it hath no force againſt me; that indeed he that introduces any new part of divine worſhip, is a preſumptuous aſſumer, doth more then he ſhould, becauſe that which he ſhould not do, and ſo that the Major is falſe, inſtead of clear; he that thus addes, and impoſeth on God and his word, is not hereby too religious, but too bold, and was never pleaded for in the leaſt, by my treatiſe of Superſtition.
inconſequence of this Major will more appear, by conſiproof of the Aſſumption, which he annexes, The aſſumption, ſaith he, is proved by Deut. 4. 2. where all additions to the word are prohibited.
proſtrates himſelf in prayer, adde to the word of God? then ſure he that walks in the garden, doth ſo too, much more he that makes any ſuch deductions from Scripture, as this Diatribiſt here doth, (for not onely the analogie enforceth this, but it is alſo to be remembred, that the laws which had here been given by Moſes, were all ſorts of duties of common life, toour ſelves, and our brethren, as well as of worſhip toward God, and ſo this Text muſt exclude all other uncommanded actions, as well as worſhips) The words in Deuteronomy are theſe, Ye ſhall not adde to the word that I command you, neither ſhall ye diminiſh from it,
ad cuſtodiendum, and in the ſame ſenſe the Targum
to obſerve, or that ye may obſerve that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. The meaning is moſt evident that they were to perform uniform
obedience to God, not to make any change in Gods commands, either to pretend more liberties, or fewer obligations, or again more obligations and fewer liberties, to be delivered them by God, then thoſe which he had then delivered by Moſes, but to ſet themſelves humbly to the performance of his precepts, and accordingly the Septuagint renders keep]
ye ſhall keep, the Latine, cuſtodite keep, and the Syriack, ſed obſervate, but keep the commandments, by that oppoſition ſhewing that to be the meaning of not adding or diminiſhing, viz. paying an obedience to Gods commands. And the ſame ſenſe in the like words we have again Apoc. 22. 18, 19. to ſhut up the great prophecy in the New Teſtament; And then, I pray, is he that offends againſt either of theſe two texts, too Religious? Is it not more true on the contrary, that he is a falſe Prophet, and a ſacrilegious perſon, that pretends the word of the Lord for that which God hath not ſpoken to him? But this crime I hope every man is not guilty of, that bowes or kneeles or proſtrates himſelf in prayer, by ſuch outward geſtures both ſignifying, and inflaming the inward fervor of the heart, but not inſerting any precept of doing thus, either into the book of Deuteronomy, or the Apocalyps. And this may ſuffice for his firſt proof.
ſaying of the great School man, that Religion is a moral virtue (or very like it) and ſtands between two extremes, Ergo, a man may be too much religious, as well as too little.
Firſt, I anſwer to the antecedent, that if it be remembred what the two extremes are, between which religion, in Aquinas, ſtands, the conſequent will never be inferred from it. The extremes are on one ſide Superſtition, on the other irreligion, ſuperſtition is again, ſaith he, of two ſorts, either 1. the worſhiping of a creature (of falſe Gods, or more Gods then one, as in Tertullian adv. Marc. l. 1. c. 5. ſpeaking of the worſhiping of two Gods, Vererer, ſaith he, ne abundantia officii ſuperſtitio potiùs quàm religio crederetur, I ſhould fear ſuch abundance of officiouſneſs would be rather believed ſuperſtition then religion; and S. Auguſtine, and out of him • 2•. qu. 92. art. 1.Aquinas, tangis primam chordam qua colitur unus Deus, & cecidit beſtia ſuperſtitionis, the beaſt of ſuperſtition is deſtroyed by the firſt ſtring of the Decachord, the firſt commandment of the Decalogue,
preſcribing the worſhip of one God.) or 2. cum Deo illegitimus cultus tribuitur, giving undue worſhip to God, and neither of theſe notions of ſuperſtition will be at all uſefull to the Diatribiſt to prove his concluſion.
former of theſe he ſhould conclude that a man may be too religious, tis plain that this muſt be his meaning, that a man may be a Polytheiſt, a worſhipper of falſe Gods, but I hope, in this ſenſe, he that obſerves the ceremonies of the Church of England, he that commemorates the birth of Chriſt on the 25 of Deber, will not be ſaid to be too religious.
cultus illegitimus, or indebitus, undue worſhip of the true God (which alone can poſſibly be deemed for the Diatribiſt's purpoſe) my anſwer ſhall be more particular, by viewing & weighing the words in Aquinas which are here referred to: though the place be not ſet down by the Diatribiſt, I ſupd1 2d2 either queſt. 81. Art. 1. or elſe qu. 92. Art. 1. in concluſ. which indeed hath theſe words, Religio eſt virtus moralis, omnis autem virtus moralis in medio conſiſt it, Religion is a moral virtue, and every moral virtue conſiſts in the middle, citing it (with a ſicut ſuprà dictum eſt) from the former place qu. 81. Art. 5. Now the ſumme of that Article is this, that Religion is neither a Theological nor an Intellectual, but a moral virtue, as being a branch of juſtice, in giving to God that which belongs to him, and that the due medium, wherein this, as all moral virtue conſiſts, is to be taken, not as the middle point bepaſſions, the Vid 1. 2. q. 64. Art. 2.medium rei (as ordinarily moral virtue is the moderating of paſſions, reducing them to a mediocrity, or temper, or equilibration betwixt the exceſs and defect) but acequality, in reſpect of God,
medium rationis, interpreting what he means by that, viz. equality, not abſolutely, becauſe we cannot give God ſo much as belongs to him, but ſecundum quandam conſiderationem humanae facultatis & divinae acceptationis (by conſidering what man is able to do, and what God will accept; As for ſuperfluity in ſuch things as theſe, which beworſhip of God, there can be none, ſaith he, ſecundum circumſtantiam quanti, as to the circumſtance of quantity. I cannot do too much in the worſhip of God, I cannot offend that way but, as Art. 4 in corp.
tanto eſt melius,
quanto magis acceditur ad ſummum, it is ſo much the better, by how much it comes neerer the higheſt. All the ſuperfluity poſſible is as to the other circumſtances, and he names but three, 1. cui non debet, by exhibiting divine worſhip to him to whom it ought not to be exhibited, 2. quando non debet, by giving it at a time when it ought not, (when having formerly been acceptable to God, tis now outdated) 3. in reſpect of other circumſtances, prout non debet, in a manner wherein it ought not.
incompetent this teſtimony from Aquinas is, to prove the concluſion propoſed by the Diatribiſt, that every thing in the worſhip of God which is not commanded by God, is too much. For ſure every thing that is not commanded, is not preſently forbidden, nor conſequently offends againſt the prout debet, as it ought, the due manner, time, or other circumſtances of it. If there be any difficulty in that phraſe [prout debet, as it ought] and it be conceived to ſignifie ſo as is particularly commanded by God, and è contra, that what ever is done, being not particularly commanded by God, is prout non debet, as it ought not, this is certainly a miſtake, and very diſtant from Aquinas's ſenſe, who means by cultus debitus, due worſhip, any acts of worſhip,
d• 2d• q. 81. Art. 5. in aorp.
qui ad Dei reverentiam fiunt, which are done to the honour of God, with conſidering whether they be under precept or not, and conſequently with him cultus indebitus, undue worſhip, is ſuch as is done to the diſhonor, at leaſt not to the honor of God, as when of Idolatry he ſaith, that it art. 2. corp.
exhibits divine reverence, indebitè, unduly to the creature.
other text qu. 92. art. 1. Superſtition is by him defined to be a vice oppoſed to religion in the exceſſe, whereby a man gives worſhip to him to whom he ought not, or not in a manner that he ought, meaning as he explains himcircumſtances, when either it is faſtned on a wrong object, divine worſhip to that which is not God, (which ſure is againſt, not onely without the command of God) or done in a wrong manner, i. e. when any thing is done in the divine worſhip,
reſp. ad tertium.
quod fieri non debet, which ought not to be done, and he Art. 2. in reſp. ad tertium.
ſi quis temporibus gratiae vellet colere Deum ſecundum veteris legis ritum, If any man under Chriſtianity would worſhip God after the rites of the old law, which
not commanded but forbidden under Chriſt, and ſo are a proper inſtance of the quando non debet the undue circumſtance of time, mentioned particularly in the former place, and convinces that which I aſſigned to be the meaning of it. I need adde no more in this place concerning the teſtimony of Aquinas. Other mentions of his opinion in this matter, will hereafter occur, and then I ſhall have occaſion to ſpeake more to them.
proof is from the Doctors own conceſſion, who, ſaith he, grants there may be a nimiety or exceſs of religion, and addes words in ſuch a ſtyle as are abſolutely nonſenſe, even when the [not] (which I ſuppoſe the inſertion of the Printer) is blotted out, thus there may be a nimiety in adding, and ſo is an exceeder in the fear and ſervice of God.
anſwer, 1. that the Dr. no where uſeth that phraſe, a nimiety or exceſs of religion, the words [of religion] are inſerted by the citer and honeſtly put in different letters, to note them to be his own.
exceſs of fear, but not of religion (ſee the beginning of §. 46. of the Tr. of ſuperſtit.) and though I after ſay, that he that thinks himſelf bound or obliges others, as from God, when God neither commands nor forbids, and ſo addes to the commands of God, and fears where there is no reaſon to fear, is an exceeder in the fear and ſervice of God, yet neiexceſs of religion, nor indeed exceſs of fear or of ſervice of God, but the meaning is apparently this, that in fearing God, and ſerving God he is guilty of ſome other exceſs, not an exceſs of fear of God, but fearing ſomewhat elſe, which he phanGod, when it doth not, this fear of that ſomething elſe, is an exceſsive fear more then religion ſuggeſts to him, and yet the unhappineſs of it is, this interpoſeth it ſelf in religion.
This will be more evident by an example, ſuppoſe a man to phanſie that by Gods law he ought to kill his Father, and fears Gods wrath if he doth not, this mans fear is exceſſive, but his religion is not, he is an exceeder in the ſervice of God, if he do that in Gods ſervice, which is no part of it, but quite contrary to it, but doth not mean-while ſerve God too much, but too little, doth not exceed but fall ſhort, and ſo is farre from being too religious.
Arguments, when this was thought ſit to be produced to me, who ſure knew my own meaning when I thus ſpake, and was likely enough to be able to give this account of it. As it is, I have done with his firſt diſcovery of cauſes of my miſcarriages, and ſhall now haſten to the ſecond.
THe ſecond cauſe of the Doctors miſcarriages, ſaith he, is his miſpriſion, That exceſs in Religion is not well called Superſtition, or that Superſtition is not exceſs of Religion. Sect. 27 &c.
memorie not ſuggeſting unto me, that I was at all guilty of this miſpriſion, thus unlimitedly charoccaſion to afexpreſſions, who reſolve Superſtition, ſimply and abſtractly taken, in all Authors, to ſignievil; of Sect. 28. a ſecond inconſequence, that the uſe of Ceremonies not preſcribed by Chriſt, ſhould firſt be called Superſtition, then condemned for deſerving that title; of the 29. a third inconſequent, that men ſhould abſtain from ſome indifferent Ceremonies, as Superſtitious, and not expect to be counted ſuperſtitious for obliging themſelves to do the contrary. But ſure none of theſe, nor all together, do at all yield any ground for that concluſion, which he hath here miſreported from them, and that one would think, were a competent anſwer to this ſecond diſcovery of cauſes.
exceſs of religion, tis not poſſible for me to affirm or deny, to acknowledge or diſclaim univerſally, what I am ſaid to affirm. To deal plainly then, and without all ambiguity, If by exceſs of Religion he underſtand the doing of any thing in the worſhip of God, which Gods word doth not command (which is the onely thing which is of controverſie betwixt us, as hath already been manifeſted) then I ſtick not to deny that this is Superſtition, or that ſuperſtition in any authentick notion, or in the origination of the word whether Greek or Latine, doth import or comporexceſs, and confallacie or lying hid in ambiguities, which I took care to deprive him of in the laſt Section.
exceſs in religion he means, by the proof which he firſt offers to confirm his affirmative. For, for this he brings three proofs, and the firſt is this, becauſe it is an addition to the rule of worship, and ſo an exceſs, as ſuper ſtatutum.
formal or legal proof of the propoſition for which it was deſigned (and bemedium here uſed, is no fitter for the proving of this then of the laſt propoſition; for it is the ſame to both, and ſo indeed it is equally proper for both, or for what elſe he pleaſe) yet thus much is clear from it, that by exceſs in Religion he means addition to the Rule, and that we foruncommanded in the ſervice of God, and to that we have replyed abunSection.
confirmation of his proof, one thing not ſaid before, that all ſuch addition to the Rule muſt be ſuperſtition forſuper ſtatutum, above what is commanded, ſuppoſing, it ſeems, that that is the notation of the word ſuperſtition. And then I deſire the Diatribiſt's leave, that it may for once be my turn to make diſcoveries of cauſes, to propoſe to him, at leaſt for conſideration, whether this may not be his fundamental procreative miſtake, the having inconſiderately in his youth ſwallowed this etymologie of the word ſuperſtition (I am unwilling to phanſie the Diatribiſt to be the inventer of it) as
ſupra ſtatutum, above what is commanded.
conjecture, I ſhall profeſs to be at an end of my ſearch of cauſes; But if it be, I deſire him to allow me the favour once to diſabuſe him, by exacting this juſtice from him to himſelf, to conſider whether any Laws of derivation, compoſition or analogie can permit him ſeriouſly to believe that [ſtatutum] is ingredient in compounding Superſtition, or that it can be by any Rules deduced from any word in the Latine tongue, but ſuperſtes, ſuperſtitis, and the rather becauſe parallel Greek to the Latine ſuperſtition, and is viſibly ſo, if it be allowed to be deduced from ſuperſtitum cultus, hath nothing to do with ſuper ſtatutum, but is in plain words a worſhipping of Demons.
Treatiſe of Superſtition, to ſatisfie any Scholar, that knows in the leaſt, what belongs to the uſe or the nature of words, and ſo much, it ſeems, that Mr. C. confeſſes that the original of the word was Heatheniſh, to ſignifie ſuperſtitum cultus, and only adds (fidelity to his cauſe) that though this be true, yet 'tis well applied by Divines to thoſe additions made to the Rule of worſhip. But I pray what is this but to grant the premiſes, and deny the concluſion? Tis certain and by him acknowledged, that the original of the word is another thing not ſuper ſtatutum, what then can he tolerably mean by [tis well applied by Divines]? can Divines do well to apply ſuperſtitio to ſuper ſtatutum, when that is no way the nature of the word? Or can any proof be brought from hence to conclude ſuperſtition an exceſs, or addition to the rule, becauſe it is ſuper ſtatutum, when there is no affinity beſuper ſtatutum and ſuperſtition? what is or can be unreaſonable, if this be not?
[That which the Old Teſtament calls addition to the word, the New calls doctrines, traditions of men, wilworship, ſuperſtition.] In which few words as there be many infirm parts, 1. That additions to the word are in the N. T. called Doctrines I ſuppoſe he means teaching ſomewhat elſe for doctrines, Mat. 15 9. aſſuming them to be ſuch when they are not:
Mar. 7. 7. where yet the word Doctrines ſignifies the Scripture or Doctrine of God, and ſo the teaching their own traditions for doctrines, is adding them to the Scripture, Doctrines there ſimply ſignifying not that addition, but that to which the addition is made) and 2. that they are called wil-worship (the contrary of which is proved in the Treatiſe of wil-worship, and here to ſuppoſe it, is a begging of the queſtion) ſo ſure this is a third, that additions to the rule of worship, are any where in the New T. called ſuperſtition, I deſire he will ſhew me one ſuch place, for my Concordance will not afford it me.
twice there uſed: Firſt, Act. 17. 22. by St. Paul of the Athenians, whom he perceived to be more ſuperſtitious then others: But theſe ſure never medled with, and ſo added not to the true rule of worship, any otherwiſe then as all that abandon it, adde to it, live by ſome other falſe rule, and minde not that; and if they are, for ſo doadders to the rule of Worship, adulterers are ſo in like manner, and ſo by that meaſure or ſtandard, every ſin in the world is ſuperſtition.
Act. 25. 29. where Feſtus ſpeaks of Pauls
own ſuperſtition, but ſure meant not to accuſe him of adding to his or the Jews rule of worship, but underſtood his own Religion, and nothing elſe by that phraſe. And ſo ſtill miſadventures amaſst together, as could well be crowded into ſo few words.
defect in Religion is called profaneneſs, ſo the exceſs is called ſuperſtition, as ſtanding in oppoſition to it. Alas, it ſeems there is great need of proofs, for this again, as the former, was the very medium to prove the firſt propoſition, and ſo either the firſt, and this ſecond propoſition of his are all one (and then why was it cut in two, by Lucians beetle?) or elſe theſe proofs are very excellent inſtruindifferently. However it is, I ſhall not need provide new anſwers to it, but remand it to the former Section, where it was conſidered to the utmoſt it could pretend: Only if he pleaſe, I ſhall put it in form for him, thus. The worship of the many falſe Gods or Demons is an exceſs oppoſed to Religion, or worship of the one true God of heaven and earth, in
Aquinas's opinion, and ſo alſo is the worshipping the true God afundue or unlawfull manner, ergo, the uſing any Ceremony (in the worship of the true God) which the Scripture hath not commanded, is ſuperſtition, and ſuperſtition is that: As if he ſhould ſay, ſuperſtition is that, becauſe it is ſomewhat elſe, as exGod is from God, or as unlawfull (for ſo is ſuperſtition) is from lawfull, for ſuch is that which is not prohibited.
third proof he now adds of his affirmation, and that after the manner obſerved in his former argument from the Doctors own conceſſions, and no leſs then five, nay the fourth number being twice repeated, no leſs then ſix of them: And if I have ſo liberally granted it, I wonder how it came to be my charge, and that as the cauſe of my miſcarriages, that I denyed it.
phanſie firſt, and next accuſe me of denying a thing groſſo modo, and to prove me to have erred in thus denying, produce ſix ſeveral ſenſes, wherein I have granted it, whereas there is in the whole inditement but one pretended, wherein I had denyed it. In all reaſon thoſe ſix conceſſions might have reconciled the Diatribiſt to me, and perſwaded him that I was of his minde, rather then one ſingle appearance of diſſenting have thus provoked him.
Doctors Conceſſions, ſuch as they are, are evidently repropoſed, in that Tract of Superſtition, and the deſcending to a particular view of them, as they are marſhalled up by the Diatribiſt, will take away all doubt in this matter.
Firſt, ſaith he, he grants that ſuperſtitions may denote ſuch an exceſs, Sect. 31. Here I demand what Mr. C. means by ſuch an exceſs? that indeed is thus far anſwered already, that he means an exceſs of Religion: But what exceſs in Religion? The ſuper ſtatutum, every addition to the rule of worship, i. e. every uncommanded circumſtance, or Ceremony in the worship of God? Thus he muſt mean, if he be conſtant to himſelf, and if the Doctors Conceſſions yield him any appearance of proof for his affirmative. But to ſee the luck of it, this firſt citation from the Doctor is ſo far from yielding him any ſuch teſtimony, that it is
contrary; for that which the Doctor there obSect. 31. is this, that the word ſuperſtitioſus may indeed denote ſuch exceſs from the force of the termination oſus, but this no more then the word religioſus alſo denotes, in the opinion of Agellius out of Nigidius Figulus, and conſequently, that 1. Superſtitio and Religio were all one in that ſame Author's opiAgellius upon that Author, that all ſuch exceſſes are not culpable, or taken in ill, but good ſenſes. And then was not this a dangerous conceſſion, fit to be called out in judgement againſt me, then which nothing could be more direct to the aſſerting mine, and refuting the Diatribiſts hypotheſis?
ſuperſtitioſus were not ſufficient, to ſecure my pretenſions, which in that place were only this, that ſuperſtition among all Authors ſignified not any criminous exceſs. I might farther adde, that even when the word ſuperſtitioſus; is but a bare denominative from ſuperſtitio, and yet is uſed in an ill ſenſe, as when we Chriſtians ſay a ſuperſtitious perſon, the account is clear, that ſuperſtition there ſignifies Heathen-worſhip, or ſomewhat proportionable to it Superſtitioſum eſt quicquid ab hominibus inſtitutum eſt ad facienda & colenda idola pertinens. Auguſt: de doctr. Chriſt: l. 2. c. 20.worſhipping of others beGod; and by analogie with that notion of the ſubſtantive, the adjective fitly denotes him that acts like one of thoſe falſe worſhippers, or agrees with them in ſome eminent thing, which is a branch of their falſe worſhip, as he that makes obſervations of dreams, and ominous days, or occurrences, is ſaid commonly to be ſuperſtitious herein, i. e. to imitate the Auguries of the Heathen, and many the like.
conceſſion, that the worſhip of Angels is an exceſs or addition to the object of worſhip, and by him ſtyled that crime of ſuperſtition] a man would wonder to ſee produced by the Diatribiſt againſt me. Tis certain I make the worſhip of Angels ſuperſtition, worſhipping thoſe fellow creatures, which a Chriſtian ought not to worſhip; But is this an exceſs of religion, or not rather of impiety? worſhipping of the creature
beſides or over and above the creator. Tis true, this is an addition to the object of worſhip, as death is an addition to life, i. e. deſtruction to the oneneſs of that, which ought alone to be worſhipt, and admits no rival (ye cannot ſerve God and Mammon, nor worſhip
one God, if ye impart and laviſh out that incommunicable priadultery is an addition to the object of marital love and fidelity: But then what is this to the prejudice of uncommanded ceremonies? the uſing of which ſuper ſtatutum, the Diatribiſt is to demonſtrate to be ſuperſtition, for about that onely, he knowes, the controverſie is betwixt us.
conceſſion is juſt parallel to this, and in part the ſame, ſuperſtitum cultus, ſaith he, the worſhip of the Worthies by heathens, or of Saints and Angels by Papiſts, is called ſuperſtition Sect. 3. moſt properly, why? but that it addes to the rule of worſhip.] I muſt not repeate what was ſo lately ſaid, though the Diatribiſt will. Tis evident I affirm all theſe to be ſuperſtition, but the uſing of an uncommanded rite is none of theſe, what heathen worthy, Saint, or Angel is worſhipped or idolized by my proſtrating my ſelf in the worſhip of the true God, by my bowing at the name of Jeſus &c. As for the reaſon why the worſhip of heathen Worthies and Saints, and Angels by analogy, is called ſuperſtition, it is ſtrange again what care of intereſt can do. The reaſon, one would think, was viſible enough to the Diatribiſt, in the very naming of ſuperſtitum cultus, theſe Worthies and Saints are ſuperſtites, ſuppoſed to live after death (ſure that is the notion of ſuperſtes) and ſo the worſhipping of ſuch is ſuperſtition, and as the Angels, ſo the ſouls of the Worthies that thus ſurvive the bodies (and in the heathens theology are removed to the fortunate Iſlands, in the Chriſtians, to heaven or paradiſe, or Abrahams boſome) are ſolemnly ſtyled worſhipping of them is ſuperſtition. Is not this reaſon enough for the juſtifying the propriety of the uſe of a word, that it perfectly accords with the origination of it both in Greek and Latine? and then what need of his capriccio, [why? but that it addes to the rule of worſhip] Certainly ſo doth ſacriledge (even when it robbes God] adde to the rule of worſhip, in this ſenſe, doing ſomething which the rule commands not, no nor permits, and yet that is not ſuperſtition.
conceſſion produced is yet more ſtrange. A ſlaviſh fear ſaith he, of God, is granted to be ſuperſtition, becauſe fear of God being worſhip commanded in the firſt commandment, ſlaviſh fear is an exceſs of that] and he hath adventured to cite the ſections,
treatiſe of ſuperſtition. Herein the Reader will eaſily ſatisfie himſelf by his own eyes; In a word, thoſe ſections ſay no ſyllable of ſlaviſh fear, or any ſuch matter (and yet the Printer hath not miſtaken his figures) all that they ſay, is this, that ſuperſtitio ſometimes ſignifies in authors any part of Divine worſhip, which in obedience to his God, or for fear of vengeance from him, any worſhipper doth perform, a thing which every ſect likes in themſelves, but diſlikes in others of a diſtant worſhip, and ſo either honours or defames with the title as of ſuperſtition, ſo of Religion alſo. Then, that it alſo ſignifies a trembling fear of Gods puniſhments due for ſinne, ſuch as the Epicureans, that denyed all providence, were willing to ſcoffe out of the world. And of this notion of ſuperſtition, and equally of religion among the Epicureans, and Cicero that took it from them, I had ſpoken there at large, from §. 14. to §. 20. to which I muſt remit the Reader, and onely adde what there I omitted, that all that is there obſerved would probably receive much light, if we could retrieve one book of Plutarch, which is loſt, and inſtead of which I can now onely give him the title of it, of ſuperſtition to Epicurus, differing (it ſeems, both by the addition of ſubject of it) from that which is now extant of Plutarchs
aſpect on Epicurus, or his followers and Philoſophy, either to defend or accuſe it. Of this ſee the learned Gaſſend in his life of Epicurus.
change my words in an unprofitable citation (when if it had been ſlaviſh fear in his notion of it, of which I ſpake, yet that had been farre enough from the uſing of uncommanded ceremonies or inſtituting of Feſtivals) and inſtead of [that divine worſhip which any performs in obedience to his God, or for feare of puniſhment from him, and which Epicurus deſired to ſcoffe out of the world] to ſubſtitute ſlaviſh fear of God, or an exceſs of that fear of God which is preſcribed as worſhip in the firſt commandment?] Can it enter into any Chriſtians heart to think or ſay, that Epicurus was in the right in that part of his Theology, and conſequently that it was an exceſs of fear which Epicurus deſired to exterminate? This is to ſay, that all religion, belief of hell, infinite puniſhments apportioned to ſinexceſs of fear, and (under the title of ſlaviſh) criminous, and to be caſt out. This certainly was Epicurus's meaning, and the verſes in Lucretius demonſtrate it, where he thus argues,
—Nam ſi nullum finem eſſe putarent Aerumnarum homines, nullâ ratione valerent Religionibus atque minis obſiſtere vatum.
If men ſhould believe endleſs puniſhments, they could never reſiſt the religions, and threatnings of the Prieſts. And who would have expected the Diatribiſt a favourer of this ſect, as he muſt be, if this fear of God, which Epicurus called Religion or Superſtition, be by him lookt on as an exceſs of that worſhip of the firſt commandment? for that was Epicurus's very notion of it, placing his own opinion in the midſt; and as on one ſide, downright Atheiſme, deGod at all, ſo on the other, beliefe of a providence, of rewards and puniſhments; which as the mother of fear or perturbation, and interrupter of the quiet of life (his great aim) and very injurious to the Gods, he rejected as another extreme, under the title of Superſtitio error in ſanus, amandos timet, quos colit violat. Seneca EpiSuperſtition. But of this ſure I have ſpoken abundantly, and did not foreſee that Mr. C. was to be adprinciple in all Epicurus his philoſophie.
divinity concerning ſlaviſh fear, and becauſe mention of this ſlavish fear as of a criminous exceſs, and a branch of ſuperſtition recurres very frequently in theſe Diatribae, I ſhall not reſiſt the invitation of ſaying ſomewhat in this place, once for all, of ſlaviſh fear: By that I ſuppoſe he underſtands fear of puniſhment, as by filial fear, a reverential obedience, proceeding wholly from love, without any thing of fear in it. Concerning this diſtinction I ſhall firſt demand, whether it have any thing of propriety in it, i. e. whether ſonnes may not lawfully and reaſonably fear puniſhment from their parents, in caſe they ſhall deſerve it, even the greateſt puniſhment, exheredation, and caſting out of the family, upon their continuing diſobedient and refractary to their fathers commands, and whether this very fear be not ſo uſefull to reſtrain the exceſſes of youth, and keep them within that obedience, that no parent will ever think fit that the child ſhall know or think that his diſobedience, whatſoever the degree of it may be,
puniſht, and laſtly, whether it be not duty in the childe thus to fear, and proportionably whether this be not applicable to every childe of God, eſpecially being exhorted to it, Heb. 4. 1. Let us fear leſt a promiſe being made of entring into his reſt, any of you ſhould ſeem to come ſhort of it (adding thereto Heb. 12. 28, 29.) and this diſtinction being founded in the likechilde of God, and a childe of an humane parent: If this be ſo, then there can be no fitneſs or propriety in the diſtinction thus explicated, nor can the fear of puniſhment be diſcriminatively called ſlaviſh, nor with juſtice defined an exceſs of fear.
Secondly, The ſlaviſh fear I ſhall ſuppoſe in the Diatribiſts notion to be ſuch as is in a wicked man, and then it muſt be either the fear of divine vengeance for ſin committed formerly, or for ſin at the time of committing it, or for ſin before he commit it; and I demand how any of theſe three fears can by a Chriſtian duexceſs, or with any propriety ſuperſtition? For ought not the wicked man to fear puniſhment for his ſins paſt, when God affirms ſolemnly there is no peace, no peace to ſuch? be not the judgements of God gone out againſt that man, and if that Lyon roar, ſhall not he fear, if vengeance be denounced from God againſt him, is it a ſeaſon for him to caſt off fear? or if he doth, is not this carnal ſecurity? and is not the contrary apprehenſion (i. e. fear) neceſſary to reduce him? in a word, are not the terrors of the Goſpel part of the Goſpel, and on purpoſe deſigned to bring ſuch a man to repentance, and can he be ſaid to believe the Goſpel, which believes not that part of it, or will they be motives of Reformation to him, if he do not apply them to himſelf, in reapply them, who doth not fear the execution of them?
committing any wilfull ſin, ought he not to look upon it, as that againſt which the wrath of God is debelieve God, and not fear that wrath may fall on him, and that as long as he remains under the power of ſuch ſin, he remains under the wrath of God? Are all the evil abodes of an accuſing conſcience in a vitious perſon, exceſs, nay is not the contrary the higheſt pitch both of preſumption and danger, the very root bearing gall and wormwood, to bleſs himſelf
in his heart, ſaying, I ſhall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of my heart, Deut. 29. 19.
before the commiſſion of ſin, when he enters into temptation, is not the feare of hell an uſefull reſtraint to him, is it not both his duty and his bridle, is there, or can there be any exceſs in that? ſhould he fear, or ſhould he not fear? If he ſhould not, then what can keep him from running into all exceſs of riot? ſhall love of God, or virtue? but the wicked man, as wicked, is ſuppoſed to have none of that in his heart: But if he ſhould, if it be his duty to fear, and to fear hell, in caſe he ſhall thus go on, then ſtill how can it be an exceſs?
Diatribiſt reaſon to change his minde concerning ſlaviſh fear, and no longer to think it an exceſs of Religion, nor, as ſuch, capable of the title of Superſtition.
fear, is a defect, not exceſs, a want of love, not any unproportionable meaſure of fear, God is made up of goodneſs, as well as juſtice, and the Goſpel compounded of promiſes as well as threats and the love of Chriſt ought to conſtrein us, as well as the terrors of the Lord to perſwade, and he that hath a quick ſenſe of one, and none of the other, he is not an exceeder in fear, but deficient in love, and ſo ſtill the mention of ſlaviſh fear in this place, and frequently in the firſt exercitation, is very unapplicable to the purpoſe, for which it is brought, as an inexceſſe of religion, or ſuperſtition.
repeated, and ſo muſt be remembred from hence.
th
Conceſſion of the Drs. is obſerved to be this, that to affirme God to command, when he doth not, is granted to be ſuperſtition, under the notion of nimiety or exceſſe, becauſe that man addes to the commands of Chriſt. § 46.] To this I anſwer, that for them who are reſolved to have ſuperſtition taken in the ſenſe of nimiety, and in that ſenſe to be oppoſed to religion, as an extreme to the mediocrity, I did aſſign this of impoſing commandments on God (and ſo obligations on our ſelves, and others) which he never gave, as an exceſſe of fear, a being afraid of God, when we need not, and ſo proportionable to one notion
trembling, and ſo cowardly fear,
compoſition, And if hereby I have gratified the Diatribiſt, and yeelded the Dogmatizer a Superſtitious perſon, I wonder why this might not have been taken notice of in my behalf, and ſo ſaved him the pains of affixing this poſition on me, that exceſs in religion is not well called Superſtition, which 'tis viſible, and by himſelf now confeſt, that in this ſenſe, I affirme it to be; ſee that 46. §. of Superſtition.
Drs. hypotheſis is ſtill ſecure, for this no way belongs to the bare uſing in the private man, or the Magiſtrates preſcribing Ceremonies in the worſhip of God, neither of them doing it upon pretenſe of Divine precept.
conceſſion, vouched by him, that to place more virtue in things, then God or nature hath put in them, is granted to be an exceſs, becauſe it addes to the promiſes of Chriſt, and called Superſtition by me, §. 45.] For this is another particular, which I allow to be an exceſs, and when it is not meer folly fit to be comprehended unSuperſtition, for this farther reaſon beſides thoſe which I there mentioned, becauſe ſuch beliefs as theſe are moſtly borrowed from the heathen
remainders of their practices, as St. Auguſtine Ep: 73. ſpeaks of the ligatures, Execranda ſuperſtitio ligaturarum, in quibus inaures, &c. non ad placendum hominibus, ſed ad ſerviendum daemonibus adhibentur, the accurſed ſuperſtition of ligatures, among which are the ear-rings &c. uſed not for the pleaſing of men, but to ſerve devills. This teſtimonie the Reader may ſubjoyn, if he pleaſe, to the Supellex already prepared for him in this kind §. 26. of ſuperſt: and diſcern how far I have been from denying, what I am accuſed here to deny, and yet as far from yeelding him any foundation of concluding, that the Ceremonies or Feſtivals of our Church are in the leaſt degree guilty of Superſtition.
ſecond diſcovery of cauſes of my (phanſied, not real) miſtakes.
d. part of his diſcovery of cauſes belongs peculiarly to that of Will-worſhip, thus,
The third, ſaith he, is, that
or Will-worſhip, is nothing but voluntarie worſhip, as innocent as the freewill offerings &c.] which propoſition of mine I muſt ſuppoſe made up of theſe two parts, 1 that Wil-worſhip is nothing elſe but voluntarie worſhip; 2 that being ſo, tis innocent, and as innocent as freewill offerings: And in which part of theſe, one or both, the miſtake lyes, I am not told, but both together indiſtinctly are propoſed, as my 3d. fundamental miſcarriage.
remarke, that it ſhould be poſſible to be lookt upon by this Diatribiſt, as a paradox, or miſtake, or miſcarriage in any man, and ſuch as is meet to be noted, as the moſt fruitfull mother of many more, that Will-worſhip ſhould be affirmed to be nothing elſe but voluntarie worſhip. Where I have no farther appeal to make, then either to the ears of all men of common underſtanding, or to the Gloſſaries and Interpreters of words. For is there any the niceſt difference imaginable betwixt Wil-worſhip and voluntary worſhip, ſave that in the latter [voluntary] is of a latter origination, from voluntas, voluntarius; but [will] though perhaps from the Latin originally is yet more antiently infranchiſed among us of England, I ſhall make ſhort work of this, if it be taken for any part of the miſtake, by deſiring one favour from Mr. C. viz. that he will tranſlate either the Greek
Engliſh, Wil-worſhip, into Latine for me; will it not ſurely be voluntarius cultus, and is not that being turn'd again into Engliſh, voluntary Worſhip? What can be more evident then this?
miſtake, but what follows, viz. that this voluntary worship is as innocent as the freewill offering. But it is not poſſible, that ſhould be the miſtake neither, for freewill offerings under the Law were certainly one ſpecies of voluntary worship, and ſo known by the title of voluntary, and therefore thoſe being innocent, tis certain that all the other fellow ſpecies of voluntary worſhip, bearing proportion with theſe and having no circumſtance to defame them, which the other had not, muſt needs be innocent alſo.
New Teſtament, Col. 2. hath allTract of Wil-worſhip, which the Reader is requeſted to reſort to, and the Annotation on Col. 2. where many more evidences are added to it, which make it ſuperfluous to adde yet more in this place; Onely I muſt ſecure it from the Diatribiſt's
objections: And the firſt is by way of velitation, that it ſeems a contradiction in adjecto, that voluntary worship and uncommanded ſhould be innocent.
appearances; That may ſeem to Mr. C. which doth not to other men, and Ammonius tells me this is very ordinarily obſervable in this very matter, many propoſitions
f. 89.ſeem indeed to be contradictory, but yet are not ſuch. But I ſhall ask, Is it what it ſeems, or is it not? If it be not, why was this mentioned by one, who can diſtinguiſh betwixt true and falſe, colour and varnish, reality and appearance? If it be, I deſire to be inſtructed, what Logician hath ſo defined contradiction as wil any way accord to this expreſſion.
definition or deſcription of contradiction in adjecto that ever I heard of, is, when that which is added is contradictory to that which was firſt ſet, and contradictions we know are affirmations and negations of the ſame thing in the ſame reſpect, either formally which the interpreters of Ariſtotle call diagonial,
fighting one with another in direct forme of contradiction,
enunciation [every man] to the negation [not every man] or interpretatively, i. e. by certain conſequence or implication, as if I ſhould ſay, Socrates is not a man, here were a contradiction in
adjecto, becauſe in the ſubject of the propoſition, he that had the appellation of Socrates, was ſuppoſed to be a man, and yet in the praedicate, that is denyed of him. But certainly here is no ſuch thing, either formally, or by implication, in this propoſition, Voluntary, or uncommanded worſhip is innocent;] Of forbidden worſhip this were true, for innocence to be attributed to that, were contradiction in adjecto, but there is a wide difference betwixt forbidden and voluntary, as wide as between unlawfull and lawfull, all being lawfull, which is not forbidden, elſe there were not univerſal truth in the Apoſtles maxime, that ſin is a tranſgreſſion of the Law.
Theophylact ſaith of many men exceed or tranſcend many of the commandments; I demand, Do they offend and ſin, and are nocent in ſo doing, or did that holy man think they did? Tis evident he did not; for he, after his manChryſoſtome, and in ſtead of many, he reads ſpiritual; They, ſaith he, do many things with deſire and appetite, and manifeſt it
in that they do even exceed the commands; It appears therefore that to theſe two holy and learned men, it ſeemed not, what to Mr. C. it ſeems, that there is contradiction in adjecto, in affirming voluntary and uncommanded worſhip to be innocent. A multitude of the like teſtimonies are put together in the Annotat. on Col. 2. which may be ſufficient to juſtifie me from ſingularity, that I diſcern not the phanſied ſeeming contradiction.
affirmation again of the Diatribiſt will not want its proofs; four, that pretend to that title, are here annexed.
It's expreſſely againſt the 2d. commandment which forbids all worſhip not expreſly commanded by God. I muſt not complain of my eyes, or other faculties, becauſe they are the beſt that God hath given me; but I may wiſh for ſuch ſupC. hath met with, for elſe I am ſure I ſhall never ſee the leaſt glimpſe of that which he mentions ſo expreſſely out of the 2d. Commandment. What is expreſſely againſt the 2d. Commandment, ſhould, me thinks, oppoſe ſome expreſſe words in it, and then it muſt follow that there are ſuch expreſſe words there,
forbid all worſhip not commanded by God, and this not onely as by worſhip are meant the ſorts and ſpecies of worſhip, but the very acceſſaries and ceremonies of worſhip, and all the expreſſions and emanations of the inward fulneſs of the religious heart. But my Optick Glaſſe will not afford me any ſuch proſpect in the 2d. Commandement: All ſorts of graven images, and ſuch like, I have there a fair view of, and an expreſs ſevere interdict of worſhiping them, but for all kinds and all circumſtances of worſhip which are not commanded, kneeling, proſtrating the body to the inviſible true God, the times and degrees of ardency of worſhip, the abſtinencies, ſelf-denyals atendant on it, ſure there is nothing ſaid expreſſely there, either to command or forbid them, and for any general comprehenſive phraſe, that can rationally contein a prohibition of all which is not commanded, I can ſay no more, but that the firſt verſe of Geneſis or any other in the Bible, hath as much of this to my eye, as the 2d. Commandment.
diſcovering of cauſes of miſtakes, and therefore I muſt be excuſed again, upon the ſcore of the example before me, if I once more attempt to ſhoot my ſhaft, and by this firſt argument paſs my conjecture of the cauſe of the prefacers miſtake in this matter. It is the ſolemn practiſe of ſome Caſuiſts, to reduce all ſins in the world to ſome or other of the Commandments of the Decalogue; wherin I am not ſure that they have aim'd aright, for ſeparate gluttony and drunkenneſs (as ſure they may be ſeparated, and yet continue to be ſins) from ſome accidental conſequences of them, as waſting of health, which may aſſign either of them to the 6t. Commandment, and the like, and you will hardly tell whither to reintemperate uſe of the creature; And ſo for that ſort of lying or falſe ſpeaking which is no way hurtful, or deſigned to be hurtful to the neighbour, and many the like inſtances might be given. But on this I inſiſt not with any concernment, but leave it to prudent conſideration, what neceſſity there is, that all laws natural and poſitive divine ſhould be reduced to one or more of theſe 10. Commandments. This is not that which I meant to ſay, but farther to offer it to conſideration, whether it be not viſible, that thoſe Caſuiſts which have erred in judging the unlawfullneſs of ſome things, have not eaſily been induced to reduce them to
Commandments, as offences againſt the affirmative or negative part, and if not againſt the words or ſenſe, yet againſt the Analogie of it.
conſequent, that he that hath been poſſeſt of the unlawfullneſs of ceremonies and worſhip uncommanded, and hath not ſo far conſidered, as to rectifie his judgement in that matter (by weighing this one thing, that whatſoever is not forbidden is lawful, not, whatſoever is not commanded is unlawful) muſt whenſoever he ſhall write caſes of conſcience, or comment on the Decalogue, reduce this to ſome interdict under one of the ten heads, and all the other nine reanalogie, to the 2d. Commandment; And then it falls out, that ſo many men, diſaffected to the Government and Ceremonies of the Church of England, have written on the Commandments, that it can be no more matter of wonder, that uncommanded worſhip ſhould be crowded in to the 2d. Commandment (and there long agoe imbibed by the Diatribiſt, and never queſtioned ſince) then that Mr. Brightman ſhould find the Church of England of this age, among the ſeven Cities of Aſia in St
Johns time, or that Mr. Parker ſhould make the uſing the croſs in Baptiſme, a breach of every one of the ten Commandments, and branch a book in folio, into the Atheiſme, as I remember, I am ſure, the Idolatrie, the &c. till at laſt, the concupiſcence of the Croſs.
Diatribiſt whether he can heartily believe that the uſe of that ceremonie was really guilty of all thoſe ſeveral tranſgreſſions of the Law of God, and if he ſhall examine over again his own affirmation here, 1. Whether any one man hath ſaid ſo fully what here he hath, that voluntary and uncommanded worſhip is expreſſely againſt the 2d. Commandment (they that onely reduce it thither, fall ſhort of him) 2. Whether they that have thought fit to refer it thireduction, have produced any cogent or ſatisfactory reaſon for ſo doing, and the next time he affirmes this from them, annex the reaſon, ſuch as may juſtifie a moſt rigid concluſion to the conſciences of all others who may be concerned in it, either in order to their own practice, or the judging of others. And I ſhall not farther exagitate this his firſt proof.
d
proof is the ſame we have had twice already, for the aſſerting the two former affirmations, voluntarie worſhip is an addition to the rule of worſhip, and eo nomine Superſtition and that is ſinfull.] But I have already ſhewed, that all additions to that rule are not Superſtition, and that all that is by any called Superſtition, is not eo nomine ſinfull, and ſo I am ſafe from that proof alſo.
d, which is but another repetition, put in form of queſtion [Why is the worſhip of Angels and Saints criminal? but becauſe it was invented and added by the will of man?] This queſtion was anſwered long ſince, that the worſhip of all creatures is criminal; becauſe the command is poſitive and excluſive, that God, and none but the one God is to be worſhipped, and though the doing what is not commanded, is not a ſin, yet the doing what is forbidden muſt needs be ſinfull, and ſuch is the worſhipping of Angels &c.
d proof, that they (I ſuppoſe, who worſhip Angels) do not urge it as a commandment of God] was ſure very unneceſſarily inſerted, For I never doubted but there are other ſins beſides dogmatizing, and can now promptly ſuggeſt to him competent ſtore of inſtances; ſure the murtherer is a ſinner, though he teach it for a doctrine from heaven, that it is lawfull to kill his brother, &c. And then why ſhould not the worshipper of Angels againſt expreſſe precept (Thou ſhalt have no other Gods before me, Thou ſhalt not bow down nor worſhip) be a tranſgreſſer of that Commandment, though he oblige not, as from God, any other man to do the like?
ab incommodo, If wilworſhip, ſaith he, be innocent, I cannot ſee how all that rabble of Superſtitious worſhip at Rome can be condemned, for they are not held out as Commandments of God, but traditions of men] The anſwer laſt given to the appendage of the 3d proof is ſufficient to this alſo. Other faults there may be in worſhip, beſide holding it out as the Commandment of God. It may for the object of worſhip take in ſomeGod, or for the ceremonies it may multiply them unprofitably, ridiculouſly, or it may be, pretend more virtue in them, then really belongs to them, and many the like. But theſe I mention, becauſe if it be true, what is here ſuggeſted, that the
worſhip at Rome, is really ſuperſtitious, and that there is a rabble of that worſhip there, as is ſuppoſed in the queſtion, the anſwer is already given by the very propoſal of it, and hath without any violence to my hypotheſis, which undertook not to juſtifie all, or any other Churches in their worſhip, but onely that of England, which is known to be free, where Rome, I adde, where the Greek Church in as high a degree as Rome, is guilty. And this may ſerve for the 3d grand diſcovery of cauſes.
miſtake aſſigned by the Diatribiſt, is, that the Dr. takes for granted, That a Church or particular perſon hath power to inſtitute and obſerve worſhip not commanded by God, which remains upon him to prove before he can vindicate his Feſtival (as he and others maintain it) from the double crime of Superſtition and Wil-worſhip.
differ from the third (as in reaſon it ought, elſe why ſhould it be added to it?) then the miſtake is not onely, or ſo much that I affirme, as that I take for granted, when I ought to prove, that a Church or particular perſon hath power to inſtitute and obſerve worſhip not commanded by God. Now I ſhall at once prove my affirmation, and apply it to my Feſtival as he calls it, and ſhew that I have already proved it, and ſo not taken it for granted, as is here ſuggeſted.
probation, whatſoever is in it ſelf perfectly free or lawfull by the Law of God, and that libertie no way retrenched, that a Church or particular perſon hath power to inſtitute and obſerve, But the Chriſtmaſs Feſtival or annual commemoration of Chriſt's birth, is in it ſelf perfectly free or lawful by the Law of God, and that liberty no way retrenched, Ergo.
major I ſuppoſe there can be no doubt, if there be, theſe three conſiderations will clear it. 1. Becauſe whatſoever is perfree and lawful, that the Church or the Chriſtian hath power to do, unleſs that libertie be ſome way retrenched to him; 2. What every particular Chriſtian may freely do, that he may ſtill do, when it is by the Church preſcribed or inſtituted, elſe that act of the Church preſcribing ſhall render that which it preſcribes unlawful, being perfectly lawful before that preſcription (and if upon the moſt Anarchical principles, that ſhould be ſuppoſed to have any reaſon it, then ſtill that liberty is ſome way retrenched, the contrary to which is ſuppoſed in the major propoſition.) 3. Becauſe the Church, meaning by that word the
Ʋniverſal Church of God, whether of the Apoſtles times, including them, chief paſtors thereof, or of the purer times ſucceeding, together with the Governors of each Church ſucceeding the Apoſtles, hath the power of Stewards, noted by the Keyes intruſted to it by Chriſt, and conſequently may diſpoſe, order, inſtitute for her members, in thoſe things which ſhe ſhall judge to tend to the honor of God, and to edification, though it be not immediately commanded (ſo it be not any way prohibited) by God.
minor that the Chriſtmaſs Feſtival is thus free and lawful, doth alſo appear by the no prohibition of God's in force againſt it, by the lawfulneſs of praiſing God, and commemorating the gift of Chriſt on any day (one or more) in the year, and conſequently on the 25 of December, by the analogie of other Feſtivals among the people of God in all ages, and by the anſwer to all objections, to the contrary, and the evidence of the matter, that this libertie hath no way yet been retrencht by God, that gave it. And all this ſeverally cleared in the former diſcourſes, and the chief of them again vindicated here, by anſwer to the Diatribiſts pretended diſcovery of my miſtakes.
more evidences, the reaſon will be ſoon diſcerned, by taking notice of the one proof which he here ſublaſt ground, in theſe words. [Which I prove by this one argument, If all additions to the word in matter of worship be criminous and ſinful, as prohibited by God, Deut. 4. 2. and elſewhere, then no man or Church can without ſin adde any worship to that commanded by God; But the firſt is true, Ergo.] Where it ſeems the whole matter is devolved to that one iſſue,
text Deut. 4. 2. and the 2d
Commandment (for there is not any other [elſewhere] any other text by the Diatribiſt produced to that purpoſe) be ſufficient to prejudge the uſing or inſtituting any ceremonie or Feſtival, which is not commanded by God; And I hope this ſuppletory to thoſe former diſcourſes, which hath conſidered thoſe two texts, hath ſufficiently convinced that; And ſo there is no more now needfull to be added to this matter.
Diatribiſt through every branch of his diſcovery of cauſes, and ſhewed, I hope competently, on which ſide the miſtakes ly, and if there be no more miſcarriages in thoſe three tracts of Superſtition, Wil-worſhip, and Feſtivals, then this Preface, aſſigned to that work, hath diſcovered to me, I ſhall have no need farther to importune the reader with a Superfluous vindication, unleſs upon this ſcore onely, that tis poſDiatribiſt may not have ſummed up his bill aright, that there may ſtill remain ſome particular miſtakes diſcoverable by the view of the particulars, which are here omitted in the foot of the account, and then I muſt not take advantage of falſe reckoning. And upon this ſlender account I muſt now ſtill attend his motions, and ſhall do it, in confidence, that what hath been here, in anſwer to his Preface, ſaid ſo largely, will not be exacted of me again at every turn, by way of Repetition. On which ground it is evident, that I am to make no return to the remainder, which is the recapitulating of this Preface.
firſt Diatribe, that of Superſtition, §. 1. I may lightly touch and paſs over the diſlike of my method in writing of Will-worſhip before Superſtition, together with the reaſon, that being more general, this a ſpecies under it; for though it be certain, that I am not of his mind, that the former is a ſpecies of the latter, and ſo that I cannot admit of his reaſon of change, or that his is, as he ſaith, a more juſt methodical order of tractation, yet I ſhall not ingage in a diſpute of their precedence, but onely reply to the latter part of his firſt §. which directs the manner of inquiring, what Superſtition is, not by ſearching into the monuments of heathen Authors Latine or Greek from the names or ſenſes by them given, as by the judgement of Divines &c.
anſwer to this I ſhall need no farther reply then to remind him, that as there is no better way to underſtand the full imporwords, then to examine them in their origination, and their uſage among the beſt Authors, Maſters of words, not only profane but ſacred, ſo ſure this is the very method I have taken, for Superſtition) viewing it in the antient heathens, in the parts firſt, then in the compoſition, and ſo alſo in the ſacred Scripture (which I hope is no heathen Author) as oft as it is found there, in Lactantius and St. Auguſtine, which ſure knew what true Religion meant, whatſoever he is pleaſed to ſuggeſt of my way and Authors, and are as competent judges of Superſtition, as his later Divines, that have reduced the uſe of
ceremonies, not commanded by God, to the 2d
Commandment (and to Deut. 4. 2.) under the title of Superſtition.
d §. where he ſhews out of Dr. Ames: how Superſtition may be fitly defined by Aquinas, a vice contrary to Religion in the exceſs, viz. in order to the acts or external means of worſhip ſuperadded by the wiſdome or will of man, when a man tenders worſhip either to whom it is not due, or not in that manner which he ought] he knows this, in the obvious ſenſe of the words, ſuch as from Aquinas was lately cited, is perfectly agreeable to my affirmations who make the worſhip of all but God, and the worſhip of God in any forbidden or aboliſht manner, to be ſpecies of Superſtition. But if by the aequivocal phraſe [not in the manner which he ought] he mean [in whatſoever other manner, or rite, or circumſtance which God hath not expreſſely preſcribed, any appendant of worſhip inſtituted or appointed by man] (and not onely any worſhip, as he cites out of Ameſius, p. 4.) there is no truth in his definition, nor agreeableneſs to Aquinas's ſenſe, as hath appeared formerly: Tis ſure, Aquinas, which is cited in the margent, hath not owned any ſuch interpretation of [non prout debet] to belong to all uncommanded rites. If Ameſius have (which I have not commoditie to examine) then he was one of the Caſuiſts which I forementioned, as the derivers of this prejudice into the Diatribiſt, and if
Ʋrſine, Dr. Fulke, Mr. Perkins are rightly cited in his margent, and their words extencatalogue of them, and the Diatribiſt is now of age, to conſider whether they have proved, or onely dictated in this matter.
Diatribiſt toqualified for ſuch a ſtructure. For when to the 4. Commandments of the firſt Table, he aſſigns theſe 4. things as the ſubject matter of them, a right object of worſhip, God alone, of the firſt; a right matter, commanded worſhip, of the ſecond; a right manner, with all reverence, of the third; a right time, his own appointed day, of the fourth; and thence concludes all exceſs in any of theſe Superſtition, there is ſcarce any one minute part of ſound doctrine in all this.
firſt, which hath moſt of truth, yet this failing there is, that the right object of worſhip is not the principal matCommandment, but the worſhip it ſelf, all the parts of that, having him for our God, treating him, addreſſing to him, as ſuch, and of this there is no criminous exceſs, which can be ſtyled Superſtition, the Superſtition forbidden in that commandment, is not any extreme or exceſs of worſhipping the true God, but the taking in other rivals to that worſhip, which belongs to the true God incommunicably, and ſo is the matter of the negative part of that precept, not the nimiety of the affirmative.
ſecond, there is not a word to determine the matter of it to commanded worſhip, as hath been evidenced beyond all queSubject of the 2d
Commandment is the prohibition of Idol-worſhip; And bending the knee to the true God and none elſe, obſerving of Chriſtmaſs &c. are remote enough from that guilt.
d I had thought our Saviour Mat. 6. had given us the ſumme of it, Thou ſhalt not forſwear thy ſelf, but perform unto the Lord thy oathes, the negative and affirmative parts of it, and then with what propriety can that be ſaid to denote the right manner of the worſhip, with all due reverence? Or if it ſhould be extenſible ſo far, then ſure all ceremonies that may expreſs that reverence, though not elſewhere preſcribed, will be here commanded, and then ſure not forbidden in the 2d
Commandment.
Laſtly, for the right time, God's own appointed day (the Sabbath, I ſuppoſe, he means) though that be appointed in the 4th
Commandment,
prohibite all others, we know there was a yearly Sabbatick faſt (the great day of expiation) ſo called Iſa. 58. 13. and many other feaſts beſide that of the weekly reſt in the 4th
Commandment, ſome of Gods own inſtitution, others, as the feaſt of dedication of the Altar, in memory of the purging by Judas Maccabaeus, inſtituted by the Jewes themſelves, and never mentioned in the Canon of the old Teſtament; and ſo the faſts of the fift and ſeventh moneth, Zac. 7. 5. And under the new Teſtament, the firſt day of the week, that certainly was not the laſt, which the Decalogue preſcribed, and why the Apoſtles, that inſtituted that, proportionably to the weekly Sabbath, ſhould not (either they, or their ſucceſſors) inſtitute other days, feſtival or faſting, proportionable to the like among the Jewes, ſure there is no manner of prohibition in the 4th
Commandment, which commanding one day to be hallowed, and allowing the reſt for their ordinary labour, doth not yet interdict all others, or bind his own, or his peoples, and all Chriſtians hands from preſcribing or ſetting a part any other.
concluſion, as he ſaith, anſwerably erected on them, that Superſtition may extend to the whole firſt Table, or that every exceſs which he will phanſie reducible to any of theſe, ſhall ſtraightway commence Superſtition?
obſervation he commends to us fundamental to this diſcovery, but ſuch as I think never ſlipt from any man before him. His words are theſe, The Commandments of God, having every of them a negative and affirmative part (expreſſed or underſtood) the duties of Religion do ſtand in the midſt, as virtues between two extremes. Here I ſhall not queſtion the corner ſtone of this foundation, elſe I might deaffirmative part of the 2d
Commandment, or how can it be evidenced that there is any, or indeed any more then a prohibition of idol-worſhip appendant to the no other Gods in the firſt Commandment, which ſtill is but a negative, or an interdict, or if an affirmative be to be underſtood, muſt it not be bowing down to the true God, and ſo that will not prejudge, but juſtifie all outward decent geſtures of adoration, aſſiſt, not oppugne our pretentions?
inquirie, and ſuppoſing with him that every of the Commandments, hath its negative and affirmative part, I onely demand how he could think that the duties of Religion ſtand in the midſt? what I pray is the antecedent to which [in the midſt] relates? there is no other in the period, but [an affirmative and negative part of each Commandment] But do the duties of Religion ſtand in the midſt of the affirmative and the negative part of each Commandment, as virtues between two extremes? Then ſure the affirmative part of the command is one extreme, and the negative is the other, then what is commanded in the affirmative part, to that which is under precept, is an extreme, and ſo a vice, as far removed from virtue, as that which is forbidden in the negative, the worſhip of one God, a vice, as well as the worſhipping of many; paying to God our oathes, a vice, as well as perjurie; perfect chaſtity, a vice, as well as the moſt proſtitute adultery, and ſo in the reſt of them: what could have been ſaid more unluckily then this?
Diatribiſt did not mean thus, and therefore would attempt to affixe ſome other poſſible meaning to his words, as thus (without any retroſpect toward the former part of the period) that the duties of Religion ſtand in the midſt between two extremes, as virtues ſtand in the midſt between two extremes. But then to what purpoſe was the ment on of the two parts, affirmative and negative, of the Commandments, prebetter to ſucceed it.
obſervation, nor made this Superſtructure in his exemplification thereof; the groſſeneſs of it would not permit that. But then to what purobſervation? ſure but to amuſe the reader and ſay ſomewhat demurely, which ſhould pretend to be a ground of his beloved concluſions, that all additions to the rule of worſhip are exceſs againſt the 2d
Commandment, additions of ridiculous ceremonies or geſtures an exceſs againſt the 3d, men's inſtituting other holy days and times, an exceſs againſt the 4th. And truly what elſe he pleaſe, with as much appearance of truth, or ſolidity of argument, as theſe are inferred from either the letter of thoſe
Commandments, or from the ſolemne obſervation concerning the affirmative, and negative parts of them, and the duties of Religion in the midſt.
worſhipping of Idols is forbidden in the 2d
Commandment, but how come all uncommanded rites to be Idols? All perjury (and (by Chriſts
voluntarie ſwearing at all) is forbidden in the 3d
Commandment; but how come rites and ceremonies and geſtures, though never ſo ridiculous, to be either oaths or perjuries, or to bear any analogie with, or by that means to be reducible to them? In the 4th
Commandment the not obſerving Gods deſigned Sabbath, was a defect; but what words of that Commandment conclude againſt inſtituting other holy days and times, as an exceſs, and that criminous, not adChriſtians.
[ſix days ſhalt thou labour] but ſure that is not the meaning of them, but the explication is to be fetcht from the other part of the period [and do all that thou haſt to do] i. e. all thy labour, and all that thou haſt to do, ſhall be fiGod's was, in ſix days, and no other day muſt be ſo ſet apart, as to take off from the ſeventh dayes reſt or Sabbath: but for ſuch celebrations as are reconcileable with that, there is no word nor appearance to the prejudging of them.
unlawfulneſs of this laſt is confirmed by the ſinfulneſs of Jeroboams act, 1 Kin. 12. 32. He ordained a feaſt like unto the feaſt that was in Judaea. But the Diatribiſt cannot but know what it was that made that criminous in Jeroboam, his appoinfeaſt to be kept with ſacrifices at Bethel, which, beſide the ſacrificing to calves which he had ſet up, was alſo quite contrary to the expreſs word of God, which had commanded that all ſacrifice ſhould be offered, and conſequently feaſts kept at Jeruſalem, and no where elſe, ſee Deut. 12. 5, 6. 11. 13, 14. 26, 27. and Joſh. 22. 16. 19. 29. and Joh. 4. 20. This ſure was the ſin of Jeroboam, to ſet up calves in Dan and Bethel, to keep the people from going up to Jeruſalem, 1 Kin. 12. 28. 30. to make a houſe of high places, and Prieſts which which were not of the ſonnes of Levi, v. 31. and ſo in like manner a feaſt like unto the feaſt which is in Judah; and upon that feaſt day to offer ſacrifice upon that Altar, which he had made in Bethel, v. 33.
command of making Jeruſalem the onely place of ſacrifice and publike ſolemne worſhip to all Iſrael.
feaſt by Jeroboam been ſeparated from that appendant ſin, of ſacrificing elſewhere then God had commanded, and drawing away the people from the worſhip of Jeruſalem, which was ſo ſtrictly under precept, I ſhall deſire to know, why that might not have been as blameleſs as the Rubenites erecting an Altar by Jordan, Joſ. 22. which though it were lookt on by their other brethren as an horrible thing, whilſt it apviolation of that Law, v. 12. and 16, 17. yet when it was truly repreſented to them by Remonſtrance, that this Altar was not built to divert them from Jeruſalem, or to offer ſacrifice on, v. 23. but onely for a memorial to their children, that they belonged to the Lord God of Iſrael, v. 24. 27, 28. and a means to keep up Religion in their childrens hearts, v. 25, 26. then it was juſtified in the ſight of all Iſrael, the thing pleaſed the people, and they bleſſed God &c. v. 33.
Chriſtian feſtival, inſtituted in like manner as a memorial, not to draw off any mans heart from any part of God's preſcribed worſhip, be as innocent as this? And ſo our jealous brethren, the Diatribiſt and thoſe of his perſwaſion, that came out to diſpute againſt us, imitate them, and lay down that deſign, and go back to their houſes in peace?
Jeruſalem being the place of worſhip, preſcribed by expreſs precept to all the Jewes, but not ſo to all other pious people of the world, though even to them alſo, to all people, it was a houſe of prayer, if they would make uſe of it (and accordingly we read of heathens that came to Jeruſalem to worſhip) yet this precept, which, as ſuch, lay on the Jewes, being not obligatory to the Gentile proſelytes, we know, Naaman built him an Altar in his own country, and there offered unto the God of heaven, and was ſo far approved in this, that the Prophet himſelf allows him the mules loads of earth to be carried out of Judaea to the erecting of it, And I am perſwaded the analogie will hold exChriſtian feſtival inſtiChurch of Chriſt which was never bound up to any preſcript number of days for the worſhip of Chriſt, whatſoever
Jewes, who, though required to do all according to the pattern in the Mount, had yet the liberty of inſtituting a day for God's ſervice, as is evident by the
Diatribiſt can phanſy in the concluſion of his 2d §. of the poſſibility [that there may be Superſtition in or againſt all the Commandments of the firſt Table in the exceſſive part, and that it were eaſie to obſerve, that many (Divines eſpecially) do call the exceſſes of any Commandment by the name of Superſtition] yet I hope the obſerving of a few blameleſs, decent, uſefull ceremonies, inſtituting a Chriſtian feſtival for the commemorating the birth of Chriſt (deſcenſum venerabilis Dei ad humanae conſervationis rerum mortalium gratiam, the deſcent of a venerable God for the ſaving of mankind, could a Chalcidius in Plat. Tim. p 219.Philoſopher ſay upon the obſervation of the ſtar at his birth) will not actually prove to be any of thoſe exceſſes. And then I ſhall not need enquire what thoſe Reverend Divines are, who have been ſo liberal of the odious title of Superſtition, as to imdiſcreetly and charitably) upon the exceſſes of any Commandment.
Commandment of the Ten, there are ſuch exceſſes, I ſhall ſuppoſe chaſtity the duty of the 7th
Commandment, and allowing fornication, adultery and ſodomie to make up the extreme on one ſide, either in the exceſs, or in the defect, ſhall give the Diatribiſt leave to chooſe which it ſhall be, and ſuppoſing it muſt be the defect, (the want not the abundance of chaſtity) I ſhall deſire to know what is the exceſs or other extreme, and whether that be by the forenamed Divines, placed under the head of Superſtition, or indeed whether ſomeexceſſes of any Commandment be ſo to be called, and if in every Commandment, not onely in thoſe of the firſt table which had been dilated on before there be ſuch exceſſes (and however the analogie holds for theſe of the 2d
table as well as for them) of theſe he hath oft told us, that the duty is in the midſt of the two extremes, how duely, will be diſcerned by anſwer to this queſtion, and others, which will be ſoon ready, when he pleaſes to call for them, of the ſame kind.
d §. ſome few things may be briefely noted. 1. That he wrongs Aquinas in ſaying he makes but three kinds of Superſtition, Idolatrie, Illegitimate worſhip and Divination, whereAquinas, 21 22
qu: 92. art: 1. and art: 2. in corp: that he adds a fourth, Superſtitio quarundam obſervationum, citing out of St Auguſtine the Ligatures and ſuch like; And I cannot gueſſe to what purpoſe this was miſreported thus.
Secondly, where he ſaith of Divines that they refer Idolatrie to the firſt Commandment, the Divines he means muſt needs be thoſe that put the firſt and ſecond commandment into one (ſuch I ſupAquinas, and I had well hoped the Diatribiſt had not been of that perſwaſion) for elſe theſe words [Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelf any graven image, &c.] being ſuppoſed to make a diſtinct and 2d
Commandment, no Divine can be ſo irrational, as to deny Idolatrie properly ſo called to belong to, and to be prohibited in that. And if it were true, what the Diatribiſt addes, that Divination is the worſt kind of Idolatrie, ſure that muſt be forbidden under the 2d
Commandment alſo; But in this I ſuppoſe Aquinas was in the right, that made it a ſpecies of Superſtition, not of Idolatrie, and ſo it muſt more fitly belong to the firſt Commandment, and ſo muſt Illegitimate worſhip, being an offence againſt the due manner of Gods worſhip. But theſe are niceties that we are but little concerned in.
Thirdly, this quarrel to his own Dr. Ameſius for reſtraining Superſtition to one Commandment, which he will have ly common
four, is certainly cauſeleſs; For the worſhip of many Gods (together with Divination &c.) and the undue worſhip of the true God, do certainly belong to one Commandment, viz. the firſt, which by commanding to have no other Gods but that one true God, excludes the demon worſhip, and by commanding the worſhip of that one, forbids all undue manners of worſhip. That he underſtood by the word Superſtition no more but the tendering undue worſhip to God, was indeed an error in Ameſius, ſufficiently prevented, and diſproved, by Aquinas, and by the nature of the Greek and Latine words, and ſo likewiſe that he confined it to the 2d
Commandment, when in all reaſon it belonged to the firſt; But that being acknowledged his error, this other of not extending it to many Commandments is no way imputable to him.
Fourthly, when of that ſpecies of Superſtition, which he device of undue worſhip tendered to God, he affirmes that it is more properly Wil-worſhip, this is but an unproved and improbable affirmation, quite contrary to Aquinas and his own Authors (as far as I can diſcern) Ameſius himſelf, and a confounding of things very diſtant.
Fiftly, when of Aquinas's illegitimate worſhip he gives his own gloſs, that he means that which is not commanded by God, but inſtituted and appointed by men] this is great injurie to that School-man; What he means by that phraſe will be beſt learnt from • 2 qu. 93.Aquinas himſelf, who ſets it down diſtinctly by diſtrid
queſtion De illegitimo Dei cultu, Of the illegitimate worſhip of God, begins, Et ſuperfluitate & pravitate vitiatur divinus cultus &c. The worſhip of God is vitiated both by ſuperfluity, and by pravity; by ſuperfluity, if to the worſhipping of God ought be aſſumed, which neither by Divine nor Eccleſiaſtical appointment belongs to the glory of God nor to the ſubjecting either of the body or ſoul to the Creator; by pravity, if the external ceremonie contain any thing of falſity in it, which may fall out, ſaith he, two ways, either by the diſagreement between the ceremonie and the thing denoted by it, or by the publike miniſters uſing any ceremonie contrary to the cuſtome of the Church. Thus far are the words of Aquinas: and what could have been more deſtructive to the Diatribiſts
pretenſions then this deſcription and branching of illegitimate worſhip, if either here or before, when Aquinas was cited, this ſenſe of his, thus expreſt, had been conſidered?
Aquinas again in this matter, I ſhall deſire him to remember from that School-man theſe 4. things, his undoubted affirmations, by way of Axioma, 1. That illegitimate, is vitiated worſhip, and ſo more then uncommanded, certainly that which is prohibited, (and this according to the propriety of the word illegitimum, which ſignifies not without, but againſt Law. Legitimum, ſaith In Tim: p. 243.Chalcidius, eſt id quod legem ſequitur, legitime is that which follows the Law, or as Plutarch defines command of Law or that which is determined or commanded by Law, adding, that thoſe good things which yet are not under precept, are not to be called legitime; And ſo in Leo ſerm: 1. de jejun: 7. menſ: legitima are oppoſed to voluntaria, as commanded to ſpontaneous. Now what is Law, ſaith p. 248.Chalcidius, niſi juſſum ſciſcens honeſta, prohibens contraria, but a command requiring honeſt things, and prohibiting the contrarie? And conſequently illegitimum being the direct contrarie to legitimum, will ſignifie, in the contrarie ſenſe to that which is commanded, that which is prohibited by Law.) 2dly. That the ſuperfluity of it conſiſts not in being ſuperadded to God's commands onely, but to the
Churches appointment, and ſo that which is ordained by the Church, though not by God, comes not under that ſtyle of ſuperfluous or illegitimate upon that ſcore. 3dly. That what tends to the glory of God, or to the ſubjecting of the body as well as the ſoul to the Creator of both, is neither ſuperfluous nor illegitimate, ſo it be ordained by the Church. Laſtly, that the Miniſters publike uſing any ceremonie contrary to the cuſtome of the Church (ſuch is his ſitting at the Sacrament, and the like) is a pravity, and that is worſe then a ſuperfluity in the worſhip of God. I ſuppoſe this may now be ſufficient to arme the Reader afallacies, to which the frequent citations out of Aquinas might ſubject him.
Sixtly, That it is not to me imaginable how or why the barbarous ceremonies of Baals Prieſts, &c. ſhould be an exceſs ad
Commandment, or a taking Gods name in vaine,
Chriſt rendred for ſwearing ones ſelf, and when they that cryed nothing but O Baal hear us, from morning till night, never uſed the name of God at all (for ſure Baal and God are not Synonyma's) and ſo cannot be affirmed in vain to uſe it or take it.
Seventhly, That dedicating holy days to Saints (though Chriſt, whoſe Feſtival we treat of, be more then ſuch) is neither fitly paralleld by the Diatribiſt with Jeroboam's feaſt day at Bethel (as we competently evinced in the laſt Sect.) nor appropriated by him to Papiſts, when we know ſuch days were dedicated to the memory of Martyrs, long before the name or errors of Papiſts were come into the world.
Feſtiv: p. 438.Epiſtle of the Church of Smyrna, written on occaſion of the Martyrdome of Polycarpe, St. Johns Auditor, where having deſcribed the paſſages of his ſuffering, they conclude with their wiſh and hope, that God will now permit them to meet together with exultation and joy, to celebrate
Smyrn. Eccleſ. Epiſt. p. 28.tho birth-day or natalitia (ſo was ſtyled) of his Martyrdome, adding the two great ends of ſuch obſervations, for the commemorating of ſuch Champions conſtancie, and the exerciſe, and fitting of others for the future. The circumſtances of that Epiſtle make it clear, that ſuch celebrations and dedications of days were then of uſe before Polycarp's death, and that they now expected that this of his ſhould be added to that number, and that ſo it was, I ſhall now adde a 2d
undoubted proof or teſtimonie of Primitive Antiquity, antienter then that of Polycarp, in the Martyrdome of Ignatius, written by them which were preſent at it, who ſetting down the day and time of his Coronation, ſay, they do it ſo preciſely, Martyrium Ignat. p. 8.ut ſecundum tempus Martyrii coagregati communicemus athletae, that aſſembling together on the Anniverſarie of his Martyrdome, they may communicate with his Martyrdome, commemorate his ſufferings and bleſs God for him, &c.
authorities may, I hope, be of ſome credit with him, who can found arguments on paſſages in Aquinas and Ameſius, and if Apoſtles, as equitably as Martyrs, may thus be commemorated,
Church of England I hope (whatever become of the Papiſts) may be vindicated from all Superſtition, or exceſs againſt the 4th
Commandment.
tly, that the Jewes ſcrupuloſity in obſerving their Sabbath, ſo that they would not ſtand up to defend themſelves in that day, is none of the exceſſes we are guilty of, and that this being by the Diatribiſt ſtyled exceſs of Religion, and that againſt the 4th
Commandment, and juſtly called Superſtition, there is no need of making any more ſpecies of that exceſs, or forcing in all dedication of holy days, into that place I ſhall not need look any more narrowly to ſpy out greater ſtore of infirmities in that 3d
Sect.
former methods were imperfect and unſufficient (even before they were confuted) to erect ſuch a modelled notion of Superſtition as would ſerve the Diatribiſts aimes, he muſt now in his 4th
Sect. become humble, in ſtead of Magiſterial, implore the courteous Readers pardon, if he be not ſo logically accurate, to ſet down (what he is reſolved is not eaſie to diſcover) all the kinds and wayes whereby this ſin of Superſtition is committed in particular.
modeſty is deſigned, will be eaſiviz. to leave the word Superſtition in the clouds, to involve, in ſtead of explaining it, that it may continue uſefull to him, as a mormo, whenſoever he hath a mind to affright men out of their obedience to the Church, to which purpoſe it could not be ſo commodious, if it were once defined or limited to one or any ſet number of more Commandments. And though in the 10. following Sections he reckon up pretty ſtore of ſpecies of it, yet he muſt here before-hand make ſure of a reſerve,
libertie to adde more, whenſoever he ſhall have need of them [we ſhall, ſaith he, labour to expreſs ſome of them, as we find them held out by Divines and others] where it ſeems Divines, ſuch as Ameſius, Ʋrſine, Mr. Perkins &c. have not held out enough, but he muſt have a ſupply from others, which are not Divines, (and it would be an odde queſtion to be anſwerothers are, when the monuments of heathen authors, Latine and Greck have been ſo ſeverely diſclaimed in his §. 1. and then none but the judgement of Divines thought ſit to be appealed to in this matter) and §. 14. when he hath completed a large catalogue, he concludes with [Laſtly to adde no more] intimating that there are ſtill more to be added; of which he will ſerve himſelf, when he ſees good.
Sections, I ſhall reſolrecurre atracts, that of Wil-worſhip and Feſtivals, where ſure we ſhall meet with them, and partly becauſe they have been ſpoken to already, and beſides, ſome of them are the enumerating of thoſe very ſpecies of Superſtition which I have ſet down in that treatiſe, as ſuch. And therefore ſo much (after his Preface) for his Prolegomena.
ſummoned and called into the liſts by this Diatribiſt §. 15. and the ſeverall Sections of the Treatiſe of Superſtition muſt be brought to a ſtrict examination, and I hope they will not be unable to bear it.
diſliked, but onely that I will not acknowledge my ſelf or our Church guilty, before the trial, and to that purpoſe I am told [commonly thoſe that are moſt Superſtitious are moſt confident of their innocency and piety, and no marvaile if they underſtand Superſtition as the Dr. doth.]
prudent Aphoriſme is not ſimply convertible, viz. That they which are moſt confident of their innocency and piety, are moſt Superſtitious (for if it be, I muſt not be ſo unkind to wiſh, or ſo uncharitable to believe of the Diatribiſt, that he hath a good conſcience, nor any longer rely on that Apoſtle that hath taught me Gods method of judging of us, by the verdict of our own accuſing or excuſing conſcience) and ſo long tis poſſible that I may be free from that guilt, though I am never ſo confident. Mean while I that allow the Diatribiſt one ſpecies, that of Negative Superſtition for his portion, have his leave to conclude from hence, that this is the reaſon why he is ſo confident of his innocence.
d part, my underſtanding of the notion of the word Superſtition in that Treatiſe, if I cannot juſtifie it to be as good as Mr. C. his ſuperſtatutum, I ſhall very much accuſe my ſelf, and in the interim be comforted with his confeſſion, that if I have not
erred in the notion of Superſtition, of which he is no competent judge, being a party, then both I and our Church (for the Romiſh I ſhall not be ſo ſollicitous) are farre enough from this crime.
th §. conſiders the notion by me given of the Latine Superſtitio, Superſtitum cultus, and having yeelded it to be ſo defined by the heathens, yet he cannot think that I will ſay, that that this is the onely Superſtition to be found in the world, becauſe I acknowledge an exceſſive fear of the Deity to have been another kind of it among the Heathens, and other kinds alſo among Chriſtians, adding that ſome there are, and they no mean ones, that derive it from Super and ſto or ſtatuo, as ſupra ſtatutum, worſhip inſtituted by men above the ſtatute Law of God, but he rather reſts in the definition of the Schooles, that it is a vice contrary to Religion in the exceſs which may extend to the other commandments, whereas this limits it to the 2d.
d
Sect. was not deſigned to give any complete definition of Superſtition, but to ſearch how much was to be concluded from the Latine word, as in the following Sections how much more from the Greek, and then to make uſe of all other proper means, the uſe of the word in Scripture and Fathers, to collect the full importance of it; and conſequently, if what I vouched out of the Latine origination be true, there is no more to be expected of my 2d §. 2dly. That I no where grant an exceſſive fear of the Deity to have been another kind of Superſtition, among the heathens, but onely that ſome heathens, eſpecially the Epicureans which denyed all providence and judgement to come, and ſcoft at all fear of puniſhment for ſin, affixt to this the name as of Superſtition, ſo
Religion alſo, whereupon I thought it reaſonable that we ſhould not (not that we ſhould) take our notion of Superſtition from them, which yet it ſeems the Diatribiſt is content to do, and ſo with the famiſhing prodigal to herd himſelf among the Epicureans.
Diatribiſt, and then I find in theſe few words a competent number of infirmities. 1. That mentioning their Etymologie of Superſtition, who will have it ſuper ſtatutum, he makes them derive it indifferently from (ſuper and) ſto or ſtatuo, as if thoſe two were Synonyma, whereas certainly [to ſtand] is competently diſtant from [to make laws or ſtatutes] and if it be derived from the one, it is not from the other.
dly. That deriving it from ſto, he doth not diſcern that this is my way of derivation, for ſure ſuperſtes is from ſuper and ſto, and ſo he confirmes my origination of the word, whileſt he thinks he confuteth it, abſolves very frankly, whom he ſat down on purpoſe to condemne.
dly. That his forſaking the etymon from ſuper ſtatutum to which ſo oft he had expreſt kindneſs, was again on an undirect aime, that he might get more advantage to his hypotheſis by that means, not moved with the abſurdity of the derivation, but meerly that he might have more liberty to range in, by ſerving himſelf on a notion of Superſtition qualified to extend it to all the Commandments of the firſt table, which how thoſe (no mean ones) whom for his own ends he hath now deſerted, will take at his hands, I leave him to conſider.
thly. That having rejected the derivation from ſuper and ſto, or ſtatuo, he hath ſubſtituted no other, and ſo left a rivulet without a ſpring, a compound derivative without an original, a monſter in art, as well as nature.
tly. That making uſe of the Schooleman's definition, he extends it much farther then he knows that Schooleman extended it, This he formerly confeſt §. 3. naming this Learned Schooleman as the firſt, who came ſhort in aſſigning the ſpecies of Superſtition, and here he more then confeſſeth it, extenSuperſtition to all the four Commandments of the firſt
table, when he knows Aquinas made it a breach peculiar to the firſt of them.
queſtion of the 17th, Sect. concerning fear or dread of a Deity was among the heathens noted by it, I have anſwered already, even that which the Epicureans would have driven out of the world, as making the Gods cruel, tyrannical &c. and accordingly in Cicero, Superſtitione liberare, to free men from Superſtition, and in Lucretius, Religionibus, from all Religion and obligation of duty, is explaimetum omnem Deorum pulſum eſſe, to have all fear of the Gods baniſht from us.
minute difference obſervable, it is this, that it is ſuch a feare of the Deity as wicked men are in reaſon to have, (and that ſure, though a great trembling, was yet no exceſs, no more then was very equitably the portion of ſuch) ſo ſaith l. 2. p. 779.Diodorus Siculus of Bomilcar
they that are about to undertake any notable wicked actions, are generally afraid of the Gods or Daemons, and ſo ſtill that will yield our Diatribiſt no aid toward the ſupport of any of his hypotheſes, ſure the inſtituting of our Chriſtmaſs Feſtival, was no act of ſuch a juſt dread of vengeance for ſin, nor effect whether immediately or remotely produced by it.
affirmation that the former part of the word
doth not ſignifie worſhip, but fear, and not that fear which is oft put for the whole worſhip of God, but ſlaviſh fear &c. this is a clear miſtake; Tis true indeed it doth ſignifie ſometimes a trembling fear (ſuch as I ſaid was the wicked mans portion and due lot, and ſo not an exceſs, or unproportionable to his ſtate) as when Plutarch ſaith of him, he wiſheth there were no Gods,
the fear of Gods and daemons, and accordingly as Phavorinus in the Epicurean notion of it renders it a cowardly fear toward God,
or an irrational fear of the Gods, ſo Heſychius renders it fearing God, or Religion in univerſum, and the ſame Phavorinus explains Superſtitious, by devout or pious, and addes, as Saint Paul uſeth the word Act. 17. 22.
th §. being but an approbation of my concluſion, that Poetical Gods, Angels, or dead men, or indeed any thing but the onely true God, muſt not be reſiſted by me; I am glad I have once gratified him.
rather idolatry againſt the firſt Commandment, which is Polytheiſme, then any kind of Superſtition, which is the giving of falſe, i. e. uncommanded worſhip to the true God againſt the 2d
Commandment, this is but a heap of incongruities; for 1. Idolatry, as hath been evidenced, is a ſin againſt the 2d
Commandment, though Polytheiſme be againſt the firſt.
dly. Though Superſtition be the giving of falſe worſhip to the true God, as well as worſhip to falſe Gods, Daemons and Superſtites, the ſoules of men departed (or a dread, which is not a worſhip, to the true) yet this falſe worſhip is unfitly explicated by uncommanded worſhip, For certainly all ſuch is not falſe, as out of Aquinas was cleared, eſpecially if the word Worſhip be extended, as this Diatribiſt extends it, to rites and obſervances, as well as to the ſubſtantial parts of worſhip; ſuch were impoſition of hands in benediction among the Jewes, continued alſo for many uſes aChriſtians, yet never preſcribed or commanded by God; and many the like elſewhere mentioned.
dly. cannot be truely affirmed to be againſt the 2d
Commandment, which alſo being ſpent upon the worſhip of Idols (all for the interdicting of that) cannot be properly ſaid to conſider the worſhip of the true God, (unleſs it be the external part, that of bowing down &c. in the affirmative branch of it) which had been the ſubject of the firſt Commandment; and to that in all reaſon all falſe worſhip of the true God muſt be reduced, and not to the ſecond.
dilemma §. 19. concerning the uſe of the word more Superſtitious, of the Athenians, Act. 17. 22. [If ſaith he, they were ſo called becauſe they worſhipt more Gods, then they were Polytheiſts, If becauſe they were devout or pious, rather impious in worſhipping the true God ignorantly in a falſe manner, then their ſin was againſt the 2d
Commandment] though true, in ſome ſenſe, is yet nothing gainfull to his deſign, which can thrive by no other means but by getting Superſtition to denote all uncommanded rites in the worſhip of the true God.
Acts but onely their worſhipping a multitude of Gods, moe then any other nation did, and the unknown God, for one, and ſo their being more pious in their courſe, then other their heathen counRomans, or any elſe.
truth, hath ſufficiently been evidenced in the Tr: of Superſtition, §. 11. and I now adde three teſtimonies more, to that heap, one out of Joſephus, l. 2. Contra Ap:
All men affirme the Athenians to be the moſt pious of the Greeks. A 2d out of Sophocles, Oedip:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
If any know how to worſhip the Gods with honors (ſacrifices and offerings to their Temples) Athens excels them all; The third even now intimated out of Phavorinus, but here more fully to be expreſſed, who having explicated ſuperſtitious by pious, ſubjoyns this teſtimonie of the Acts,
as S. Paul ſaith, I ſee that you are more Superſtitious, the very place which we have now before us, brought by that learned Grammarian as an inſtance, that the word is there taken in a good, not ill ſenſe, yet not of any uncommanded worſhip of the true God, but a pious, though Ethnick devotion toward the multitude of their falſe, ſuperadded to the one true God, which though in a Chriſtian ſcale or judgement it cannot be approved, becauſe it is Polytheiſme, yet in compariſon with other heathens (which was S. Pauls buſineſs in that place) it was truly by him lookt on as a greater meaſure of devotion, then the reſt of the heathen world were guilty of, and that is all that was meant by that phraſe, and ſo tis not at all uſefull to the end, to which the Diatribiſt would have inclined it.
th §. is an arraignment of §. 12. of Superſt. conAct. 25. 19. queſtions or accuſations concerning his own Religion or Superſtition or Worſhip, and (to explain what was meant by the word of one Jeſus that was dead, whom Paul ſaid to be alive, putting him under the notion of a dead Heros, and ſo meaning the worſhip of him by
Diatribiſt excepts in 3. particulars. 1. It is like, ſaith he, Feſtus ſpake in ſcorn, not of Pauls onely, but of the whole Jewiſh Religion, as, ſaith he, the words may import, and are tranſlated by ours. 2. That what I ſaid of putting Jeſus under the notion of a dead Heros or
is a ſtrein of Criticiſme, compounding things which are in the Text diſtinct, for Feſtus ſayes (ſaith he) they had many queſtions both concerning their own Superſtition, and alſo concerning one Jeſus, &c. adconfirme this) that he was accuſed of queſtions of their Law, c. 23. 29. and of ſedition, ſeducement, profanation of the Temple, 24. 5, 6. 3dly. That Paul affirmed Jeſus to be alive, not in part, as the Daemons were ſuppoſed, but in the whole man, as raiſed from the dead.
firſt; For the ſcorn, it no way appears to be meant by Feſtus againſt S. Paul or his Religion, for Feſtus is at this time ſpeaking in favour of Paul, and ſlighteth the Jews accuſations of him, as matters of no conſiderable moment, and ſo, if there be any thing of ſarcaſme in the ſpeech, it fals on the Jews, not on him, and ſo cannot ſet
ill character on the Paul's, and not theirs.
Diatribiſt's phanſie, that the ſcorn ſhould fall not on Pauls onely, but on the whole Jewiſh Religion, that cannot hold, for when he ſpeaks of the Jewes charge againſt Paul, he cannot ſpeak of that wherein Paul and they agreed, but wherein they differed, and that muſt either be their way, which Paul oppoſed, or Paul's way, which they now accuſed him of.
Greek, for the his own or their own; Yet that it muſt be interpreted his, I offer this reaſon to perſwade, (whereas the Diatribiſt pretends to none for the contrary, but onely that ſo the words may import, and that our Engliſh hath ſo tranſlated) The Jews accuſation or charge againſt S. Paul is plainly mentioned in this place; That is the meaning of they had queſtions or laid charges againſt him; the word charge, complaint, inditement, ſo c. 18. 15. but if the accuſation or charge be of a word; Thus Satan, who is ſo called, as adverſary in foro,
accuſer, is ſaid to ſeek. 1 Pet. 5. 8. (and Luk. 22. 31. to require) i. e. to accuſe and charge men, that ſo they may be delivered up to him as an executioner, to winnow, in one place, and to devour, in the other. So to queſtion a man among us vulgaraccuſe him, and that ſo it, ſignifies here, appears by v. 18. the accuſers brought no accuſation of the things which I ſuppoſed,
but ſome queſtions, that muſt be accuſations again,
of which he was charged, which is the matter of the accuſation, or that wherein the offence conſiſted, was his, not their Superſtition, for how could their own Superſtition be the matter of their charge againſt him?
d, that what I ſaid of Feſtus putting Jeſus under the notion of a dead Heros, though it be of that nature that I ſhall not, becauſe I need not, make it a matter of controverſie with any, yet I had this conſideration to incline me to it, the immediate
one Jeſus whom Paul
contended to live, to be ſuperſtes, as of their Daemons, Feſtus and thoſe of his perſwaſions ordinarily affirmed. To which purpoſe I remembred what the Athenians ſurmiſed, when Paul preacht to them Jeſus and the Reſurrection, Act. 17. 18. He ſeems, ſay they, to be a proclaimer of ſtrange or new Daemons, where St
Chryſoſtome judges it ſo manifeſt that thoſe Graecians thought Jeſus to be a Daemon, that he addes, they took alſo Anaſtaſis (Reſurrection) for ſome Goddeſs, as being accuſtomed to worſhip females alſo. And then why Feſtus, an heathen likewiſe, and which underſtood none but heathen Theologie, ſhould not thus mean in words of ſo neer an importance that will bear it ſo fitly, I can yet ſee no reaſon to doubt.
one proof offered to the contrary, the Diatribiſt hath ſtrained more, then I have in my Criticiſme, for 1. When he thus reads the text, they had many queſtions, that ſo he might make it neceſſary to diſtinguiſh the queſtion concerning his Superſtition from that of Jeſus, he hath inſerted the word many, there being neither in the Greek nor in our Engliſh any ſuch word, but onely ſome or certain accuſations. 2dly. When (on the ſame deſign) he again reads [both concerning their Superſtition, and alſo] there is no ſuch word, nor any thing, either in the Greek or our Engliſh, anſwerable either to [both] or to [alſo] but onely thus, —concerning his own Superſtition or daemon worſhip, and one Jeſus, which was, or had been dead, ſo whom Paul affirmed to live; and 3dly. When he addes that he was accuſed of queſtions of their Law, c. 23. and of ſedition &c. c. 24. this proves nothing, which the Diatribiſt would have, for though the Jews had thus accuſed him, yet he had anſwered for himſelf in the latter part of c. 24. and cleared himſelf perfectly from thoſe two charges, from the firſt, v. 12. and from the ſecond, v. 18. and ſo again, c. 25. 8. and ſo ſtill it remains that in Feſtus's judgement (to which Paul appeals for the knowledge of it, telling him that he knew he was guiltleſs from having done any wrong to the Jewes, v. 10.) Paul
own Religion, and one Jeſus, i. e. I ſuppoſe by way of exand] is frequently exegetical) of believing and proclaiming Jeſus and the Reſurrection, c. 24. 15. which laſt alſo being common to him with the Jewes, as there he concharge, and that which is the characteriſtick, diſtinctive note of his Religion, is his contending that Jeſus was alive, who had dyed, which how agreeable it is to Feſtus's notion of a Daemon, I ſhall not need farther to declare.
Jeſus to be alive, both ſoul and body, doth to a heathen eare as much deDaemon, as if he ſaid nothing of his body: HowFeſtus here ſaith is, that affirmed him to live now after he had been dead, and if to that we adde, that Paul preached his aſcenſion to heaven, what could a heathen, according to his perſwaſions conclude from thence, but that he had attained his Daemon. And ſo much for theſe objections.
Diatribiſt, that the Superſtition ſpoken of was not S. Pauls, but the Jews, this could no way incommodate me, or hinder my pretenſions, in order to the main, for then, ſay I, it ſhall ſignifie the Jews Religion ſimply, without any character of ill or good laid on it, as in l. 3. c. 8.Quintilian, Primus Judaicae Superſtitionis author, the firſt author of the Jewiſh Superſtition or Religion, and in
Ʋlpian that Severus and Antoninus permitted thoſe to be capable of dignities, qui Judaicam Superſtitionem ſequuntur, who follow the Jewiſh Superſtition or Religion, and many the like.
th. §. is a ſhort diſpatch of all that I had ſaid of the uſe of the word among other Authors from §. 14 to §. 27. All which Sections, though intirely deſigned to the diſcovering the true notion of the word, by that norma loquendi, the beſt rule to judge of words, the uſe of it among writers of all ſorts, are ſhortly cenſured as [a great deal of reading and learning to little purpoſe, except to cloud the buſineſs, to lead men away in a miſt from the true and proper ſenſe of the word among Chriſtians.]
dark, are apt to miſtake light for miſts, and the Apoſtle hath given the reaſon, they are reproved by the light. Tis certain the Chriſtians took the word whether Greek or Latine, from the heathens, which were before them, and accorpropriety of the uſe of it, I thought my ſelf obliged to ſearch to the original, i. e. to the uſe of it among the heathens, and finding the Scripture uſe of it exactly agreeScripture had it, and ſo likewiſe the Chriſtian Gloſſaries, that of Heſychius, Suidas, Phavorinus, the Etymologiſt and others, I thought this had been to ſome other purpoſe then onely to cloud the buſineſs, And becauſe I continue ſtill in the ſame opinion, I refer the judicious Reader for three eminent teſtimonies more to the ſame purpoſe (out of Diod. Siculus of Imilco, out of Heraclitns,
edict of Tiberius ſet down by Joſephus) to the Annotations on Act. 17. By which, and thoſe already produced in the Sections, here thought fit to be deſpiſed by the
Diatribiſt, it is moſt evident that Religion and Superſtition were by them who were guilty of daemon worſhip, or when uſed of them by others, taken, as exactly Synonyma, words importing the ſame thing.
Diatribiſt conceives himſelf out of theſe very Sections to have gained ſomewhat to object, It ſeems, ſaith he, the heathens did oft take the word in an ill ſenſe, and branded Religions which they did not like by that name. Plutarch taxes the Jewes for their Superſtition in two things remarkable. 1. That when invaded, they would not riſe from their ſeats on the Sabbath day, which was exceſs againſt the 4th. Commandment, and groſs Superſtition. 2. Their killing and ſacrificing their children to Moloch, which being an horrid Superſtition, was (as the former) intended as a worſhip to the true God, and yet was interpreted no better then ſacrificing to devils, Pſal. 106. 37. which though in other reſpects it was againſt the firſt Commandment groſs Idolatry, ſo in making it a worſhip of the true God (when he commanded it not, neither came it into his heart, as ſomewhere he ſayes) it was a kind of Superſtition againſt the 2d
Commandment; concluding in a word, that the Etymologiſt ſpeaks fully his ſenſe, the word among the heathen is taken for a good thing, but among Chriſtians for impiety.
objecting is, will now ſoon be diſcerned, 1. By remembring in the general, that at the beginning of the §. the teſtimonies brought by me in thoſe Sections, were judged to be to little purpoſe but to cloud the buſineſs and lead men away in a miſt, and yet now he can expreſs kindneſs to ſome of the teſtimonies, as thinking they may be uſefull to his pretenſions, which aſſures me all the other might have been capable of the like favour and friendly reception from him, if they could any way have been perſwaded to do him ſervice.
dly. To the heathens taking the word in an ill ſenſe, the anſwer is moſt obvious, ſo they did Religion too, and indifferently either, when either they that ſpake were Epicureans, enemies to all Religion, or when the Religions they ſpake of were diſliked by them, and ſo ſure that proves nothing for the Diatribiſt.
dly. This is the anſwer alſo to what is obſerved from Plutarch, for he ſpeaks of the religions which he diſliked, the Jewiſh was one of them, and particularly their obſervation of Sabbatick
reſts to the ruining their City, which he thought their Religion had bound them to, and never dreamt that they had miſtaken their Religion, or that their 4th
Commandment allowed them greater liberty.
thly. That Plutarch mentions the killing and ſacrificing of children, he took that alſo for a part of ſome mens Religion, and thought he had reaſon to be diſſatisfied with it, and to make it an inſtance of the Quantum Religio potuit, how much evil Religion did in the world, ſtill making no diſtinction betwixt Religion and Superſtition. But here by the way the Diatribiſt hath a little miſtaken, in thinking that this bloody worſhip in ſacrificing their children to Moloch was as the former (i. e. as that of the ſtrict Judaical reſt in time of invaſion) intended as a worſhip to the true God.
Moloch was no true God, but a falſe, the abomination of the children of Ammon, 1 Kin. 11. 7. and 2 Kin. 23. 13. thought by learned men to be a deified King of the Aegyptians, and ſo a daemon, placed among the ſtarres, the ſame that others make the planet Mars (ſee Kircheri Prodromus Coptic. 1. 5.) and that ſacrifice was the giving their ſeed to Moloch that falſe God, Lev. 20. 2, 3, 4. or the making their ſonnes and daughters paſs through the fire to Moloch, Jer. 32. 45. and ſo no way intended to the true God.
interpreted no better then ſacrificing to devils, Pſal. 106. 37. tis ſtrange he ſhould not ſee or acknowledge that it was a downright ſacrificing to Moloch, a Daemon, and not as to the true God, but then he could have had no pretenſe to make it an act of uncommanded worſhip, and ſo ſuch a kind of Superſtition as is chargeable on our Chriſtmas Feſtival; and then he had loſt all the advantage which this inſtance was to bring in to him.
benefit by that text of Scripture, He commanded it not, neither came it into his heart, as he ſomewhere ſayes] But why did he not tell us where God ſaith this? If his memory had failed, his Concordance would ſoon have helpt him to ſet down the place. But it was not for his turn it ſhould be examined. The place is Jer. 32. 35. and again Jer. 7. 31. and truely, belongs to theſe ſacrifices to Moloch, but then
God's not commanding &c. ſignifies not onely uncommanded worſhip, but by the figure
Scripture, worſhip directly forbidden, under threat of exciſion, Lev. 20. 2. Whoſoever he be that giveth any of his ſeed to Moloch, he ſhall ſurely be put to death, the people of the land ſhall ſtone him with ſtones, and I will ſet my face againſt him, and cut him off from among his people. v. 3. And if the people of the land do any way hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his ſeed to Moloch, and kill him not, then will I ſet my face againſt that man and family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, v. 4. and accordingly we ſee it in the Execution, Jer. 7. 31, 32. The valley of Tophet where they burnt their ſonnes and daughters in the fire, ſhall be called the vally of ſlaughter, for they ſhall bury in Tophet till there be no place.
feaſt or ſacrifice to the true God, which was not commanded or preſcribed by God, they that kept the Encaenia were not thus judged, and therefore this was very little to the Diatribiſt's advantage, as now appears by examining the place; it is pity Mr. C. would not conſider it.
Etymologiſt, which he ſaith are fully his ſenſe, tis again a miſtake, they are directly the contrary, It muſt be known that the word Superſtition is among the Graecians (or Gentiles) taken
for a good thing, but among us Chriſtians
for impiety. i. e. evidently the heathens and the Chriſtians uſe it for the ſame thing, the worſhip of daemons, but that the Gentiles commend and account good, who uſe it, but we Chriſtians juſtly deem it the greateſt impiety.
Phavorinus a Chriſtian alſo. Superſtition is the worſhipping all things, even thoſe which' are not to be worſhipt, and that one that is dubious concerning faith (as the Iſraelites betwixt God and Baal,) or as Tertullian ſaith, if there were conceived more Gods then one, cultura ejus in anceps deduceretur, he ſhould not know whom to worſhip, whether one onely or both, (adv: Marc, l. 1. c. 5.) or he alſo that fears (or worſhips) daemons,
Aſſyrians in Samaria that feared the Lord and ſerved their own Gods. And ſo ſtill this is as contrary to the Diatribiſts pretenſions as might be. And ſo much for that Section.
d. §. makes a leap from the 14th to the 27th over 12. not very brief Sections, I ſuppoſe it is becauſe he hath no leaſt objection to make againſt them (being not elſe very ſparing in this kind) and yet in them is contained my enumeration of all the notions, wherein the word Superſtition is or can be taantient heathens, Scriptures, and Chriſtian gloſſaries, and the premiſes on which the ſubſequent concluſions are founded, and cannot be denyed while the premiſſes are granted, and the whole matter made clear, that none of the notions of the word is applicable to the benefit of the Diatribiſt's pretenſions.
Superſtition ſimply and abſolutely taken ſhould be reſolved in all Authors to ſignifie ſomewhat that is ill, particularly falſe worſhip, this, ſaith he, is not the queſtion, but whether in Scripture and orthodox Divines it do not always ſignifie ſomething evill, particularly exceſſive and falſe worſhip. To this the anſwer is eaſie, that I am far from doubting that Superſtition is an ill thing, and therefore never meant to make that the queſtion, This appears of me, becauſe I every where acknowledge the word, Greek and Latine, to ſignifie the worſhip of daemons or falſe Gods, onely I could not but obſerve in the firſt place that the heathens who are known to worſhip ſuch daemons, and not to think that a fault in themſelves, did mean no
new ill by that word (whether exceſs or other the like) either more or worſe then they ordinarily meant by Religion, this being indeed their Religion to worſhip many Gods.
exceſs of Religion, and by their taking it in a good ſenſe, as Synonymous with Religion, it appears that this of exceſs was not eſteemed the due notion of it.
Superſtition might not defame every thing as an exceſs in Religion, and criminous, to which it was affixt, unleſs it might otherwiſe apevill in it, and this I ſaid abſurdneſs of their concluding, who taking the word Superſtition for a word of an univerſal ill ſavour, as ſignifying exceſs of Religion, firſt affixe it to innocent ceremonies and inſtitutions, to which it no way belongs, and then infer them nocent, as being Superſtitions, without proving any charge of malignity againſt them) and as preparative to the diſcovery of the following miſtakes, rather then that I ever imagined Superſtition truely ſo called to have no ill in it.
queſtion, and on condition he will never apply the word Superſtition any otherwiſe, then the Scripture and antient Chriſtian writers apply it (i. e. to daemon worſhip, or to undue worſhip of the true God, in the notion of indebitus or illegitimus cultus in Aquinas, not to each ſuch Super ſtatutum as he will call an exceſs, the uſing of each uncommanded ceremonie and the like) I ſhall acknowledge the word always to ſiggood writers, heathen or Chriſtian, which we Chriſtians juſtly deem evil, and that was clearly the Etymologiſt's meaning, as we ſhewed in the laſt Sect. and againſt that there is no colour of argument offered in all this long Sect.
vulgar tranſlation (which he ſets as the onely inſtance of Popiſh Commentators) render Superſtitio? what if the Papiſts pretend it not to be taken in a good ſenſe (whom I ſuppoſe far enough from yielding themſelves to be Superſtitious) doth that prove that Feſtus meant any exceſs by that word, or indeed any more then Religion?
obſervation, that in all my large
diſcourſe I bring onely heathens to ſhew the meaning of the word, and not one Divine, Greek or Latine Father, &c. who take it in a good ſenſe] this is neither true in the affirmation, for I bring the Scripture and the Chriſtian gloſſaries to teſtifie all that I pretend to, nor yet in the application, for I do not pretend the word to ſignifie that which a Chriſtian counts good, but among the heathen the worſhip of many Gods, which none but heathens can think to have no ill in it, and conſequently I pretend it onely of them, and of thoſe that ſet down the uſe of words among them, and of S. Paul when he is not a finding that fault in them, Act. 17. 22. and ſo ſtill this is ſufficient to prove that the word originally ſignifies not any exceſs of Religion or any other evil, abDaemon worſhip &c. which was all that I had in deſign to conclude.
heathen Authors, ſure I have done nothing which I ever blamed in any man elſe, as the Diatrihiſt's margent accuſeth me, citing the Quaere of Divorce, §. 58. where I thought it unreaſonable that all the antient Chriſtian writers ſhould not be as competent to give us the ſignification of Demoſthenes and Philo (and yet made no ſcruple to acquieſce in the notion, which either Demoſthenes or Philo gave us, §. 57.)
difference between the heathen writers and others, Scripture and antient Chriſtians, concerning the meaning of the word Superſtition, all yeelding it
to ſignifie the worſhip of many Gods (whereas there that other perſon whom I oppoſed, profeſt a contrariety, and then preferred the one before the other) To which yet it is neceſſarily conſequent, that in another inquiry, whether Superſtition were among Authors taken in a good ſenſe, ſome difference ſhould be obſerved between Authors heathen and Chriſtian, becauſe it is certain the heathen worſhip is by us Chriſtians moſt juſtly lookt on as an ill thing, being the worſhip of creatures, but by the heathens thought well of, as the Diatribiſt here confeſſeth, practiſed and commended, and ſo not lookt on any otherwiſe then Religion it ſelf, Etymologiſt, uſed for a good thing; conſequently, the thing which I conteſt, is not this, that the worſhip of daemons is or ever was true or lawfull, but that beſide this, ſuppoſed by Chriſtians but denyed by heathens, to be evill (adding
illegitimate worſhip) there is nothing elſe which hath been lookt on as ſimply bad in Superſtition, particularly not the exceſs, as that ſignifies unpreſcribed uncommanded worſhip, which is the onely matter of the preſent conteſt with ſuch as the Diatribiſt.
perplex and diſturbe the matter when he ſaith the queſtion is, whether it doth not always in Scripture and Orthodox Divines ſignifie exceſſive and falſe worſhip, for he muſt ſet the queſtion, as elſewhere he doth, of exceſſive, as that ſigniuncommanded worſhip, without the addition of being falſe, it being evident that I defend not falſe worſhip of any kind to be good, but that ceremonies or inſtitutions not commanded by God may yet be perfectly lawfull and blameleſs, and that that is the onely queſtion between us.
text of the Act. c. 25. 19. I have anſwered already, and evidenced that Feſtus meant nothing ill by Superſtition; and the Drs. words cited from Sect. 24. of the ordinary practiſe of every Sect to diſlike the diſtant worſhip of others, and defame it under the title of Religion, doth no way prejudge this; becauſe it is certain Feſtus was no way factious for the Jewes againſt Pauls Religion; No more doth the marginal citation from §. 22. where I have ſaid that Superſtition was made matter of reproach to the Romans; where 1. It was not Superſtition ſimply, but the not coming ſhort of exceſs, of which that was ſaid that it was reproached by others, and yet as much commended by the Author Polybius in that place, and 2. That the old rule in Logick will always hold, there is no ſyllogizing from particulars, nor can this ever be forregular ſyllogiſme or valid probation, ſome there were that reproacht the Romans Superſtition, therefore Feſtus reproacht Paul's Act. 25. 19. or ſpake of it by way of defamation.
Sect. belongs to the place Act. 17. 23. of which I had ſaid, 1. That the Apoſtle ſpeaking of thoſe whom he cals
more Superſtitious then other men, tels them that they did
worſhip the true God though ignorantly, 2. That he ſtyles them more religious then other men, meerly in relation to their worſhipping the unknown (which was the true)
God, which others worſhipt not, and ſo meant no more by that phraſe then that they were more religious then other men, no way appearing to accuſe them of that as of their fault, but preparing thereby to declare to them that true God whom they worſhipt ignorantly.
objected, 1. That their worſhipping the true God ignorantly with their own deviſed worſhip, was a Superſtition juſtly to be condemned, It being groſs Idolatry and ſinful Superſtition in the Iſraelites to worſhip the true God in the golden Calfe.]
ignorance of the true God was juſtly to be conMinutius Felix, Non minoris eſt ſceleris Deum ignorare quàm laedere, it is as great wickedneſs to be ignorant of God as to hurt him, or that of Triſmegiſtus (as I remember) Ignorance of God is a ſpecies of madneſs, and in another of the antients ſtyle, drunkenneſs of the ſoul; But that being granted, 1. This ignorance was not the thing that denominated them Superſtitious, but their worſhipping many Gods, 2. Their worſhipping the true God, though they knew him not, was no new ſpecies of Superſtition, wherein they exceeded others, 3. Their worſhipping him with their own deviſed worſhip was not it which is meant by their worſhipping him ignorantly, the words in the original are whom ye not knowing, or being ignorant of him, worſhip, i. e. worſhip him whileſt ye know him not, which no way refers to the manner of their worſhip, as deviſed by themſelves, but onely to their ignorance of the God whom they thus worſhipt, which therefore the Apoſtle applies himſelf to cure, and accordingly it follows, him declare I unto you.
worſhipping him as dwelling in Temples made with hands, i. e. in little Chaplets or Shrines or Images &c. v. 24. is not their Superſtition but Idol-worſhip, and is very much more then the uncommanded ceremonies will amount to, and ſo cannot be a proper inſtance of their own deviſed worſhip, in the Diatribiſts notion of the phraſe for all uncommanded worſhip; and ſure the Iſraelites woſhipping the true God in a golden Calf, is as little pertinent to that buſineſs, for if it be true, that they worſhipt none but the true God, then was that only Idolatry againſt the 2d
Commandment,
Superſtition or daemon worſhip againſt the firſt, or if they worſhipt the Gods of the Aegyptians, or any one of them, Apis in that figure, then what was that to the worſhipping of the true God in an ignorant, or by themſelves deviſed manner?
dly. He ſaith my rendring the place more religious then other men, in relation to their worſhipping the unknown God, which others worſhipt not, is my gloſs, begges the queſtion, is againſt the text it ſelf, I perceive that in all things yee are too Superſtitious, both in their worſhipping many falſe Gods, and in their ignorant worſhip of the true, and in their vitious rites of worſhip, adding that this ſenſe the Dr. himſelf gave §. 11. I conſider and behold you in all things (or in all that I ſee of you) as men more Superſtitious then others.
miſtaken, and therefore ſhall firſt anſwer to that, then to the former parts of the objection. The Greek is in all things, or in all reſpects, I look upon you as more Superſtitious, i. e. (I take it, and I thought I had ſufficiently expreſt it before) conſidering all the altars and inſcriptions, i. e. the names of your deities, which I ſee or behold, I conclude that you are more Superſtitious or religious, worſhip more Gods or daemons, then other men.
reaſon of his ſpeech rendred in the next,
for paſſing through and contemplating your wor
i. e. the Gods which you worſhip, I found alſo an altar on which was inſcribed To the unknown God. The ſumme of which is, that in the ſurvey of their altars, which contained the names of their Gods, he found one altar remarkably more, then is uſuall among other people, that to the unknown God, the true God of heaven, which others in their worſhip of many Gods did not worſhip, which being the proof or reaſon (expreſt by the for) of the former ſpeech, muſt needs give me authority to interpret it in proportion thereto, that conſidering all that he had ſeen of them, peculiarly that altar to the unknown God, he concluded them more Superſtitious, i. e. worſhippers of more Gods then other folkes.
Athenians truely were ſo eſteemed appears evidentSuperſtition § 11. and hath here formerly been added to that head, and therefore that will very
too Superſtitious, but litemore Superſtitious then others, eſpecially if it be remembred that the bare addition of the worſhip of the true God (however unknown to them) to their other worſhip of many Gods, cannot be a new fault in them, diſtinct from the other, or a ſuperaddition to the guilts of other men.
Pauls ſpeech of belongs both to their worſhipping ſo many falſe Gods, and to their ignorant worſhip of the true, and to their vitious rites of worſhip, when it clearly belongs but to one, their worſhipping the unknown God, which others worſhipt not. 2. How far my words §. 11. were miſtaken or perverted by him, 3. How far my interpretation hath been from oppoſing the text it ſelf, being the clear importance of the text conſidered with S. Pauls reaſon, as the key by which to enter into the true meaning of it; and laſtly how far this is from any begging the queſtion, when I proved ſo largely whatſoever I ſaid, and when no anſwer is here offered to thoſe proofs, and yet, if there were any need, here have been added farther convincing confirmations of the ſame thing, if yet they may deſerve to be ta
Superſtitioſus in the poſitive ſignifies exceſs more then in the comparative, are not very intelligiſenſe.
Superſtitioſus by force of the termination oſus, may ſignifie an exceſs, and that ſo Religioſus may alſo; but what is that to the uſe of the word, whether in the poſitive or the comparative, when it is the bare rendring of the Greek
THe next or 23d, §. is very brief, but yet ſeems to me to be very conſiderable, and that in ſuch a degree that it might well make an end of this debate betwixt the Diatribiſt and me, for having exactly ſet down a 2d. inconſequence (by me noted and concluded to be ſuch, from the opening of the Greek and Latine words) viz. that the uſe of ceremonies or rites in the worſhip of God, if not diſtinctly preſcribed by the example or precept of Chriſt, ſhould be called Superſtition, and for that condemned] he anſwers no more but this. [I believe this is a miſtake, none that I know make ſuch a conſequence, but rather thus, that what rite or ceremonie ſoever is made a part of worſhip, without ſuch example or precept of Scripture, is Superſtitious and therefore condemned.
Diatribiſt that he knows ſome who condemne uncommanded rites as Superſtitious, becauſe Superſtatutum, ſuch as kneeling at the Euchariſt, uſing the croſs in baptiſme, bowing at the name of Jeſus, but taking him at his word, I beſeech him to tell me, why then he underconfutation of the Tr. of Superſtition, which, he muſt know, contended no more then this, being deſigned to this onely end, the averting that envy and calumnie, that was then frequently but unjuſtly caſt upon our Church, upon the account of ceremonies, and which was ſince in the Tract of Feſtivals, no farther applied, then as that analogie would juſtly bear, which was betwixt uncommanded rites and uncommanded days of worſhip, betwixt unpreſcribed geſtures, and times, both which are known to be but circumſtances and acceſſories, no eſſentiall parts or branches of worſhip.
ignorant of; As it is, 'tis the yielding me the whole cauſe, and I have no more to contend for, but onely peace, and what by perfect analogie from one circumſtance of worſhip to another, will irrefragably be concluded from that which is here granted by him.
pieced, ſhould ever fall out again; Nay we are likely, if words may be believed, to be yet more firmly knit together and conſolidated, for § 24. in anſwer to the 3d. inconſequence noted by me [that men on pretence and in the name of piety ſhould abſtain from ſome obſervances (indifferent) as Superſtitious, either becauſe commanded by lawfull authority or abuſed by Papiſts] he ſpeaks clearly that it is a worſe miſtake, and that he believes I cannot give an inſtance of one underſtanding Chriſtian, that ever did abſtain from obſervances indifferent, becauſe commanded by lawfull authority, but rather that they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of worſhip, and ſo likewiſe for the other, that they have been uſed by Papiſts, is not all, but that by them they have been abuſed and counted parts of worſhip, and may eaſily return to be ſo accounted by others.
ſilence I incur the guilt of ſcandal of having wronged others, and of writing all that hath been written on this Theme, without any adverſary to provoke me to it. Firſt then, I profeſſe to be able to give inſtance of many, that were baptized into our common faith, and ſo were Chriſtians (how deeply underſtanding I pretend not to judge) who have abſtained from the uſe of ceremonies meerly upon this ſcore, beCivil and Eccleſiaſtical Superiors, the King and Biſhops, by Canon Eccleſiaſtical; This, ſaid they, was laying more burthens on them then God had laid, and ſo uſurping on their Chriſtian liberty. And in ſtead of naming thoſe men, without their conſent, for that muſt now be the vilifying them, the involving them under the Diatribiſts cenſure, that they are not underſtanding Chriſtians, I ſhall name one on whom he may paſs what judgement he ſhall pleaſe, having full power to do it, this very Diatribiſt himſelf, p. 31. where 1. He hath theſe words, If men may be Judges what are fit for number and wholeſomeneſs, every after comer will think himſelf as wiſe as he that
went before, till they have loaded the Chriſtian above the Iew. 2. That the learned Chamier hath well obſerved, that there may be many miſchiefs in a few ceremonies, if the authority to inſtitute them be in the Church or any man or men.
former of theſe ſpeeches is pretty home to the point in hand, for if the objection to the number or wholeſomneſs of ceremonies be this, that men are judges of them, as they always are when men command them, then ſure it is the power of the lawful magiſtrate (for he is a man or men) to command, which is the ground of the quarrel, and they that quarrel thus, and abſtain from indifferent ceremonies upon this ſcore, muſt abſtain becauſe commanded by lawfull authority. As for example, I ſuppoſe bowing when Jeſus is named in the publike worſhip (or when Chriſt, or when the Holy Ghoſt) to be in it ſelf lawfull or indifferent, beforbidden by God, I ſuppoſe farther, that being ſo, this and a few other ſuch ceremonies may very ſafely be uſed by a Chriſtian, though they were not commanded; I now demand, may a few, namely, three or four ſuch ceremonies be lawfully preſcribed or commanded by the Supreme power in any Church to all under that authority? And may all under that authority ſafely obſerve ſuch ceremonies ſo commanded? If they may, then men may be judges what ceremonies are fit both for number and wholeſomeneſs, which is contrary to the direct words of the Diatribiſt, in the former part of this ſpeech, If they may not, then it ſeems what was before lawfull and indifferent is now ſince it was commanded, and by no other change, become unlawfull, which was the inconſequence I pointed at, and it ſeems miſtook not in thinkDiatribiſt) to be the very perſon guilty of it.
latter ſpeech is as punctuall to it as could be well imagined (and if the Diatribiſt have cited duely, Chamier and he are both of this opinion) For it being certain that nothing can be commanded by lawful authority, unleſs the authority of inſtituting it be either in the Church or man or men, it muſt neceſſarily follow upon the aſſerting of the many miſchiefs in a few ceremonies, if the authority to inſtitute them be in the Church or man or men, that there muſt be many miſchiefs in their being commanded by lawfull authority, & then no underſtanding Chriſtian can think it fit for him
obſerving ſuch commands to be acceſſory to or guilty of the introducing thoſe miſchiefs, & ſo muſt abſtain on that one account of the Churches exerciſing ſuch an authority, which was the very thing I deemed, and noted to be ſo inconſequent.
Diatribiſt in this place, when he charges me of miſtake, being theſe [that they that abſtain from indifferent obſervances, do it becauſe they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of worſhip] are either a calumnie againſt the Governors of our Church, or elſe they aſſert what he diſclaimes ſo ſolemnly.
Governors of the Church thought the ceremonies ſimply neceſſary and not indifferent, antecedently to the command of the Church, i. e. neceſſary by the Divine Law, though the Church had never commanded them? If that be his meaning (as ſeems moſt probable by what follows [obtruded on them as parts of worſhip] for all parts of worſhip are neceſſary by divine Law, though never commanded by man) then this is a direct calumnie againſt the Governors of the Church, who never thought all ceremonies to be preſcribed by God's Law, and therefore preſcribed them by Canon Eccleſiaſtical, which argues that they eſteemed them not as Divine but Humane Laws, never obtruded them as parts of worſhip, but as ceremonies for uniformity and decency, and as uſeaſſiſting, inciting, and expreſſing of piety out
indifferent, they became neceſſary and not indifferent by the intervening of the Churches command, and ſo were obtruded on men as parts of worſhip (as that may poſſibly ſignifie with him parts of obedience or duty to God by virtue of his command to obey our Superiors) and if this were the thing diſliked in the ceremonies preſcribed by the Church, then again tis evident that their being commanded by lawfull authority, is the onely objection to them and ground of abſtaining from them, in the judgement of his Diatribiſt, at the very point of time, when he ſo ſolemnely diſclaimes it.
abſtained from becauſe they have been uſed by Papiſts, This, ſaith he, is becauſe they have been by them abuſed and counted
parts of worſhip. But truly I cannot with truth thus affirme of the Papiſts, that any of the ceremonies which we uſe from them, were ever by them accounted parts of worſhip, but onely as uſefull wholeſome ceremonies appointed by the Church.
difference between parts of worſhip and circumſtances of time, place, geſture, acceſſaries, of worſhip, I have ſpoken at large, c. 2. §. 3. And though hereafter §. 28. this difference be fully conſented to by the Diatribiſt in theſe words [ſome rites and ceremonies of worſhip are rather called circumſtances of worſhip, time, place, geſture, which are common adjuncts of Religious and Civil affaires, then properly Religious, much leſs to be accounted parts of worſhip] yet by what hath here been ſaid by him, it appears that all his skill lyes in managing that one fallacie, putting all ceremonies and inſtitutions of the Church under that one ambiguous phraſe uncommanded worſhip, perſwanew parts of worſhip, and ſo do contrary to God's command, who hath ſet down the rule of worſhip, i. e. preſcribed all the parts and ſpecies of worſhip, whereas he cannot but know that all that we ſay in aſſerceremonies or Feſtivals, is no more but this, that each of theſe, not as parts of worſhip, but as decent attendants of it, though not inſtituted by God, have yet been lawfully and orderly appointed and obſerved by the Church of God in generall, and are to us become matter of obligation, by that means, and as preſcribed by the Governors of our particular Church, to which our obedience is due, and ſo that there is no degree of Superſtition in us in doing that which is thus required of us, nor in thoſe that require it in laying this obligation upon us.
animadverſions on the three inconſequences, from which if he would really and in earneſt clear himſelf, theſe debates were certainly concluded.
revolving the ſame things again that have hitherto been ſpoken to, or the hiding himſelf in thoſe obſcurities which have now been explained, ſometimes granting all that I aſſert, ſometimes denying it in ambiguous phraſes, as that all exceſs in worſhip not preſcribed is a nimiety and culpable §. 25. that rites be they never ſo few, if introduced as parts of worſhip, are Superſtitious v. 28. and the like, And the Reader muſt not be condemned to the penance, of having all that hath been ſaid on theſe heads, repeated again, and therefore I am both in juſtice and charity obSections, yet ſhall read them over as carefully as I can, and obſerve whatpertinent to his cauſe, which hath not hitherto been ſpoken to.
all Divines generally condemne it, I anſwer, they condemne Superſtition, but mean not by it every exceſs in worſhip not preſcribed, as that phraſe compreceremonies and feſtivals not commanded by God; and thoſe Divines that condemne this under the name of Superſtition, are the men of whom onely my words are to be underſtood, that they are ſo few and ſo modern, and of ſo ſmal authority, that
they were ſcarce worth producing, no antient writer having ever condemned all ceremonies and feſtivals, which are not commanded by God, under the title of Superſtition; and that •. 2. qu
1.Aquinas's words are no way appliable to it, hath been already ſhewed.
t
Auguſtines place produced by me §. 33. from whence he collects that an inſtitution of worſhip by men may be Superſtitious, I anſwer, that that Father ſpeaks there of thoſe qui inſtituerunt Deorum ſimulachra, who inſtituted images of Gods, which the Diatribiſt could not but ſee, if he had pleaſed, and of ſuch inſtitutions I grant that they not onely may be, but are Superſtitious, but our ceremonies and Feſtivals are no Deorum Simulachra, images of the Gods, and ſo ſure not lyable to his cenſure.
dly. When §. 29. he affirmes of uſages in themſelves lawfull and allowable, that if they were taught or practiſed as neceſſary, or as making the obſervers more Religious then others, or more acceptable to God, then they would be parts of worſhip] (and then I muſt ſuppoſe by his tenure of doctrine, Superſtitious) I anſwer, 1. That decency, or uniformity, or obedience to Superiors may be a competent ground to turn lawfull ceremonies into neceſſary, and on thoſe grounds joyned together, I may kneel and teach kneeling at the taking of the Euchariſt to be neceſſary, viz. not by any neceſſity of divine precept terminated immediately in this geſture, but by ſuch neceſſity as Humane Laws, by force of the fift Commandment, and obey thoſe that are placed over you, lay upon me, and this is far from making this kneeling a part of worſhip, when we know it is but a geſture, and circumſtance of it. 2. That they which pray reverently and decently, obſerve uniformity, obey the lawfull commands of the Church, are in ſo doing more Religious and more acceptable to God then others, who caeteris paribus, do it not, pray irreverently, act undecently, obſerve not uniformity, diſobey the lawfull commands of their Eccleſiaſtical Superiors, or then they which perſame things upon their own choices. So ſaith Leo de jejun: 7. menſ: Serm: 3. Divinarum namque reverentia Sanctionum inter quaelibit ſpontaneae obſervantiae ſtudia habet ſemper privilegium ſuum, ut ſacratius ſit quod publica lege celebratur, quàm quod privatâ inſtitutione dependitur. The reverence of the Divine, i. e.
Eccleſiaſtical ſanctions have always this privilege among ſpontaneous obſervances, that whatſoever is performed by publick law, is more ſacred, then what is done upon private inſtitution. This I hope I ſhall not need farther to prove, and if not, then ſure the teaching this or acting on theſe grounds, will not make my allowable action criminous or Superſtitious.
dly. When §. 31. he finds fault with men for ſaying that the ſole reaſon why old Jewiſh ceremonies are interdicted us Chriſtians, is, becauſe the obſerving thoſe which foreſhewed Chriſt, and teaching the neceſſity of them, would be the denying Chriſt to be come, paralleling this with an anſwer of Bellarmine's and renChamier, that there was another reaſon of their abrogation, becauſe they did load the conſcience with a yoke of a multitude of ceremonies, and that this is common to thoſe, and to the traditions of men] I anſwer, 1. That it is one thing for Jewiſh ceremonies to be interdicted Chriſtians, another for them not to be impoſed, the weight of the yoke was the reaſon why they were not to be impoſed, and to that the Diatribiſts reaſons in the concluſion of §. 31. do all belong; but my ſpeech was evidenly of their being interdicted, and that meant not onely of the multitude of them, but of every or each of them, and the ſole reaſon of that, was this which I aſſigned, for if the weight of the multitude were at all conſidered in that, then any one of them, which ſure was not a multitude, would have been lawful, by name circumciſion, or ſacrificing, or the like, againſt which yet the Chriſtian internumber.
dly. Tis certain that in the application of this inſtance to ceremonies (not preſcribed by God in a Chriſtian Church) there is great difference betwixt the Church of which Bellarmine was an advocate, and that which I undertook to defend. In the Church of Rome 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, and I had fully conſented to the rule of paucae & ſalubres, few and ſalubrious, and was now dilawfulneſs of ſome ceremonies, uncommanded by God, not for the expedience of neer ſo many, as other Chriſtians both of the Weſtern and Eaſtern Churches have received into their Canons, and proportionable to that was any one, or never
few old Jewiſh ceremonies, for the abrogation of which I was therefore obliged to give ſuch an account, as was not founded in the multitude of them, and conſequently could not take either Chamier's or the Diatribiſt's adviſe, to render any other then what I rendred, as I thought, from ſuch like plain words of the Apoſtle, We have an altar, of which they have not power to eat, that ſerve the tabernacle, Heb. 13.
Diatribiſt asks a ſubtle queſtion, whether if a Chriſtian had obſerved ſome Jewiſh ceremony, which did not foreſhew Chriſt to come, but ſignificant only of ſomething paſt (though they had not taught it neceſſary) the Apoſtle would not have blamed them for that as ſuperſtitious; and ſo for any new rites and ceremonies? To which I anſwer conſidently, and to the latter firſt, that he would not, and the very asking or queſtioning it in that form, as if it could not be denied but the Apoſtle would have blamed them, is the known fallacy of begging the queſtion: For the whole matter of controverſy betwixt me and the Diatribiſt is this, whether every deviſed rite or ceremony not commanded by God, be ſuperſtitious?
former part of the queſtion I anſwer as confidently, and ask him firſt, what he thinks of the abſtinence from things ſtrangled, and all eating of bloud, was not that a Jewiſh ceremony? and was not that obſerved by Chriſtians Act. 15. and did the Apoſtles blame it as ſuperſtitious? Certainly they did not. Nay, did not this obſervance continue among Chriſtians for many ages? Ne animalium quidem ſanguinem in epulis habemus, ſuffocatis & morticinis abſtinemus, we have not the bloud of any living creatures in our feaſts, we abſtain from things ſtrangled, and that die of themſelves: ſaith Tertullian, Apol. c. 9. And Lucian tells us how his Peregrinus was rejected by the Chriſtians,
for eating ſome of their forbidden meats, which ſure belongs to this matter; and in Euſebius's hiſtory l. 5. c. 1. Biblis thus vindicates the Chriſtians from the accuſation of eating of children, becauſe, ſaith ſhe, we count it not lawful to eat the bloud of unreaſonable creatures. If this be not perfectly home to his queſtion, I ſhall then proceed, and alledge for my inſtance the known practice of the Chriſtian Church of the Apoſtles and pureſt
celebrated the weekly Lords day, on the firſt of the week, in commemoration of Chriſts reſurrection, ſo they continued the obſervation of the Saterday Sabbath on the laſt day of the week, in remembrance of the Creation of the World. The cuſtome appears in Tertullian de Monogam: and was continued to the time of the Laodicean Councel, which orLaw, as Act. 15. 21. but the Goſpel alſo ſhould be read that day. And the words of Balſamon are clear, the Sabbaths were by the holy Fathers almoſt quite equalled to the Lords days: and a great deal more to the ſame purpoſe, as is elſewhere ſhewed in the Expoſition of the fourth Commandment.
thly. When §. 32. he ſo reports my words as to conclude me to affirm, that if ceremonies be but harmleſs, or negatively wholeſome, there cannot be too much of them, This is a plain changing of ſenſe into that which is moſt contrary to it; For my words are plain, without his gloſſe, that if they be poſitively wholſom or tending to edification (not contenting my ſelf with negatively wholeſom or harmleſſe, or with any thing leſſe then poſitive wholſomneſſe) then there will be little reaſon to accuſe them of exceſſe, then they will rather help devotion then incumber it, the fear of which was the main objection againſt the multitude of them.
thly. When §. 35. he pretends to prove all folly and vanity in the worſhip of God, to be ſuperſtition, by demanding what Superſtition is, but folly and vanity?] this is a meer paralogiſme, (never reduLogical mood and figure) by ſuppoſing things to be convertible which are not, as if I ſhould prove a particular ſubſtance (for example, the ſoul of man) to be a body, becauſe every body, is a ſubſtance, The anſwer would be eaſie, by ſaying, every body is a ſubſtance, but every ſubſtance is not a body, ſo in like manner, every ſuperſtition is folly, and vanity, but every folly and vanity, even in the worſhip of God, is not ſuperſtition, This was a little too groſſe a Sophiſme to impoſe it ſelf upon the Diatribiſt, and he now ſees a ſmall meaſure of ſubtility was ſufficient to enable me for the diſcovering of it.
xtly. When §. 34. on occaſion of my ſpeaking of that one
kinde of exceſſe, of placing more virtue in ſome things then belongs to them, he demands what I mean by [or in the eſtimation of the purer ages of the Church] and whether the purer ages of the Church after the Apoſtles had power to put virtue into things which they had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word? I anſwer that I never thought of any ſuch thing, that my meaning is plain enough, if he would pleaſe to ſee it, in the end of §. 45. viz. that the thing, there mentioned, the ſigne of the Croſſe and the parva Evangelia, and the like, had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word, or in the eſtimation of the purer ages of the Church, that force or virtue in them, which in the latter impurer ages they were thought to have: and I wonder what difficulty there was in underſtanding, or fault in affirming this, which hath no more dangerous intimation, then that the opinion or eſtimation of the pureſt ages of the Church, i. e. the firſt and neereſt to the Apoſtles times, were, in any ſuch controverſie as this, very fit to be conſidei. e. next after the Apoſtles themſelves.
thly. When §. 30. concerning holyneſſe, or ſeparation to holy from common uſes, he promiſes to ſpeak ſomewhat conſiderable, and under that head tells us that there is this difference between times and places ſeparated by God, and thoſe which are ſeparated by men, that the former require holy duties to till them up, i. e. that the duties are appointed for the time or places ſake, but the latter are to wait upon holy duties, the time or place are appointed for the duties ſake] I muſt ſtill challenge his promiſe, whereby he is yet our debtor of ſomewhat conſiderable. For certainly prayer and faſting and ſacrifices among the Jews, all duties appointed by God (as in ſtead of the laſt the offertorie or almes among Chriſtians) were not appointed for time or places ſake; holy days and holy places, the weekly Sabbath, and the annual day of Expiation, and the tabernacle and Temple at Jeruſalem, were never the end for which prayer, &c were inſtituted, nor is it imaginable how they ſhould, when each of thoſe duties, viſibly prayer and ſacrifice, were appointed and practiſed before there was any ſuch thing, as Tabernacle or Temple inſtituted by God.
time or place, when inſtituted by God himſelf, is as truly a circumſtance of worſhip as when inſtituted by man, and duty is equally the ſubſtance: and it can with no probability be
ſubſtance is appointed for the circumſtances ſake, or (as he is pleaſed to ſpeak) to till up the circumſtances, any otherwiſe then he would ſay ſubſtances were created to till up accidents, the body for the colors ſake.
charge at the end of §. 39. that I make difference betwixt Apoſtolical and divine inſtitutions, and therein vary from my reſolution of the firſt Quaere, §. 22. It is ſoon diſpatcht by acknowledging I do not think that the Apoſtles were God, and thereupon for perſpicuity ſake I made theſe ſeveral heads of inſtitutions, ſome by Chriſt, ſome by the Apoſtles, inſpired, and commiſſionated by Chriſt, the former I called Divine, the ſecond Apoſtolical, as that is not perſonally and immediatly divine, yet not at all doubting, or giving any cauſe of doubt, whether the latter were not of divine original and obligation alſo, wherein ſure I ſpake after the example and manner of men, and that in order to diſtinctneſſe and perſpicuity, not foreſeeing ſuch cavils as this, when I thus ſpake.
thly. What follows of Wil-worſhip in the end of this Exercitation, muſt be reſerved to the next Exercitation, which is the place deſigned for it, and for the Diatribiſt to take it here for granted, as he doth, that my voluntary oblation is an eminent Species of Superſtition, againſt which, puniſhment is denounced in the ſecond Commandment: when he knowes that whole Tract of Wil-worſhip undertakes to demonſtrate the contrary, what is this but a meer begging of the Queſtion, and that a prime ſort of fallacious arguing, the ſolemn refuge of thoſe which are deſtitute of all other?
Stricture, there remains now no more on this firſt head of
diſcourſe, but to vindicate and approve my charity to the Diatribiſt, as I have hitherto done my doctrine againſt him. And as this is by his concluſion impoſed on me as my task, ſo I doubt not but to find it an eaſy one, if he will weigh my actions in the ſame balance which he uſeth for his own, nay I wiſh he could as eaſily clear himſelf, who hath thus judged me.
concluſion of that firſt Exercitation, And now the Dr. may be pleaſed to review, and if he will recal his bitter falſe uncharitable concluſion §. 57. 58. unbeſeeming both his piety and gravity. For now it will appear that the charge of Superſtition on ſome men is no Mormo, nor yet unjuſt, but what is avowed by himſelf and party to be their opinion and practiſe, and what is proved to be really Superſtitious according to the true notion of the word Superſtition among Reformed Orthodox Divines.
obedience to his admonition, and in a ſolemne dread of having ſaid any thing bitterly, falſely, and uncharitably, and without any manner of incitation againſt the Diatribiſt, who uſeth this language (which if it be not found to have perfect truth in it, muſt be acknowledged to be very uncharitable, I need not adde, bitter toward me) I have warily and ſuſpiciouſly reviewed thoſe Sections, and I ſhall deſire the indifferent Reader to do ſo too, and to tell me what ſyllable or minuteſt part of them there is, which can any way deſerve from any diſpaſſionate perſon, the title either of falſe in any degree, or of uncharitable or bitter in relation to any man then or now living.
premiſe, that the ſevereſt Satyre againſt a vice, and not a perſon, which carries perfect truth and juſtice in it, that repreſents a damnable ſin in the uglyeſt colours, and no otherwiſe reflects upon the perſon of any man, then as his own conſcience ſhall be thus awakened with a ſight of his own guilt, is ſo far from either uncharitable or bitter, (unleſs in the notion wherein the wholeſomeſt Phyſick or moſt neceſſary Chirurgery muſt undergo the ſame cenſure) that it is the greateſt and moſt obliging Chriſtian act of mercy, and kindneſs, and ſoveraign charity, that piety and gravity can ſuggeſt to any. And unleſs it aſperſe (by affixing ſuch vices to) particular perſons, eſpeguilty of them (as here the Diatribiſt
foul ſin of Superſtition on the Dr. perſonally, and inlarged it to his party, which he knows muſt involve all the obedient ſonnes of the Church of England, for the Dr. cannot with any tolerable charity be ſaid or thought to be of any other party) there is no ground of charge of the leaſt aſperity in this.
Sections can no wiſe fall under this cenſure, the ſumme of them being no more but this, that if the crime of Superſtition were faſtned on none but thoſe on whom the Scripture directs to faſten it, all that have oppoſed our Church in point of rites and ceremonies, and braninnocent as guilty of no leſs crime then Superſtition, muſt be obliged to return to peace and charity, and perſwaſions of kindneſs toward us, whereas the contrary humor of thoſe who oppoſe and maligne our Church, daily inflames and advances into that diabolical ſin of calumniating, and accuſing the moſt innocent obſervances of thoſe, whom they have undertaken to oppoſe, and never conſiders or looks on thoſe many groſſer crimes, ſpirituall pride, uncharitableneſs, faction, nay ſacrilege and profaneſs it ſelf, with ſo much expreſſion of averſion or diſlike, as on the uſage of a few and wholeſome ceremonies.
paraphraſe it, the ſenſe of thoſe two Sections, and all the aſperity that is there diſcoveraenemies and calumniators have learnt two of the Devils attributes,
thoughts) either to this Diatribiſt, whoſe name I think I had never heard of, nor to any other particular perſon, and as long as it was viſible that there was ſuch enmity abroad in this nation, which thus fortified it ſelf by calumniating others, and it being certain that it was perfect duty of charity, to indevour the deterring and preſerving brethren and fellow Chriſtians from ſuch guilts and dangers, and that the pointing at other ſinnes that much more juſtly deſerved cenſure, might be uſefull to that end, by way of but neceſſary diverſion, I can with perfect peace of mind review thoſe Sections, not diſcerning any man, or virtue, moral or Chriſtian, any branch of either part of my duty, againſt
Diatribiſt, if he be not fully of my perſwaſion, that he deſcend to the particularity, and tell me the man in the world to whom I was in thoſe Sections uncharitable or bitter, and firſt to whom uncharitable, and then for the falſeneſs, that hath by all this reply to this Diatribe, been, I hope, ſufficiently conteſted.
vindication of my ſelf, I can very well abſtain from making uſe of the advantage, which is here viſibly given me, of more then recriminating; I am ſo well ſatisfied with my own innocence, that I cannot be farther gratified with the contemplation of others guilts.
firſt exercitation, having I hope comobſervance of the rites and ceremonies of our Church from being the introducing of any new worſhip, or criminous exceſs againſt any of the Commandments of the firſt table, and conſequently from the charge of Superſtition in any juſtifiable notion, or Etymologie, or acception of the word, not taking that of Super Statutum to be ſuch.
Diatribe of Will-worſhip, the firſt complaint is, that the Dr. had not (as it became him) diſtinguiſhed the words
in Greek, or Will-worſhip in Engliſh, before he began his defence of them] and to repair this unbecoming defect on the Doctors part, the Diatribiſt is pleaſed to do it for him, by aſſigning it a double notion, 1. For voluntary, ſpontaneous or willing worſhip, i. e. willingneſs or freeneſs in worſhip commanded by God,) and then they were to blame, ſaith he, that put an ill notion upon them, or 2. For worſhippe deviſed by the wit and appointed by the will of man, as contradiſtinguiſhed to the will and wiſdome of God, and then it was not ſo much the ill fortune as the juſt puniſhment of them to paſs under an ill notion &c. For the ſcope of the 2d
Commandment in the affirmative part being this, God muſt be worſhipped with his own preſcribed worſhip, and in the negative, to forbid all deviſed worſhip of God by the wit or will of man, the very name of will (of man) put to worſhip of God, as oppoſed to the will of God, the onely rule of worſhip, is as a brand in the forehead of it, to characterize it as condemnable in all.
This his firſt §. I have thus fully ſet down, as the foundation of his diſcourſe on this ſubject, and very fit for my direction how to proceed in the reply to it; For if I ſhall now punctually obey his admonition, and having, in his opinion, formerly failed
duty, ſpeedily indevour to repair it, 1. by diſtinguiſhing the Greek and Engliſh word (though by giving it the exact limits in that one place, where it is uſed in Scripture, I had hoped well that I had formerly performed all that was neceſſary in this kind) and telling him clearly in what ſenſe I take it, defending it to be no way reprovable; and 2. by ſhewing the unfitneſſe of his diſtinction here premiſed, and the fallaciouſneſſe of the reaſon, or proof annexed to it, me thinks this ſhould ſet me on a good way toward the end of this ſecond Stage, and ſo do that which is moſt deſireable to the Reader and my ſelf, confer much to our expedition in this journey.
worſhip, whether the theological virtue, or ſome act thereof, together with the gradual intenſion and extenſion, the degrees and alſo the frequency or number of thoſe acts, on one ſide, and the external ceremonies or circumſtances of it, on the other ſide, which are not parts but accidents of worſhip; As in any other habit, that of juſtice particularly, may be exemplified, It may beſide the virtue of juſtice, ſignifie 1. ſome act of that virtue, or 2. the degree thereof, and frequent repetition (more or leſſe) of the acts of it, but for the circumſtance of time or place attending on any act of it, they will never be called juſtice with any propriety.
Secondly, For [will,] the other ingredient in the compoſition of the word, meaning thereby the will or choice of man it may be of four ſorts, diſtinguiſhable by the matter which is will'd or choſen, 1. when the thing thus will'd by man is forbidden by God, or 2. when 'tis commanded and under obligation, as far as the force of affirmative precepts extends (of which the rule is true, that obligant ſemper, ſed non ad ſemper, they oblige us alwayes, but yet do not oblige us to be always exerciſing ſome act of the virtues ſo commanded) and ſo when it is done, it is done in perconcord with, and agreeableneſſe to the precept, but yet for that time, or in that degree, it lay not under particular precept, but might without diſobedience or ſin, have been omitted. 3. When the thing will'd, is left free and indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden by God. 4. When although it be not indifferent, much leſſe forbidden, but good in an high degree, yet it is not under particuprecept, and ſo may be omitted without ſin, & when it is done, it
rewardable by God. I ſhall give an example of each of theſe branches alſo; Of the firſt, when a man himſelf commits, or teacheth others to commit adultery, adultery being forbidden by God, and ſo his action or teaching, an act of his will oppoſed to the will of God. Of the ſecond when I give to the poor, yearly, or weekly, ſuch a proportion out of my eſtate, which I am able to give (and ſo offend againſt no office of juſtice in giving) and yet am not obliged to give by any precept of Gods which laies it as a duty upon me. An inſtance of which, is ſet down at large in the Tract of Wil-worſhip §. 32. which together with other exemplifications of the point in hand, very neceſſary to cleer my ſenſe, and yet in no reaſon here to be repeated, I muſt deſire the Reader to fetch from that place §. 30. and ſo forward. Of the third, when I walk or ſit ſtill, laugh or weep, the law of God leaving it perfectly free for me to do, or omit, either of theſe as I ſhall chooſe. Of the laſt all writers, Jewiſh, Heathen, and Chriſtian, give us frequent examples. Maimonides among the Jewes
More Nevoch. par. 3. c. 17. mentions it as the common ſaying of the Iewiſh Doctors, that Reward is by God given to him that doth any thing uncommanded. Among the Heathens one for all, Plutarch who inſtances in acts
lib.
fortitude, freeing the city from Tyrants doing any great thing, which (ſaith he) are not
required or commanded by Law. For (ſaith he) &c. if the Law command ſuch things, then all muſt be counted
diſobedient and breakers of Lawes, which deſerve not reward in warre, which let the Tyrants live an houre, or which do not ſome of thoſe other things which are accounted excellent and by conſequence all ſuch muſt be puniſhed as offenders. So Nazianzen of the Chriſtian Law,
Of our Law ſome things lay neceſſity on them to whom they are given (i. e. ſaith the Scholiaſt,
(on us Chriſtians) and danger to them who obſerve them not. Others impoſe no neceſſity, but are left to choice, bring honor and reward to the obſervers, but no kinde of danger to them that perform them not, adding that as he that doth not deſerve puniſhment,
doth not preſently deſerve praiſe, ſo neither doth he that doth not deſerve praiſe preſently incur puniſhment: So among the Latins, Tertullian ſpeaking both of continence and of abſtinence, in his book de cultu Foemin. (long before he was under any ſuſpicion of Montaniſm) c. 9. Multi propter regnum Dei fortem & uti
And again, Quidam ipſam Dei creaturam ſibi interdicunt, abſtinentes vino, animalibus exulantes, quorum fructus nulli periculo aut ſolicitudini adjacent, ſed humiliatem animae ſuae in victus quo
So S. Hierome ad Demetriad. ſpeaking of Chriſts words of ſelling and giving to the poor, Non cogo (ſaith he in Chriſts name) non impero, ſed propono palmam, praemia oſtendo, Tuum eſt eligere, ſi volueris in agone & certamine coronari. Chriſt doth not command it or compel to do it, but propoſeth rewards, and thou if thou wilt be crowned muſt make the choice. And ad Pammachium, Non tibi imponitur neceſſitas, ut voluntas praemium conſequatur, No neceſſity is impoſed on thee, that thy will may obtain reward. And adverſ: Helvidium, Of Virginity, Virgo majoris eſt meriti, dum id contemnit, quod ſi fecerit, non delinquit. A Virgin is of greater worth, while ſhe contemns that, which if ſhe do, ſhe offends not. And adverſ: Jovinian: Ideo plus amat Virgines Chriſtus, quia ſponte faciunt quod ſibi non fuerat imperatum, Therefore Chriſt loves them more, becauſe they of their own accord do that which was not commanded them. So Chryſoſtom formerly produced on Rom: 8. The Spiritual do what they do with appetite and deſire, and demonſtrate it in that they alſo exceed commands. So Caſſian Chryſoſtoms ſcholar, Coll. 22. c. 30. Perfecti ſub gratiâ evangelii conſtituti, voluntariâ legem devotione tranſcendunt &c. They which are perfect now under the grace of the Goſpel do tranſcend the law by voluntary devotion. And c. 29 he ſpeaks of worldly men, qui nihil Deo voluntariè offerunt, who have no free-will-offering
for God. And ſo Gregory Moral: in Job: Quidam praecepta legis perfectione virtutum tranſcendunt, Some men tranſcend the precepts of the law by perfection of virtues.
apparatus to the preſent matter, the ſtating of the queſtion in hand, the word Will-worſhip as terminated in the one God, the object of worſhip, cannot be imagiworſhip to God, which is forbidden by him, which yet is not truly but equivocally called worſhip, as when the Phariſees perſecuting the Apoſtles, was by them ſtyled the doing God ſervice, and the like. 2. The uſing any ceremony in the worſhip of God, which either is particularly forbidden by God, or bears analogy with thoſe which are certainly forbidden, as among Chriſtians ſacrificing of beaſts, &c. 3. Burthening the worſhip of God with many whether ridiculous or unprofitable ceremonies, which though they are no where forbidden ſeverally by God, yet by their multitude become an hindrance to devotion, or a yoke too heavy for Chriſtians. 4. Uſing or inſtituting one or more ceremonies, no way forbidden, and yet no where commanded by God, but yet ſuch as the inſtitution or uſing any of them, is founded in ſome pious or prudential conſideration, whether of decency, as when any geſture of bodily reverence or humility is uſed or appointed, or for edification, as when feaſts not preſcribed by God, are ſet apart by the Church, and ſo by men, for the commemoration of any eminent mercy of God, for the propoſing ſome exemplary virtues to others &c. and withal that care is taken, that they are no way offenſive by the number of them. 5. Offering to the ſervice of God any thing of which God hath any way revealed that he will accept of, and reward, if it be duly performed, though he do not by any law exact it from every man, as dedicating himſelf to the miniſtery, doing it without any hire or payment here, vowing vows of building Hoſpitals, Churches &c: and moſt eminently martyrdome, when it may poſſibly, and without ſin be avoided by ſlight &c. but yet the man thinks it may much tend to Gods honor in the good of ſouls, if he thus ſeal and publickly teſtifie his obedience to Chriſts commands by his bloud, and accordingly chooſeth to do ſo. Laſtly, when either for the degree or frequency of repetitiact of worſhip, a man doth more then he is by
Gods law ſtrictly required to do, prays oftner every day, faſts oftner (ſuppoſing he no way hurt himſelf, or omit the perforduty, by ſuch frequency in either of theſe) gives a more liberal proportion out of his eſtate to pious and charitable uſes, then any precept of Chriſt obligeth him to do, and the like.
cheerful and ſo voluntary performance of any act of commanded worſhip, I take not this in at all, ſuppoſing that in the commands of God, not only the action, but the cheerfulneſſe of the performance is in like manner commanded by God, and ſo neceſſary, not voluntary, as that referres to the will of man, dicommand of God.
two firſt of theſe, it is by me moſt readily acknowcriminous, and of theſe I plead not the cauſe in the leaſt, either here, or in the tract of Will-worſhip, nor do I apprehend that either of theſe are truly and properly capable of that title of will-worſhip, or called by it, in that one place of Scripture, Col: 2.
third ſort alſo I acknowledge my diſlike, but yet again think it not applicable to the notion of the word in the Apoſtle, but rather to that by Epiphanius uſed of the Phariſee,
exuberance, or ſuperfluity of Will-worſhip, where ſtill the fault is the multitude and unprofitableneſſe of theſe ceremonies, not ſimply the uſe of any one, and ſo of each of them, the ſuperfluity, and not the uncommandedneſſe of them.
fourth ſort, though I muſt affirm that it hath nothing culpable in it, but rather commendable, as referrable to the Apoſtle's command of decency &c. yet becauſe it is not worſhip it ſelf, but an extrinſecal attendant of it, I need not allow that the title of Will-worſhip neither, nor apply to it the Apoſtles uſage of the word Col. 2. but refer it to thoſe circumſtances of worſhip, for which or againſt which no command or prohibition of the word hath interpoſed, of which I oft ſpake in the head of Superſtition, and vindicated it from that title.
fifth is that I formerly ſpake, and compared it with the voluntary oblations under the Law, and of that there is all reaſon to interpret the word in the Apoſtle, and that in a notion of good and commendable (no way of vitious) if it be truly ſuch as it
really ſuch, it may yet have an apPiety or Wiſdome.
ſixt, or laſt, I have affirmed of it and I hope made it clear, that it is firſt lawful, then commendable, and reGod, above a lower degree, or leſſe frequent exerciſe of the ſame ſort of worſhip, and yet is not under particular precept, as appears by this, that at that time, and in the ſame circumſtances, when it is thus laudable to give ſo much more, the giving ſomewhat leſſe is not a ſin, as is manifeſted in the tract of Wilworſhip.
Diatribiſt's didiſtinguiſht the words, and ſet the whole queſtion bediſcernibly as he could wiſh, and therein laid grounds for that juſt defence of a blameleſſe word, which was at large pleaded in the tract of Wil-worſhip. And then I need adde no more to ſhew the impropriety and vanity of his own diſtinction or double ſenſe of Will-worſhip, 1. for ſpontaneous freeneſſe in worſhip commanded by God, or 2. for worſhip deviſed by the wit and appointed by the will of man, as contradiſtinguiſht to the will and wiſdom of God. For as to the former branch of the diſtinction, as it is reſtrained to worſhip commanded by God, ſo it can be no Species of that Will-worſhip, which reſpects the will and choice of man, without any neceſſity particularly impoſed by God, and accordingly I have excluded it out of my Scheme, not out of any unkindneſſe to it but becauſe it neceſſarily belongs to another head, the cheerfulneſſe and the worſhip being both ſupcommanded by God, and ſo uncapable of this diſtant title of Will-worſhip. So that at the beſt imaginable, he hath branched Will-worſhip into but one part, and that was not the way of diſtinguiſhing that tearm.
member, it is ſo ſet that it hath many improfallacy to which Ariſtotle refers moſt others, fallacia plurium interrogationum (and I reMaim: Hal: Kelc-hammikduſch c. ult.Jews have a rule of their
Ʋrim and Thummim
they ask not of two things at once) confounding and putting together things that are moſt diſparate, as hath already appeared by the ſeveral Species here ſet down,
diſtributed into their ſeveral claſſes, ſome contradiſtinguiſht indeed to the will and wiſdom of God, but none of thoſe defended by me, other only not particularly commanded by him, or impoſed ſub periculo animae, but very conſonant and agreeGods will and wiſdom, and ſo ſtill thank him for in his diſtinction.
ſumme and ſcope of the ſecond Commandment, with the name of S. Auguſtine and the Doctor in the margent, it alreapretenſions, it being evident that the words there cited both for the affirmative and negative part of the Commandment, belong to eſſential parts of Gods worſhip, thoſe only being preſcribed and particularly appointed by God, not to each circumſtance thereof, whether of time, or place, or geſture, which among us tis certain are not parpreſcribed by God, and yet we can ſo farre judge of his will, by many indications of it, that he no way reproves or diſvoluntary obſerving, or the churches appointing of ſuch, and to theſe only he knows this controverſie here belongs, as apCeremonies or Feſtivals of our Church.
care how oft or how ſeldom the Greek word is uſed in other Authors, or the tranſlators of the old Teſtament, when the thing ſignified, deviſed or impoſed worſhip by the will of man,
I ſhall to his faſtidious deſpiſing my method propoſed, returne my reaſon of reteining it, and to his reaſon, a brief demonſtration of the vanity of it.
firſt, the reaſon of my method in that, as in other diſaffinity and conſent betwixt the Greek of the Old and New Teſtament, the writers being of the ſame nation,
Jewes by birth, which had acquired ſome skill in the Greek Language, and yet not ſo much exactneſs therein, as wholly to aſſume the dialect or character of ſpeech obſerved by native or Learned Greeks, or to deveſt themſelves of the idiomes of their own language.
ground I ſuppoſe it moſt conſequent, that for the explaining all verbal difficulties in the New Teſtament, reſort ſhould firſt be had to the Greek Tranſlators of the Canonical Books, or the writers of the Apocryphal of the old, and then in the ſecond place to other good Authors, from whom any light can be fetcht, and when theſe fail in their expected aids, then to make uſe of other ſupplies, analogie of phraſes or matter, with what we find in the Old Teſtament, circumſtances of the context, and the like.
Diatribiſt deſpiſe this method of ſearch, it were but neceſſary charity in him, to diſcover the faults of it and direct us to a better, which having not here done, he leaves us to ſurmiſe, that it was not his judgement, but his care to ſerve his own hypotheſis, which infuſed theſe diſlikes into him, for otherwiſe, the reſult of my way of ſearch being onely this, that the word once uſed in the whole Bible, Col. 2. 23. the notion of it in that one place, muſt in all reaſon be reſolved to be that which properly belongs to that place, eſpecially if it proves to be ſuch as agrees exactly with the freewill offerings in the Old Teſtament, I ſee not what infirmity it was which could render it up to his deſpiſing.
removes and evacuates all force of his reaſon of diſlike, it being evident by that one example of freewill offerings, but much more ſo by other evidences, both there and here added, that there may be many acts of worſhip, many circumſtances of worſhip, yea and many heights of Chriſtian heroical virtue, which may bear proportion with worſhip, that are not under obligation, from any particular command of Gods, and ſo remain to be acts of the will or choiſe of man, which are perfectlawfull, acceptable, yea ſome highly rewardable by God, and ſo far from the guilt which Mr. C. affixes, of high indignity or affront to the divine Majeſtie.
they are but twice apiece uſed in the Book of Wiſdome, and alway in an ill notion, which ſaith he, is but little to the credit of the compound
viſible to him, that the ſame word is uſed by St
James, c. 1. 27. in as good a ſenſe as could be wiſht, with the epithets of pure and undefiled before God, added to it, and v. 26. for the profeſſion of Chriſtianity, though for want of actions, bridling the tongue, and the like, that becomes vain; And as plain, that the word is in it ſelf equally applicable to the true as to the falſe, indiffereligion, to St
Pauls religion among the Jews, Act. 26. 5. the ſtricteſt ſect of our religion, to the worſhip of Angels, Col. 2. 18. and ſo to the worſhip of Idols in the Book of Wiſdome, which yet can no more tend to the diſadvantage of the compound
prohibited object, then the uſe of the Latine cultus ſometimes for the worſhip of falſe Gods, can prejudge voluntarius cultus, voluntary worſhip, when either the object is not ſpecified, or the mention of the one true God is added to it. It being confeſt and ſuppoſed by both parties in this conteſt, that the ſimple worſhip it ſelf is not culpable, ſave onely when the other part of the compoſition, the will (or as he will ſtyle it, the deviſe or appointment) of man, hath an influence upon it.
d §. is his entrance on the view of Col. 2. where oneWill-worſhip is to be found; and in ſetting down his grounds of interpreting it, 1. He citeth Beza and BP. Davenant, whoſe words are preſently anſwered, by adverting to the diſtinction formerly given between the eſſentials and circumſtantials, the parts and the ceremonies of worſhip.
dly. He pretends to diſcover a miſtake in me, in that I obſerve from v. 22. that St
Paul ſpeaks not of commands but doctrines, not of the prohibition of the Magiſtrate, but of falſe teachers impoſing them as the commands of God; Whereas, ſaith he, the Apoſtle ſpeaks expreſſely of theſe impoſitions, that they were after the Commandments and doctrines of men, v. 8. after the traditions of men to worſhip God by the obſervation of them.] Of which words of his, if there be any ſhadow of force in them by way of exception againſt me, the meaning muſt be, that the Apoſtle there ſpeaks of the commands or prohibitions of Magiſtrates in things of themſelves perfectly indifferent, and cenſures thoſe commands under the ſtyle of Will-worſhip.
truth in it, for 1. The matter of the commands is no lawful matter, but either the worſhip of Angels (and that is criminous, as the worſhipping of a creature) or the reducing of antiquated rites of Judaiſme, which ought not to be reduced, being once cancelled and nailed to the croſs of Chriſt. 2. The commands were not commands of Magiſtrates, but of men which had no authority to preſcribe any thing, eſpecially ſo contrary to the doctrine which the Apoſtles had planted among them, the Chriſtian liberty from the Judaical yoke. 3. The manner of impoſing them was quite diſtant from that of the Magiſtrates giving laws Eccleſiaſtical or Civil, thoſe are by way of Canon, as of things indifferent, in order to decency, and the like, without ever pretending them to be in themſelves neceſſary, as commanded by God; theſe are impoſed as from God when they are not ſo and that is the known ſin of dogmatizing, to which I formerly applied the place; And the word commands, ſignifies no more then ſo, being joydoctrines, i. e. ſuch things as falſe teachers require all men to do in obedience to God, or as if they were now commanded by him, when ſome of them, as abſtinencies, &c. having once been required by God, are now aboliſht by Chriſt, and the other, the worſhip of Angels, though it pretend not ever to have been commanded, but onely to be acceptable to God, is clearly forbidden by him.
miſtake in the Diatribiſt, who obcommands (meaning, as he muſt, if he cenſureth
commands of Magiſtrates) and not onely doctrines of falſe teachers, when indeed commands and doctrines are all one, both joyned together to ſignifie theſe dogmatizers, pretending the things which they taught to be in force by Divine command, by virtue of the Law given to Moſes, and not onely ſuch as would be accepted by God, as of the worſhip of Angels I ſuppoſe was pretended by thoſe falſe teachers.
ſeducers ſpoken of in that Chapter were the Gnoſtick hereticks, who made up their Theologie of Judaical and heatheniſh additions to the Chriſtian truth; from the Jews they had many abſtinences, ſuch as were now aboliſht by Chriſt, and thoſe they impoſed as commands of God, when they were not; and from the heathens the doctrine of the Aeones or Angels, as creators of this inferior world, and ſo ſuch as might, with Gods good liking, be worſhipt by us.
Laſtly, Thoſe commands of theirs are not cenſured by the Apoſtle, as acts of Will-worſhip, or blamed, or put under any ill character for being ſuch, any more then for being acts of humility, which is Will-worſhip in that place v. 22. but as intrenchments on that liberty purchaſed for them by the death of Chriſt v. 20. which had cancelled theſe Judaical ordinances to all that were dead with him, i. e. to Chriſtians, and had turned all Daemon worſhip out of their hearts, but had no way bound up the hands of his Apoſtles or their ſucceſſors the Governors of the Church, from inſtituting ceremonies or feſtivals among Chriſtians.
Diatribiſt addes of Will-worſhip, that it had a ſhew of wiſdome but no more, tis but a begging the queſtion, or if it pretend to be concluded from that text, it is without all ground ſo pretended, for if I ſhall grant ſhew, no reality of wiſdome, yet it is not of Will-worſhip that that is affirmed, any more them of humility (and I hope humility which is an acknowledged Chriſtian virtue, hath more then a ſhew of wiſdome in it) but of the retrenchments of their Chriſtian liberty, their ſubjection to the doctrines and impoſitions of falſe teachers, which had ſhew or reality of wiſdome
in Will-worſhip and humility, which they could not have, if either or both thoſe, when really belonging to any, had no more then a ſhew of wiſdome in them. But of this I have ſaid enough in the Tract of Will-worſhip, §. 12.
th. §. the main of this which I have now vindicated, is acknowledged by Mr. C. for ſaith he, the Apoſtle hath here no reflexion on the Magiſtrates making Laws in indifferent things (and if ſo, why was it judged a miſtake in the Doctor, when he ſaid, the Apoſtle doth not ſpeak of commands, but doctrines, i. e. not of the prohibition of the Magiſtrate &c. CertainDoctor were then miſtaken, the Diatribiſt is now, who confeſſeth the ſame thing, which ſo lately he had reproved) All his quarrel is to the Magiſtrates inventing a new way of worſhipping God, and then I am ſure he hath no real quarrel to me, after all this pompous ſhew of writing exercitations againſt me, for I never was advocate for thoſe who invented new ways of worſhipping God, and if, as he ſaith, the Papiſts lie under that guilt, I have taken no fee from them, amunder no obligation to plead for them, they are of age, let them anſwer for themſelves.
counſel for thoſe falſe teachers, who any way impoſe antiquated worſhip on God's people, ſuch are ſacrificing, ſabbatizing, circumciſion, and the like, and ſo all this while the Diatribiſt fights with the aire, and confeſſes as much as his adverſarie deſires of him, and then all that I have to complain of, is the ad quid perditio haec? To what purpoſe was all this waſte of words and paper? I wiſh there were no more yet behind.
th §. he is pleaſed to take notice of one inſtance
David who appointed Levites to ſerve from the age of 20. years, whereas God by Moſes had appointed it but from 25. years old &c. And I wonder what can be replyed to this my inſtance, to hinder it from concluding the lawfulneſs of making humane Laws, in ſuch circumſtances of Gods worſhip, and thoſe different from the Laws of God. Why, 1. ſaith he, 'tis impertinent, for he brings it as an inſtance of the Magiſtrates power in a thing indifferent, whereas this was in a matter of religion, and more then ſo, in a matter formerly commanded by God.
firſt anſwer under form of a firſt, I was in reaſon to expect a ſecond to ſupply the defects, but the Reader will eaſily diſcern with me that there is no ſuch, and therefore this firſt muſt bear all the weight. And to it I reply, 1. From his own confeſſion, that it was in a matter of Religion and more then of Religion, then by the argument à majori, he muſt needs have power in the leſſe, i. e. in a thing indifferent, and then ſure my inDavid was more then home to my purpoſe (i. e. pertinent) it proved more then I pretended from it, and if the Diatribiſts arguments would do ſo too, I aſſure him, I ſhould be convinced by them, I will never object to them that they have abundantly proved his poſition, but ſuch acts of Supererogation he may well condemne (and will not probably be guilty of) who writes Diatribae againſt all actions that exceed, as well as thoſe that come ſhort of the Commandment.
inſtance of David being this, that this action of Davids was againſt a former command of Gods, an altering of Gods appointment, and no way to be ſalved but by Davids being a Prophet, inſpired by God or directed by ſome other Prophet, and not imitable by any Magiſtrate now] What is it again but a remarkable inſtance what
David was a Prophet, inſpired by God in things belonging to that office, and yet as true that he was a wiſe and prudent King, and that he made this alteration upon prudential conſiderations ſet down in that place, 1 Chron. 23. 25. and 28. &c. viz. becauſe the burthens being not now ſo heavy, as formerly when they were to carry the Tabernacle, and all the inſtruments thereof, conſequently the full ſtrength of years was
neceſſary to the undergoing them, and beſides, by this means there might be more Levites to ſerve in the Tabernacle, then formerly there had been.
nature, in ſuch a meer circumſtance of the worſhip or ſervice of God, and that ſo far from a contrariety to God's command (for he that layes it upon the Levites from 20. years old, no way oppoſeth him that had impoſed it onely from 25. and he that commanded it from 25. no way excluded thoſe of 20. from being added to the ſervice) David might not have power, as a King, or why any other Magiſtrate might not do the like, command what God had not becommanded, in a thing ſo perfectly indifferent as was the age of the Levites, wherein to begin and end officiating.
David made this change by the Spirit or inſpiration of God, as a Prophet, firſt from 1 Chron. 28. 19. All this the Lord made me to underſtand in writing by his good hand upon me, even all the workes of this pattern, aſcribing it to the Spirit of God, v. 12, 13. Secondly, by comparing, 1 Chron. 23. 27. with 2 Sam. 23. 2, 3. where, as by the laſt words of David the Levites were numbred from 20. years old, in the former place, ſo in the latter place it was ſaid of the laſt words of David, the Spirit of the Lord ſpake by me &c. Theſe are but a heap of miſtakes. For as the former place belongs onely to the pattern of the Temple which Solomon was to build, deſcribed there particularly in the ſeverals of it, from v. 11. and that pattern affirmed v. 12. to be had from the Spirit of the Lord, and ſo the [all this] confined to that pattern, and with no equity, or ground in the text, to be farther inlarged, or applyed to Davids numbring the Levites from 20. years old, ſo the laſt words of David, 1 Chron. 23. 27. are clearly Davids laſt Will and Teſtament, but the laſt words, 2 Sam. 23. 1. are the laſt words of propheſie that he delivered, it being evident that he ſpake many other words after that, as appears in the Chapter, and the Book following, 1 Kin. and of his propheſies it is, and not of his other words, that it there follows, the Spirit of the Lord ſpake by me.
t §. is an examination of what I have ſaid for the interpreting of [Col: 2. 22. This phraſe I have thus rendred and paraphraſed, Theſe commands of abſtinencies (Touch not, taſte not, handle not, v. 21.) are all to deſtruction, or deſtructive, by the abuſe of them, i. e. by impoſing them on Chriſtians, as commands of God, now when they are aboliſht by Chriſt, and for this I thought I had produced ſufauthority, to vindicate the interpretation from the cenſure of ſingularity, the plain words of S. Anguſtine, and S. Ambroſe, or whoſoever it is that wrote the Comments which bear his name, Sunt in interitum &c. they are to deſtruction and eternal perdition to them that believe them neceſſary to ſalvation, and ſunt omnia in interitum & corruptionem per abuſionem, &c. they are all to deſtruction and corruption by abuſe, &c.
commodiouſneſſe of the interpretation, or the authority of thoſe ancient Fathers, or giving any anſwer to what is ſaid to recommend this interpretation, he is pleaeaſier way, to ask ſome queſtions, and offer ſome exceptions, Firſt he asks, why I refuſe our tranſlation of thoſe words?
queſtion I anſwer, by rendring my reaſons, 1. becauſe I think this other preferrable, and I doubt not but when the Diatribiſt findes it uſeful, he will do the like in this or any other controverſie; 2dly becauſe [propriety of ſpeech, or analogy of the like phraſe, ſignifie [are to periſh] but either in an active ſenſe [are to corruption] as that in falſe teachers may denote corrupting or ſeducing of others to their herefie, and particularly to thoſe abominable ſins, which by deteſting of marriage the Gnoſticks brought in, expreſt often in theſe Epiſtles by the word corruption, or elſe in a
neutral ſenſe, ad interitum to deſtruction. 3dly Becauſe though uſe, as well as abuſe, yet it is as eaſily replyed, that it ſignifies abuſe as well, nay more properly and frequently then uſe; In the Bible it is an verb, or in the ſubſtantive, but in this place; but in other authors 'tis vulgarly uſed in oppoſition to uſe,
Plutarch of Alcibiades, the Lacedemonians rather abuſed then uſed him, and in Apophtheg: that great men have good and ill friends,
they uſe ſome and abuſe others, and many the like. 4thly Becauſe the Notion which the Diatribiſt from the civil Lawyers, out of Eſtius gives of the Latin abuſus, is that of conſuming uſe, whereas it is both improbable that S. Paul ſhould take it from the civil Law, (much more probable that he ſhould take it in the ſenſe, in which we finde abuſio ſometimes among Divines for abſtinence or not uſing at all: So Proſper de vit: contempl: l. 2. c. 22. veraciter abſtinentes eſcarum non naturas ſed concupiſcentias damnent, ac voluptates ſuas deſiderati cibi vel potus abuſione mortificent, which ſenſe alſo the words here would bear well enough, and be a more punctual character of the Gnoſticks abſtinence from marriage, by which they brought in all abominable villanies) and if he did, it would as fitly comply with mine as with his notion of it, for thus it ſignifies abolition or wearing out,
uſu attero & obſolefacio, and to that agrees Phavorinus, rendring Suidas by deſtroying, and then this would be the rendring theſe impoſitions of [Touch not, &c.] which were once in force under the Jewiſh ſtate, but now aboliſht under Chriſt, are thereby to deſtruction, or to ruin of ſouls, as when the Apoſtle tells them in one place of theſe ceremonies, that they are Heb: 8. 13. nigh to vaniſhing away, to abolition, and upon that account in another place, that if they look upon them as things ſtill in force among Chriſtians, Chriſt ſhall profit them nothing: But this I do not really think to be the notion of [uſing] generally apply it to the meats, which are conſumed by eating (and by the way, Oecumenius, that underſtood it in this ſenſe, read it not caſting out of excrements) which yet moſt evidently bedoctrines of abſtinence, not to meats, and indeed the antecedent (to which all which referres) is, Touch not, taſte not, handle not, which denotes other abſtinencies, beſide that of meats, particularly that of marriage, which theſe Gnoſticks prohibited, and taught to be abominable, and that is not capable of this notion of by uſing, for ſure marriage doth not periſh by uſing. And the like may be ſaid of unclean things, the leper, the dead, that Judaizers would not touch, which yet did not periſh, were not conſumed by uſing.
Diatribiſt leave it indifferently betwixt meats add ordinances of abſtaining (which are contrary enough) yet the notion of uſing is no way applicable to the latter; for what the Diatribiſt ſets for the interpretation of it [now being out-dated they periſh with the uſing, without any ſpiritual advantage] is ſure very ſhort, it being evident by other places of Scripture, that the impoſing theſe out-dated obſervances, is not only not advantageous, but moreover hurtful, thoſe being as the Fathers generally reſolve, not only mortua, dead, and ſo profitleſſe, but alſo mortifera, deadly, deſtructive; and ſure that is the meaning of [to periſhing, or deſtruction] whedamnation it ſelf, or thoſe horrible or unnatural ſins, and the ſeduction of the Gnoſticks which certainly induce it.
d place he quarrels with my interpretation for ſuppoabſtinencies were impoſed and taught by the falſe teachers as divine obliging precepts, whereas, ſaith he, there is little or nothing in the text to import that. What will with him, when produced againſt his ſenſe and intereſts, be accounted great, I know not; but that there is ſomething in the text, to incline it this way, will ſoon be evident, 1. by the word doctrines, ſignifie thoſe things which are taught as from God, Mat. 15. 9. hath been formerly ſhewed, and is evidens from the form of ſpeech, in vain do they worſhip me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, where the commands of men are taught, not as ſuch, but as doctrines of God; From hence the active
dogmatize, ordinarily denotes teaching thoſe things to be divine precepts, and ſo obliging conſcience, which are not, and accordingly the paſſive
weights thus impoſed upon them being ſubject to ordinances (or doctrines) as we rightly render it.
the elements of the world, whether of the Jewiſh or Gentile ſervice, both nailed to his croſſe by Chriſt, cancelled in his death, but ſuch as were incumbent on the thoſe that lived in the world, being under thoſe elements, or initial ordinances, though Chriſtians were not. 3. Theſe are ſpecified what they were, Touch not, taſte not, handle not, abſtinences from meats, and from marriage; that of meats evidently a precept of Gods to the Jewes, and the Gnoſticks divinity being in part compounded of Judaiſm, there is no reaſon to doubt but they taught theſe abſtinencies, as the Jewes taught them, i. e. as divine obliging precepts, and joined abſtinence from marriage to that of meats, in the ſame form, i. e. as under precept alſo.
Diatribiſt addes to confirm his objection, viz: that in the next verſe they are called the commandments and doctrines of men] it hath no force in it, for ſo really they were, and not of God, but yet were by the falſe teachers imhonourable gloſſe, as commands not of men, but of God, and therein their falſe teaching conſiſted, And it is ſtrange the Diatribiſt could ſay of ſuch falſe doctrines, that they could not be pretended, much leſſe impoſed as a divine command] Tis as if he ſhould ſay, Falſe teachers could not teach falſe, hypocrites and deceivers could not pretend the authority of Scripture for their errors, the Devil could not put on the appearance of an Angel of light.
traditions were not pleaded to be the commandments of God, but expreſſely called the commandments of men, Mat. 15. 9. when 'tis evident that thoſe commandments of men were by the Phariſees taught as doctrines and ſo commandments of God, though by Chriſt affirmed in truth to be oppoſite to Gods real commands, v. 3. 6. it being very ordinary with hereticks, and hypocrites, to pretend that to be the will and command of God, which is moſt extremely contrary to it. And in that the Phariſees ſin and hypocriſie conſiſted.
Fourthly, he would ask me another queſtion, whether the placing
the worſhip of God in the obſervation of thoſe ordinances, though not taught or impoſed as God's commands, were not an abuſe of them, and
asking what he means by the worſhip of God, if ſuch as man may juſtly preſcribe or practiſe, either ceremonies perfectly lawfull, but not preſcribed by God, or more then ſo, that which is ſure to be accepted by him, though yet it be not under divine precept, then 'tis cerabuſe; but if he mean the commanded worſhip of God, then his queſtion implyes a contradiction, for whatſoever this worſhip of God is placed in, that is taught, as command of God, for elſe it were not Gods preſcribed worſhip, which yet it is ſuppoſed to be. 2. That theſe abſtinencies being of ſuch a nature, that Chriſt removed all ordinances requiring them, and purpoſefree to men, no humane authority could lawfully impoſe them, no man can forbid marriage to Chriſtians, and ſo any ſuch command were an abuſe of authority if given by lawful ſuperiors; (or if given by others, an act of intruſion and uſurpation, for who made them judges or dividers of tasks to their brethren?)
ceremonies and circumſtances of the worſhip of God, times, geſtures, &c. for Chriſt never expreſt any abſolute diſlike to all ſuch, nor can the impoſing of ſuch, with prudence in reſpect of choiſe, and moderation in reſpect of number, be by any analogic reducible to thoſe abſtinencies of which the Apoſtle there ſpeaks. Nay even for thoſe, particularly abſtinence from marriage, tis certain that it may be lawfully practiſed by him that can bear it, and that all the error is in impoſing it on others, contrary to that liberty which Chriſt hath for weighty reaſons allowed, and required to conallowable and honorable among Chriſtians.
Laſtly, He argues from the following words, v. 23. where the Apoſtle ſayes, they have a ſhew of wiſdome, in Will-worſhip, not as the commands of God, and thence he concludes their abuſe to be, not that they impoſed them as divine commands, but as parts of divine worſhip; But I anſwer, that that verſe is not the ſetting down the abuſe, or the defining wherein it conſiſts, but at the utmoſt, a deſcription of the faire gloſſes, thoſe abſtinencies and falſe worſhips were capable of, viz. a double ſhew or appearance
piety, one in Will-worſhip, offering to God a free will offering, for ſuch is every uncommanded, if lawfull abſtinence, but ſuch was not this, and therefore 'twas but a ſhew of piety; and another in humility, worſhipping Angels as the miniſters of God, humility indeed a moſt Chriſtian virtue, but this no juſtifiable humility, (To which alſo a third is ſubjoyned, that of ſelf-denyal or auſterity, of the ſame kind with the former) and ſo ſtill 'twas but a ſhew, no reality of wiſdome or piety, which conſiſted in this.
Diatribiſt is ſo fixtly reſolved on his way, that the criminouſneſs and danger of theſe abſtinencies, ſhall condeviſed or willed by men, and not in the Gnoſtick dogmatizing or teaching them to be commanded by God, that in his 6t §. the Doctor himſelf ſhall (again, according to his method taken up in his preface) be brought in to teſtifie for him; To which purpoſe theſe words are cited from him, that the danger conſiſts in impoſing on men humane ordinances or doctrines, and then ſaith he, ſtay there a while, viz. that he may from thoſe words, taken alone, conclude, that then they did not impoſe them as commands of God.
obligation lyes either on the Reader or me, to make a pauſe, upon his command, in the very middle of a period, when the words which are behind make theſe that are cited utſenſe which he puts upon them; For thus the words lay in the period before he had the diſmembring of them, [which words point out that wherein the danger doth conſiſt, viz. impoſing on men humane ordinances or doctrines, i. e. thoſe things, which though they are not commanded by God, are yet by men affirmed
and pretended and taught (though, as we ſay, magiſterially and without proof) to be ſo commanded.
contrary to the Diatribiſts concluſion, then theſe, which he thought fit to ſollicite to bear witneſs on his ſide, and to that end cut them in the midſt, and then, after the manner of the ſerpent, that fed upon it ſelf, ſuborned and inſtructed one end to devour and eate up the other.
t. §. he menDoctors gloſs of his own former words, and ſaith, they will now prove his own, i. e. ſingular. And truely if they ſhould prove ſingular, i. e. if no man in the world ſhould be found to have ever ſaid the like, but the Doctor, they would yet be ſufficient for the turn to which they were deexplicate the Doctors own meaning, and to ſecure the beginning of his period, from being brought in judgement againſt him, and ſo might have ſaved the Diatribiſt the pains of this §. For ſure no man was ſo fit to explain his own words, or to give his full ſenſe in them, as he whoſe words they were, foreſeeing that poſſible, which now hath happened, that otherwiſe they might be miſtaken.
gloſs a ſingular one, but that which the Apoſtles word will own as a natural and perſpicuparaphraſe,
middle as in a parentheſis, ſpecifying what gloſſes which they put upon them) why do you permit ſuch abſtinencies preſcribed and taught you really by men, and not by God, to be impoſed on you as doctrines commanded by God, juſt as when the Phariſees taught their own traditions, as the doctrines of God. That this is the very literal importance of ſubjected, or to pay obedience as to a command of Gods, hath alreaexpreſſion, nor conſequently of the propriety of my gloſs or paraphraſe on it.
placing worſhip in thoſe abſtinencies, that equivocal phraſe was very lately examined, and muſt not again return to exerciſe us. If they placed worſhip in them, in this ſenſe, that
did or taught them as parts of God's commanded worſhip, tis the very thing wherein I placed the danger; If they delivered them as their own doctrines, and not as the doctrines of God, they did not then place any part of God's commanded worſhip in them; If they taught them as ſuch things, which, though not commanded by God, would yet be acceptable to him, ſtill, after they were aboliſht by Chriſt, then they taught that which had no truth in it, for ſuch kinds of abſtinencies are not now valued by God, but more real acts of ſelf-denyal ſet up in their ſtead, mortifying of luſts, and the like, which thoſe falſe teachers were far from being guilty of. As for ceremonies of decencie and order, and Feſtivals, really deſigned to ends of piety and edification; they are neither of them parallel, nor bear any analogie with theſe which are here cenſured.
th §. is the arraigning of what my 7th had ſaid conceroppoſers of the ceremonies of our Church, againſt whom that tract was prepared, founded their concluſion on theſe two premiſes, 1. That Will-worſhip was a ſin. 2. That the uſing of ceremonies not commanded by God, was Will-worſhip. And therefore to our vindication
one place of Scripture where that word was uſed, it ſhould be found capable of ſuch an interpretation, which ſhould affix no ill, but contrariwiſe a good character on it; For herein the task lies on the opponent to prove his affirmative, that Will-worſhip is criminous, (and not on me to demonſtrate the negative) and that he can never do from this text, if in this text by a commodious interpretation, it be cagood ſenſe.
begging the queſtion, when I deny the word to be taken in an ill ſenſe, Of which Elench I cannot be guilty, unleſſe it were inprove and demonſtrate the negative, his affirmative being ſufficiently avoided, by my ſhewing that the contrary is poſſible, and not improbable, which therefore was all that was here required of me, and I hope is competently performed.
dly That if the words be capable of ſeveral rendrings, and eiWill-worſhip from the neceſſity of an ill ſenſe, then again this is ſufficient for my turn, for then ſtill he hath not unanſwerably aſſerted his concluſion: This I ſay, to give an account, why I ſet down two poſſible rendrings of rationem ſapientiae vel pietatis, reality of wiſdom or piety, or elſe only Speciem ſapientiae, a ſhew, or bare appearance of wiſdom; For of this it is certain that ſignifies ratio as well as Species, and much more ordinarily the former, and in caſe it ſhould here ſignifie the former, then tis unavoidably evident, that Will-worſhip muſt be taken in a good, not ill ſenſe; Mean while as I pretend not that both thoſe rendrings are true, for if it be only a ſhew of wiſdom, then it is no reality, ſo I profeſſe to yield ſo much to the authority of the ancient interpreters, as to pitch upon the latter only that of ſhew of wiſdom, not the truth, and even then, as hath been ſhew'd, the Will-worſhip there, is capable of a good notion, for how can thoſe abſtinencies or doctrines have ſo much as a ſhew of wiſdom in Will-worſhip and humility, if Will-worſhip hath nothing of wiſe or good, but only of wickedneſſe (and that we know is folly) in it?
fallaciouſneſſe of all that is brought againſt me in this or the enſuing Sections; For as to the interpretation of the verſe,
convincing proof of the truth of it, this is on his part a begging the queſtion, which even now was charged on me, with much leſſe reaſon, and when he ſaith mine may prove a miſtake, tis ſufficient to reply, and ſo may his, and the danger farre greater from the miſtake on his ſide, then or mine, For if mine ſhould be ſuch, yet will it not follow that the Ceremonies and Feſtivals of our Church are ſuch criminous Will-worſhip, the uſing of theſe bearing no analogy with the dogmatizing of the Gnoſticks, or their reviving the aboliſht Iudaical abſtinencies among Chriſtians, whereas if his interpretation ſhould prove falſe, and mine true, his whole fabrick muſt utterly be demoliſht, and his major and minor having both failed, the one affirming Will-worſhip to be criminous, the other our uſing ceremonies and Feſtivals to be Will-worſhip, his concluſion is not likely, I hope, to hold out long after, unleſſe it ſhall pretend to that miracle which is fancied of Callimachus (and denominated him an an immortal warrier, and the ſtatue of Mars) who is ſuppoſed to ſtand and fight after he was dead; And then tis time to retreat from this combatant, with the Epigrammatiſt;
. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
dly. when he vilifies mine, reſolving it ſingular without any precedent, ancient, or modern, Proteſtant, or Papiſt, Firſt, This hath no truth in it, as will anon ſufficiently appear, At the preſent, I ſhall only reminde him, that within two years after the Treatiſe of Will-worſhip was printed, came out Grotius's poſthumous notes on the Epiſtles, and thoſe are clear for this interpretation, and ſo though they could not be my precedent then, will now ſecure me from ſingularity.
Secondly, The Diatribiſt's interpretation is ſo far from being demonſtratively true, that it hath arrived to no degree of probability: It is this, that v. 23. contains a reaſon of the danger and deſtructiveneſſe of thoſe abſtinencies, viz: becauſe they were no other, nor better then Will-worſhip with a faire pretence of wiſdom, becauſe the worſhip of God was lately placed in them, and they carry a great pretenſion of humility and ſelf-denyal in abſtaining from things pleaſing to the body.
verſe contains a reaſon of the deſtructiveneſſe of thoſe abſtinences? 'Tis not ſo much as introduced with a for, or any other form of proof, but things indeed have a ſhew, &c. which is a form of extenuation (as the Diatribiſt acknowledgeth in this §. ſpeaking of proof of the deſtructiveneſſe of them, but the conceding ſomewhat, ſpeciouſly at leaſt, in favour of them, that they have indeed a ſhew of wiſdom in them.
dly What words are there in that verſe, which can bear, or give any pretence to that paraphraſe, that theſe abſtinences are deſtructive becauſe no better then Will-worſhip? The words in the Diatribiſts own rendring are no more but this, which things indeed have a ſhew of wiſdom in Will-worſhip and humility; But can this bear or induce this concluſion in any mood or figure, Therefore they are deſtructive becauſe no better then Will-worſhip?
fairer and more reaſonable, which I concluded, they have ſome ſhew of wiſdom in Will-worſhip, therefore Will-worſhip, if it be truly ſuch, hath ſome reality of wiſdom in it? for elſe that which hath but a ſhew of wiſdom in it, cannot have that ſhew in reſpect of Will-worſhip; Adultery being it ſelf folly, 'tis abſurd to ſay of any man, or doctrine, that it hath a ſhew of wiſdom in adultery, or in reſpect of the adultery that is in it, for that were to affirm it to have a ſhew of wiſdom in no other reſpect but that it is fooliſh.
ſhew of wiſdom which they had, ſo it was but a ſhew of Will-worſhip, or voluntary offering to God, and ſo a ſhew of not a true humility; but ſtill that doth but the more confirm (not confute) my concluſion, that Will-worſhip truly ſo called, and humility, that real virtue, are branches of Chriſtian wiſdom, or elſe, the having but a ſhew of them, would not give them ſo much as the ſhew of wiſdom.
dly When the former part of his paraphraſe is [they are no other nor better then Will-worſhip] how can that be coherent which follows in the ſecond place, that they carry a great pretenſion of humility and ſelf-denial? when thoſe two are regularly joined with Will-worſhip [in Will-worſhip and humility, and not ſparing the body]
humility is, ſuch muſt the Will-worſhip be, if the humility be only in pretenſion, then ſo muſt the Will worſhip be alſo, in pretenſion, not in truth, and then ſtill the fault or defect will be in the bare pretending, not in the Will-worſhip, as it is not in the humility or ſelf-denial, by the Diatribiſts own confeſſion, but in the falſe pretending them. How much then is it more reaviz: to allot to Will-worſhip and humility, and ſelf-denial, to all three, the ſame ſtate, whatſoever it be, whether of virtue, if they be really what they pretend, or of hypocriſie, if they be bare images or appearances of them? And on this I inſiſt, as on the main ground of inforcing mine, and invalidating his interpretation that Will-worſhip, humility, and ſelfdenial being here placed together in the ſame claſſis or ſeries, they cannot be ſo ſeparated, as that one ſhall be a vice, when the other two are acknowledged virtues in a Chriſtian, one really what it pretends, and the other only feignedly, or in pretence, without any reality in them. When the Diatribiſt ſhall anſwer this argument, he may then tell others of miſtaking, but till then, the miſtake may much more probably be on his ſide.
Thirdly, What the Diatribiſt addes of wiſdom, which I took in the ordinary notion of piety, is ſure more ſtrange in him, then what he cenſures in me; in the Proverbs and elſewhere he acknowledges it muſt ſignifie piety, but here it muſt not, but litewiſdom, to which purpoſe he cites Biſhop Davenant, who expreſſes it to denote ſome excellent doctrine rather brought from heaven, then found out by men; But if that be the meaning of it, then ſure, as ſuch, thoſe falſe teachers taught it i. e. as coming from heaven, and that is as a doctrine of God, and that was even now denied, when I affirmed it: 2dly How can thoſe abſtinencies have a ſhew of coming down from heaven in Will-worſhip, and yet Will-worſhip ſignifie worſhip deviſed by the wit and will of man? Tis as if he ſhould ſay, they pretend to come from God, in that they come only from men; whereas in the notion of wiſdom for piety, the words run very currently and intelligibly, they pretend to have piety in them, viz: ſuch as is diſcernible in Will-worſhip or free-will-offerings, in humility, in ſelf-denial &c: Well, that piety in this place, I appeal to S. Chryſoſtom,
Paraphraſe of
he appears to be (though really he be not) pious, religious; And Theophylact in the ſame words.
contrary, they are of no validity.
firſt is from the context v. 8. where the Apoſtle calls it philoſophie; But firſt, v. 8. hath no contexture with v. 23. 2dly. philoſophie there ſpoken of, the joyning of the Angels with God, the Gnoſtick Theologie of the Platonick and Poetick Theologie of the heathens, had not ſo much as a ſhew of any excellent doctrine brought from heaven, as the Diatribiſt even now from Biſhop Davenant expreſt Paul could affirme that it had any image or ſhew of ſuch.
dly. Tis confeſt on both ſides that the things here ſpoken of, and ſaid to have a ſhew of wiſdome in Will-worſhip and ſelf-denyal, are the abſtinences from meats and marriages, and thoſe abſtracted from the error of dogmatizing, have indeed a ſhew of piety in thoſe two reſpects, that he which abſtains voluntarily ſhall ſeem to practiſe a ſpecial piece of ſelf-denyal, and to offer to God a freewill offering of abſtinence from meats and mariage.
worſhipping of Angels, which I ſuppoſe a corollary of the philoſophie, v. 8. that alſo hath a ſhew of piety in humility, in worſhipping the officers and miniſters of God, as not daring to approach immediately to God himſelf; But then this, as it rather confirmes the notion of wiſdome for piety, then confutes it, ſo it cannot have any ſuch influence on the other branch of abſtinences, as to qualifie them to have any ſhew of divine doctrine in Will-worſhip and humility, eſpecially if Will-worſhip continue to ſignifie, as the Diatribiſt will have it, worſhip deviſed by the wit and will of man, for then, as was ſaid, they muſt have a ſhew of coming from heaven, in this very recome not from heaven, but from the wit and will of men.
ſecond proof is, becauſe v. 18. the worſhipper of Angels is ſaid to be puft up in his fleſhly mind, i. e. in a carnal conceipt of his own wiſdome, in finding out that way of worſhip, and to that purpoſe Irenaeus is cited not as an approver of this interpretation of that
reflects upon that text) but to
l. 3. c. 2.teſtifie, that the fictions of men are by them counted wiſdome.
doctrines of abſtinences, which we know are the immediate anprincipal thing here ſpoken of. 2dly. That what is ſaid of the worſhippers of Angels, that they are vainly puft up in their fleſhly minds, is there ſet as an aggravation of their crime, and as the cauſe of their aſſuming to know what they underſtand not, whereas this of having a ſhew of wiſdome, being inDiatribiſt confeſt to be an extenuating particle, cannot be deſigned to aggravate their ſin, nor conſequently to be parallel to that of v. 8. And ſo indeed to have a ſhew of wiſdome in ſome reſpects, differs very much from being vainly puft in their fleſhly mind, the one placing that ſhew in ſomewhat that is really good, though falſely pretended to, the other placing it in their own carnal minds which have nothing good in them. As for the place in Irenaeus directed to in the marverſes, 18. or 23. and ſo cannot be vouched for an authority to prove that they are parallel one to the other.
What he addes, that it may very well be parallel to that place, 1 Cor. 2. 4, 5, 6. will be ſoon diſpatched by any reader that ſhall compare the places, for he will certainly find that there is no kind of agreeableneſs betwixt them, the one ſpeaking of the arguments, miracles &c. by which the truth of the Goſpell was conferred to men, and not by Topicks of humane perſwaſion, the other of the ſhew of wiſdome which the Gnoſticks doctrines of abſtinence had in them, which ſure are things competently removed from any poſſibility of correſponding one with the other.
aſſert thoſe abſtinences as a worſhip of God, to have ſomewhat of real wiſdome or piety in them, is a plain begging the queſtion now betwixt us] To this I have premiſed the anſwer in the beginning of this §. ſhewing how far I am from a poſſibility of begging the queſtion, whileſt I do but anſwer to the argument drawn from this text, and ſhew that it may well (I need not prove that it needs muſt) have ſome other importance then that in which alone their argument againſt Will-worſhip is founded. But then 2dly. I ſhall freely gratifie the Diatribiſt, and having mentioned
ſome reality of wiſdome or piety, onely as poſſible, I ſhall gladly yield, that it doth not ſo ſignifie here, but rather ſome ſhew of wiſdome or piety, and then I hope I do not beg but grant, give him the utmoſt in this, which he decrave any favour from one, who will no more wil
denying Will-worſhip to be here condemned, but not proving it, is a little ſtrange, when he knows I ſolemnly propoſe the reaſons of my contrary aſſertion §. 11. &c. which beanſwered, or ſo much as taken notice of in this place, I wonder I ſhould be again ſo ſoon accuſed of petitio principii, begging the quaeſtion without proof.
preſumption in mentioning, (for I did no more) the pardon, for truely I did not exfaſtidiouſly caſt off (the uſe of it being as fit for his rendring, ſome ſhew, as for mine,
quandam rationem) or that the bare taking notice of it as poſſible, not preſuming it as certain, or offering it ſo much as my conjecture, ſhould ſo ſeriouſly have provoked him; As it is, the advantages are ſo ſlender which I aimed at by it, that I ſhall very contentedly lay it aſide, and no farther ſollicite his patience for it, though tis ſure enough that many more conſiderable changes have by ſober men been propoſed in explicating that Book.
quidem, indeed, for which I am charged that I leave it out (though if I did, what greater fault have I comt
Hierome had done, who, ſaith the Diatribiſt, thinks the particle
is redundant? yet) I gueſſe not upon what grounds it ſhould be affirmed, when it is viſible in the bemine, not his intereſt to keep it in; All the appearance he can have for thus affirming is, that in propoſing that reading of two words, I ſet it down thus, verſe, and onely ſet down ſo many words as are ſufficient to expreſs what I mean by dividing
two words, without any thought (if I may be believed) of leaving out advantage by ſo doing, or of ought elſe then what I now declare to have been deſigned by me.
adverſative, which he next conſiders, I profeſſe not to divine his meaning, there being no ſuch parcopies or my eyes can direct me.
th and 9th §§. there is little for me to reply, which hath not been cleared ſufficiently already; Onely in the end of the 9th he ſaith there is a great miſtake in comprehending theſe abſtinences under freewill offerings; for, ſaith he, both the freewill offerings were ſomething poſitive, and theſe abſtinences were negative, rather not offering then offering, touch not, taſte not &c. and all theſe abſtinences were commanded by ſpeciall Laws, but freewill offerings, the Doctor ſaith, were not required of them by obligation of particular Law.
miſtake, I muſt give ſome account, thus, The abſtinences here ſpoken of I ſuppoſe to be of two ſorts, from meats, and from marriage, both which were now perfectly lawfull to be freely uſed ſine diſcrimine, by Chriſtians; Thoſe therefore that taught them to lie now under interdict, were dogmatizers and falſe teachers; This therefore was a great fault in them, contraChriſtian doctrine of liberty from Judaical obſervances, (of which ſort were thoſe abſtinences from meats) and of the honourableneſs of mariage among all, when the Gnoſtick deteſters of mariage, making it damnable, and the abſtinence neceſſary to ſalvation (and ſo in the words of the Apoſtolick Canon, abſtained and taught that abſtinence
not as an exerciſe, but out
of deteſtation of marriage) brought in all the diſhonorable, vile affections, and practiſes in ſtead of it.
double error being noted and cenſured by the Apoſtle, he yet ſhewes the pretenſes, whereby it was recommended by the falſe teachers, to thoſe ſeducible perſons corrupted by them, viz: that theſe abſtinencies were acts of voluntary worſhip and ſelf-denial, and ſo could not fail to be acceptable to God. That they were truly ſuch, I never imagined, but that they pretended to be ſuch, had ſome ſhew at leaſt of piety in theſe two reſpects, prevoluntary worſhip, on the other to ſelf-denial, but then had really no more of theſe, then of the piety which they pretended to have; If they had the leaſt degree of piety in them (reading quandam rationem ſomewhat of wiſdom or piety) then that was in this revoluntary oblation and ſelf-denial in them; If they had not the leaſt reality, but only a ſhew, (and ſome ſhew agrees as commodiouſly to that) then ſtill that ſhew was in theſe two reſpects, that they had alſo a ſhew of Will-worſhip or voluntary oblation, and of ſelf-denial. And ſo ſtill I am free enough from any neceſſity of acknowledging his charge of comprehending abſtinencies under freewill-offerings, when I only affirm that they were recommended by falſe teachers under thoſe ſpecious colors.
ex abundanti, and to gratifie the Diatribiſt, by throwaffirm, that ſuch the abſtinencies may be, and ſo they may be recommended by the Orthodox Church (which is far enough from theſe foul Gnoſticks) that they may very ſafely and fitly be comprehended unfreewill-offerings or Self-denials. Of the latter there can be no doubt, for faſting and virginal chaſtity are certainly acts of Self-denial, denying our ſelves the enjoyment of thoſe ſatisfactions, which might moſt lawfully be enjoyed: And if to this of Self-denial be farther added the deſigning of this to the honor or ſervice of God, faſting in order to Chriſtian ends, either as an outward effect and expreſſion of Godly ſorrow, or as an inſtrument of bringing the body into ſubjection, fitting my ſelf for more leiſure and ardor in prayer, acting revenge upon my ſelf for the intemperancies of the former life, and, as to the very Self-denial,
acceptable to God, though not (to every poſſible act) commanded, ſub periculo animae, and as ſuch dedicating it to God, this ſure will be a voluntary freewill-offerings, and ſo properly comprehended under that head.
virginal chaſtity, which is no where commanded by Chriſt or his Apoſtles to any, but yet recommended to them which are able to bear it, he that can receive it, let him receive it, and the advantages of it, under the title of profitable, 1 Cor: 7. 35. ſet out by S. Paul in order to the advancing of ſome Chriſtian ends, purity of body and Spirit, caring for, or minding more intently the things of the Lord, bewithout ſolicitude, in times of diſtreſſe, when the cares of the world may very much incumber all, and probably inſnare many; Upon which grounds the Apoſtle, that out of his fatherly care would have them aſpire to the greateſt perfection, and ſo wiſhes them this abſtains from marriage doth better, even when he that marrieth doth well, and conſequently propoſes this whole matter not as command of Chriſts, for he profeſſeth to have no ſuch, but as his opinion or judgement v. 25. and 40. which what is it but the very notion of freewill-offering, ſuch as of which S. Chryſoſtome ſaith, Tom. 3. p. 382.it is an act of my own will, in oppoſition to the a precept, or command, precedent, or Thoſe things which are done above the precept, have in this reſpect great reward, but thoſe which are in the rank of precept, not ſo much.
Diatribiſt, certainly they will be of no force againſt this evidence; for why may not virginity, or faſting deſerve to be accounted poſitive things? is it not as truly a poſitive action to conquer as to ſatisfie, to ſubdue as to glut my appetite? and if ſelf-denials be negative things, and yet acceptable to Chriſt, what prejudice will it be to theſe abſtinencies, though they ſhould be deemed negative alſo? Are not all the obediences that are performed to negative precepts, compliances with thoſe negations, and ſo negative alſo, as not killing, not committing
adultery &c. And ſhall not the ſame be ſaid of all abſtinences? If Adam had not taſted the forbidden fruit, this had been but negagive, yet an act of obedience to God, and that preferred by God before all burnt-offerings and ſacrifices, preſcribed, or voluntary, And then what diminution could it be to an abſtinence, or prejudice to its being a freewill-offering, that it is a negative act? So wide is this kinde of arguing from proving any thing.
abſtinencies were commanded by ſpecial lawes, when he knows that abſtinence from marriage was never commanded by any law of Moſes, or Chriſt, and that that other from meats was now left free by Chriſt, thoſe ſpecial laws under Moſes given to the Jewes being now caſſate and cancelled by Chriſt. This ſure is enough to his preſent velitations, what he hath of reſerve for a weightier impreſſion, ſhall then be warded when I ſee it approach, and therefore ſo much for theſe two Sections.
th §. being an introduction to his ſurvey of my ſix reaſons for the taking Will-worſhip Col: 2. in a good creditable ſenſe, begins with a general, but that poſing, confounding note, that taking the word in a good ſenſe, the Doctor complies too much with the Papiſts (moſt of them taking it in an ill) who uſe to take off the force of the Proteſtants objection from this place againſt their Will-worſhip, by anſwering, that it is taken here in a good ſenſe, for voluntary religion or worſhip] To which I confeſſe my ſelf unable to give any anſwer, as not gueſſing wherein the objection lies, whether in my complying, or not complying with the Papiſts.
taking it in a good ſenſe I comply with the Papiſts, and yet there are other words as expreſſemoſt of the Papiſts take it in an ill ſenſe: The only expedient to me imaginable to reconcile theſe contradictions
Printer, or to any but the Author) is this, that though moſt of the Papiſts take it in an ill ſenſe yet ſome though ſmaller number of them take it in a good, and ſo defend their many traditions of worſhip (as he calls them) and anſwer the Proteſtants objections (the Diatribiſts and his partners) from that text, Col: 2. and then that I differ from thoſe Proteſtants, and comply with thoſe Papiſts.
interpretation of that word or text from any Popiſh writer, but from the weighing the text it ſelf, and the characters I found in it (the ſame that Hugo Grotius hath diſcerned alſo, as was ſaid) and accordingly ſet thoſe down for the reaſons of my interpretation; ſo if I ſhall truly be found to have complied with any Papiſt herein, yet 1. I ſhall never ſtartle at the interpretation, upon that account, many Papiſts having given the true ſenſes of many places of Scripture; and 2. I ſhall with much more juſtice be able to retort this argument on the Diatribiſt if I may believe himſelf, the ſenſe which he hath given, viz: the ill ſenſe, being owned by moſt of the Papiſts, as he here himſelf confeſſes. And then ſure he that is acknowledged to comply with moſt of the Papiſts, and not he which is but accuſed to comply with ſome few of them, muſt needs be moſt guilty of that crime, whatſoever 'tis fancied to be, which conſiſts in ſuch compliance.
interpretation of this verſe, that he believes it is ſingular without any precedent, either
Diatr. p. 44.ancient or modern, Proteſtant or Papiſt, and then I have little reageneral ſuggeſtion againſt his own belief, that the Doctor herein complies with the Papiſts, eſpecially when out of Chamier, he here addes that that learned and acute man, Panſtrat: l. 3. c. 6. §. 5. profeſſes he never ſaw the good ſenſe in any interpreter of the place.
general note is not likely to tend much to our prejudice, I proceed then to his more particular anſwer to my reaſons.
ANd my firſt reaſon being taken from the joining of Wil-worſhip with humility, one undoubted Chriſtian virtue, and not ſparing, or, as Calvin, mortifying of the body, To the former his anſwer is, that by my favour humility here is not the true and laudable Chriſtian virtue, but a meer counterfeit, a pretended humility fit for a pretended Will-worſhip.
well, for ſtill Will-worſhip and humility are aſſociated, the pretended Will-worſhip, he ſaith, with the pretended humility, and conſequently that as the fault is not in the humility, but in the pretending of it, when it is not true, the falſeneſſe and counterfeitneſſe of it, and that an evidence that the humility, if it were truly ſuch, were a Chriſtian virtue, becauſe the fault is in the feignedneſſe of it; ſo by the analogy of reaſon, it muſt hold of Will-worſhip, that when that is truly ſuch, it is a Chriſtian virtue, and that the only fault is, that it is not what it pretends to be, and ſo that is ſtill a valid argument for the good ſenſe of the word, Will-worſhip, though not of the diſguiſe and falſe appearance of it, the bare ſhew even of divine worſhip it ſelf being acknowledged to have nothing of good in it, which yet certainly the reality of it hath.
Self-denial, it is, ſaith he, not only a counterfeit, but an impious miſtaken mortification, viz: when tis made
a worſhip of God, and he inſtances in the Romiſh ridiculous Penances, Pilgrimages, &c. and asks what tis that makes them impious miſtaken mortification, not their being held forth as commands of God, for that they deny, it muſt be then, ſaith he, becauſe they make them worſhips of God, voluntary worſhip] Here again the former reply is in force, if it be the counterfeitneſſe and impiety of the mortification that defames it, then ſtill the ſelf-denial and mortification, truly ſo called, is a Chriſtian virtue, and then that will conclude the Will-worſhip to be ſo too, if it be truly what it pretends to be.
queſtion founded on it, it anſwers it ſelf, for as it is not their holding it forth as the command of God, ſo neither is it their making it the worſhip of God, that renders it culpable, but the ridiculouſneſs of it which he mentions, the unfitneſs or inordinableneſs to that end, to which it is deſigned; ſuch laniations of our own bodies being on that account, and by their affinity to the bloody ſacrifices under the Law, deprived of all appearance of being acceptable to God, and ſo for all other ſorts, which are not either regular effects of Godly ſorrow, or deſigned as expedients to make it laſting and durable repentance (as revenge, 2 Cor. 7. 11. is defiacceptation with God, or to cenſure it eiimpious or ridiculous.
d. reaſon for the taking Will-worſhip in a good ſenſe, was this, becauſe theſe abſtinences are ſaid to have
whether that be ſome ſmall reality, or elſe a bareſhew of wiſdome in reſpect of the Will-worſhip diſcernible in them, neither of which they could be ſaid to have, if Will-worſhip had paſt with S t
Paul for fooliſh or impious, for how can a thing be ſaid to have ſo much as a ſhew of piety in reſpect to any ſin, as luſt, or rage, diſcernible in it? To this his anſwer is long and perplext, 1. By rejecting that notion of degree of real wiſdome; And to this I that did not really adhere to that, will not be ſo far condefend it, or to adde of it farther then this, that the bare poſſibility that it might ſo ſignifie, ſuperſedes all demonſtrativeneſs of proof from this text, for the criminouſneſs of Will-worſhip.
Apoſtles words of bodily exerciſe, 1 Tim. 4. 8. and of that affirmes when it is ſaid to be profitable for a little, the meaning is, tis profitable for nothing, nay hurtfull and abominable.
groundleſs interpretation of profitable for a little, i. e. for nothing, and even leſs then ſo, hurtfull and abominable. It is, as if when Agrippa tells Paul
a little way thou perſwadeſt me to be a Chriſtian, he ſhould interpret it, that Agrippa was not at all perſwaded by him toward Chriſtianity, but on the other ſide was more confirmed in his Gentiliſme.
bodily exerciſe in that text be by ſome of the antients underſtood of bodily labour, yet they which do ſo, render ſomewhat,
it profits the body a little and for a while, ſaith St
Chryſoſtome and Theophylact, (and ſo we know it doth) and S. Hierome in like manner, ad breve tempus in carnali proficiunt ſanitate, they are for a ſhort time profitable in reſpect of bodily health, and ſo likewiſe thoſe others of the Antients, Ambroſe &c. who underſtand it of faſting, (ſo doth Leo alſo Serm: de jejun: 7. menſis, ſometimes in that phraſe of corporum labor, the labor of bodies, Serm: 2. ſomeexercitatio continentiae, quam ſibi quiſque proprio arbitrio indicit, the exerciſe of abſtinence which every one by his own choice layes on himſelf, Serm: 3.) conceive ſome degree of profit, utilitatem cujuſdam portionis, ſaith Leo, though not ſo great as belongs to that which is underſtood by piety in the next words.
Rabbins that which is in ſome degree profitable, but within certain bounds, and ſo alſo among the Greeks, as when Plato ſaith of Socrates,
Socrates is a little to be conſidered, but truth a great deal, and proportionably here the compariſon lyes, bodily exerciſe is profitable for a little, but godlineſs is profitable for all things.
cenſure, that by conſequence to this interpretabodily exerciſe, in this notion, taking it for abſtinences from meats and mariage, without relation to that of the Dogmatizers teaching and requiring that abſtinence as from things forbidden by God, i. e. (in effect) on bare voluntary faſting and celibacie (when they are onely uſed for exerciſe,
not with deteſtation of mariage or meats, as the antient Canons have it) viz. that they are hurtfull and abominable [I need ſay no more, but that it is an ungrounded and unwary affirmation, no way to be juſtified or excuſed unleſs ſtill he relieve himſelf at the dead lift with the ſuppoſition, that they are made the worſhip of God.]
abſtinence from mariage, in his notion of worſhip (for even they that make that a thing acceptable to God, and a ſtate of perfection, do not count it a worſhip, unleſs in a generall ſenſe, as every virtuous act perGod, may be ſtyled worſhip, and ſo this, being not under precept, but commended, a Will-worſhip) ſo being applied to abſtinence from meats, it can be of no very good conſequence.
Faſting hath long been numbred among the ſorts of Chriſtian ſacrifice, and is ſo ſet down by a 2ae
qu. 85. art. 3.Aquinas from that of St
Paul of offering up our bodyes a ſacrifice to God, Rom. 12. which, ſaith he, is done by faſting, continence, martyrtome; Leo calls it continentiae libamen, the ſacrifice of abſtinence. And Ad Celantiam Ep. 14. Tom. 1. p. 31.t
Hierome ſpeaking of it, uſeth this ſtyle, quicquid ſupra juſtitiam effertur Deo, making it an offering to God, though not under precept, and before him De cultu ſoem. c. 9.Tertullian, ſpeaking of abſtinence, Humilitatem animae Deo immolant, they ſacrifice to God the humility of the ſoul. And li: de Reſur: Carn: c. 8. Sacrificia Deo grata, conflictationes dico animae, jejunia, & feras & aridas eſcas, Faſting a ſacrifice acceptable to God. And yet higher, it is the expreſſe ſaying of St
Luke concerning Anne, that ſhe did ſerve God in faſtings and prayers, Luke 2. 37. And agreeable to this it is, that our Saviour mentions it together with prayer and almeſgiving, Mat. 6. and promiſeth it a reward, v. 18.
ſpecies of worſhip, and the ſolemne Chriſtian ſacrifices, ſo ſtyled by the holy writers, there is no
Faſting which is the third, if it be qualified as it ought, be degraded from the honor, and for no other crime, but only for being taught to be what really it is, i. e. an acceptable worſhip of God, become hurtfull and abominable?
Diatribiſt of hearing Sermons, in caſe it ſhould be taught, or aſſume to be a part of God's worſhip? would it preſently be caſt out as hurtfull and abominable? And yet ſure bare hearing of Sermons is not any acknowledged branch of worſhip.
difference there is, betwixt this of Faſting and thoſe other two of Prayer and Almeſgiving, to which Chriſt annexeth it; Faſting receives the chief of its virtue and eſtimation, not from the act it ſelf, which is but a ſelfdenial, but either as an effect of piety, as flowing from godly ſorrow, and ſo joined with Affictio corporis peccatorum indulgentiam deprecatur: Hierom: in Iſa: 58. Tom: 4. p. 191. F.prayer for pardon, or as an Chryſoſt:
Tom: 6. p. 476. l. 17.help or expedient toward piety, whether by ſubduing of carnal deſires, by Eò affligunt carnem ſuam, quo animae frangant ſuperbiam. Hieron: ad celantiam Ep: 14. Tom: 1 p. 39. 8.humbling the ſoul &c. or by fitting and gaining us leaſure and ability for Eodem tempore vac
58. Chryſoſt:
Tom: 6. p. 573. l. 16.prayer, and for
Frange panem eſurienti, partem pams quam ſi non jejunares com
4. p. 191. G. Quod veſtris uſibus religioſâ parcitate ſubtrabitis, in alimoniam pauperum, & in cibos debilium transferatis. Leo de Jejun: 7. menſ: Serm: 4.almeſgiving; and if it be the bare abſtinence from meat abſtracted from all of theſe, it is Chryſoſt:
To. 6. p. 476. l. 25.eminent or acceptable worſhip of God, Haec enim virtus adjumentum eſt, non perfectio ſanctitatis, this virtue is an hélp, not the perfection of ſanctity, ſaith Hier: Tom: 1. Ep. 14. p. 39. A.Hierom, ad Celantiam; But then ſtill ſuch a help it is, and that to more ends then one; For ſpeaking of Chaſtity, he addes, non huic tantummodo, ſed omnibus omninovirtutibus abſtinentia opitulatur, faſting is helpful not to that only, but generally to all virtues, And ſo S. Chryſoſtome
faſting is a medicine, but that uſeleſs, if it be not uſed as it ſhould be.
uſeful and profitable for ſomewhat, then of hurtful and abominable; As it is an inſtrument of good a help, or medicine, ſo ſure 'tis profitable
lower degree, in order to thoſe uſes; And what if by our faults,
Chryſoſtome, becauſe of the unſkilfulneſſe of thoſe that uſe it, it become uſeleſs, yet ſure this is no defamation or prejudice to it; The moſt generous medicaments may thus be rendred uſeleſſe and inoperative, yet are in themſelves very apt to work cures, and ſo prayer it ſelf may beunprofitable, by the like miſcarriage of ours, And more eſpecially hearing the word, which is very proper for excellent uſes, for inſtruction, admonition &c. doth yet in the event very frequently prove unprofitable, and yet this is no prejudice to the inſtitution.
exact importance of the phraſe may be collected, as bodily exerciſe is not oppoſed to, but compared with godlineſſe, and [profitable
for a little] to [for all things, having the promiſe of this life, &c.] viz. that ſuch exerciſes as theſe, faſting particularly, is a very good inſtrument in a pious mans handling, profitable and advantageous in its demortification &c. to teſtifie our ſorrow and repentance to aſſiſt in the deprecating of Gods wrath, to qualifie us for relieving of others, for ardent intenſe prayer, &c. but yet muſt not be magnified above its proportion, being compared with univerſal piety, which is profitable to all things, and hath the promiſe of this life and of another. This falls very low in that high compariſon, it is but profitable for a little, whether in extent of matter, profitable for fewer things then piety, which is profitable for all things; or in extent of time, as profitable for this time of life wherein all thoſe benefits are to be reapt, to which faſting is profitable, humiliation, mortification &c. but eſpecially in the former notion of this extent, profitable for ſome few things, in compariex abundanti for the vindicating that text of the profitableneſſe of bodily exerciſe.
Doctor ſeems to place the illneſſe of theſe bodily exerciſes in this, when they are
taught as neceſſary, to the defaming of meat and marriage; But—I anſwer,
ilneſſe, I thought I had done it on very good authority, that of the ancient Canons, particularly of the 51 Apoſtolical,
If any Biſhop or Clerk abſtain from marriage, fleſh, wine, not for exerciſe, (abſtinence or continence) but for deteſtation, he forgets that God created all things very good, male and female &c. and blaſphemouſly calumiates the creation, and therefore muſt either reform or be depoſed. Tis viſible here wherefault conſiſts, not in the abſtinence, but looking on meats and marriage as unlawful things, which they could not be, but as they are ſuppoſed to be forbidden by God, And Zonaras's comnatural,
Abſtinence for the virtues ſake is to be allowed and commended.
but abominating thoſe and rejecting them as hurtful to the ſoul, this is it which is criminous and cenſurable. And Balſamon addes, that as they ſhall be cenſured which abſtain from them becauſe they are cauſes of ill to thoſe that abuſe them, inBogomilus which did ſo; ſo he that abſtains for religion or piety,
ſhall not be cenſured. As cautious a prevention of this Diatribiſts doctrine, and as ſeaſonable an advertiſement to him, as could have been ima
teſtimonies I might farther adde that of Tertullian, who affirms that among the followers of Marcion and Tatianus (though not, ſaith he, of Montanus) were ſound men qui perpotuam abſtinentiam praecipiunt ad deſtruenda & dejicienda opera creatoris, who commanded perpetual abſtinence to the deſtroying and caſting down the works of the Creator, de jejun: c. 15. And the like intimations of the opinion of hereticks we meet frequentFathers, who give their cautions againſt this, Non re i
l. 1. c. 33. & eſcarum non naturas ſed concupiſcentias damnent.
Proſper de vit: contempl. l. 2. c. 22. And many the like. And among the Papiſts no meaner perſon then Durand ſpeaks much to this ſenſe, that thoſe old hereticks did, (though the genePapiſts ſeem not to approve or follow him) God, ſaith he, curſed the earth, and from thence it is that in faſting 'tis unlawful to eat any fleſh that is upon the earth, beaſts and birds, &c. Rat. divin. Off. l. 6. c. 7. But this by the way.
ſhew of piety, he cannot but wonder at my queſtion [How abſtinences can have ſo much as a ſhew of piety in Will-worſhip, if Will-worſhip paſſe confeſtly for fooliſh and impious?] bidding me ask all inpreters, who render the words, a ſhew of wiſdom in ſuperſtition or affected religion, how this can be.
ask them, I muſt have ſome aſſurance from this Diatribiſt, that all interpreters do ſo render it, for otherwiſe my queſtion will be loſt in the aire, and never bring me home any anſwer; But of this I am well enough adviſed, that all interpreters do not thus render it, I ſhall inſtance, as even now I did, in the learned Grotius, as valuable, I believe, as any that will be brought for the Diatribiſt's interpretation, and beſides, any one aſſerter of mine interpretation (and certainly Grotius is one) conaſſertion of all interpreters.
Diatribiſt takes for all, doth alſo take notice of, and render ſome anſwer to my queſtion, what ſhall I gain by asking them? And if they do anſwer it, why would not the Diatribiſt be ſo kinde as to recite it from them? But this I am ſure he hath not done, by asking me again, Cannot a thing have aſh
anſwer, that if I take the queſtion in the terms wherein it is propoſed, it is no way of anſwering my queſtion, but the divertdiſtant matter, For when he asks, may it not be ſo in reſpect of the Will-worſhip in it? the plain importance of his words is, may it not be fooliſh or impious in reſpect of the Will-worſhip that is in it? not, may it not have a ſhew of wiſdom or piety in reſpect of the Will-worſhip? for it is viſible that [be ſo] referres to [is fooliſh] and not to [have a ſhew] And then there is
fallacie put upon the Reader, the termes of my queſtion, and of the text, quite changed, and others ſubſtituted in ſtead of them, and then I confeſs that ſuppoſing Will-worſhip as ill, as the Diatribiſt would have it, a thing may be fooliſh or impious in reſpect of Will-worſhip.
queſtion be fairely ſet, cannot a thing that is fooliſh and impious have a ſhew of wiſdome in reſpect of Will-worſhip? And then as I ſhall anſwer, it may: ſo I muſt adde, that then that Will-worſhip muſt be taken in a good ſenſe, for elſe that fooliſh thing could not have a ſhew of wiſdome or piety in Will-worſhip. If a fool have any ſhew of wiſdome in him, it muſt be ſure not in reſpect of his folly, but of ſome particular or other, which is by him that ſpeaks accounted wiſdome, and that he muſt have in him either in reality or in appearance, or elſe how can he have any ſhew of wiſdome? If Satan have the ſhew or appearance of an Angel of light, it muſt be in reſpect to ſomething which he doth, or pretends to do, which is Angelical.
inſtances with which he proſecutes this, it muſt be a ſtrange ſhortneſs of diſcourſe, if he can think they evince his concluſion; He exemplifies in the Baalitical lancing, and the Popiſh penances, and ſuppoſing the former impious, and the latter not onely ridiculous but heatheniſh, yet theſe, ſaith he, had a ſhew of piety. But what if they had, was it ever denyed or queſtioned by me, but that impious perſons or actions might have a ſhew of piety? for ſure I always knew there were hypocrites in the world, but my queſtion he knows was, how any thing can have a ſhew of piety in reſpect of that very thing which is impious? This was the onely queſtion that belonged to the affair betwixt us, and certainly the Diatribiſt's inſtances are very remote from that, for the Baalites ſhew of piety conſiſted not in their bloody lancing of themſelves, nor the Papiſts in their as bloody penances, but either in the reality or appearance of that deteſtation of ſinne, and that zeal, which make them ſubmit themſelves to ſo much ſmart.
[But (ſaith the Doctor) can any thing be repreſented to me as having ſo much as a ſhew of piety, in reſpect of luſt or rage diſcernible in it?] to tell the Reader that this compariſon is ill laid. For if this be well laid, then ſure
queſtion is foully out of the way. But why is it ill laid? is it not directly a way of tryall, whether will-worſhip be ſet by the Apoſtle in an ill notion? For if it be, then ſomewhat elſe which is acknowledgedly ill (and rage and luſt, the two principles of ſenſuality, were the fitteſt I could think on of this ſort, to inſtance in) being put in the ſtead of it, the Apoſtles words would ſtill continue to have truth and conviz. that ſuch a thing hath a ſhew of piety in it, in reſpect of luſt or rage. This it ſeems was too groſs for him to ſwallow, and therefore (and upon no other reaſon, but becauſe it made the truth moſt palpable) the compariſon, ſaith he, was ill laid.
ſtrange, if we conſider his reaſon of excepting againſt this compariſon, For rage, ſaith he, and luſt are for kind confeſſedly wicked things. (And truly that was the reaſon why I inſtanced in them, to ſhew that a thing cannot have a ſhew of good in reſpect of that which is confeſtly bad, which I could not have ſhewed in thoſe inſtances, if they might have been good as well as bad) but worſhip, ſaith he, may be true or falſe. I ſhall then onely ask, whether Will-worſhip may ſo too? for that, he knows, is the word we contend about.
not, but is always falſe, then ſtill it is directly paluſt and rage, in this, wherein the compariſon was made, thoſe always ill, and this alſo: But if Will-worſhip may be true, as well as falſe, then as I acknowledge a thing may have a ſhew of piety in reſpect of Will-worſhip, meaning the good or true Will-worſhip, and ſuppoſing S. Paul ſo to have meant, and not any falſe or impious will-worſhip, ſo by this one conceſſion of the Diatribiſt after all this contention and ſcrupuloſity and niceneſs, the whole queſtion is yielded me, for it ſeems Will-worſhip may be true as well as falſe, and ſo good as well as bad, and here not confeſtly falſe or bad, quod erat demonſtrandum.
impious and falſe worſhip may have a ſhew of wiſdome and piety to natural men, is evidently impertinent to our debate or queſtion, which conſiſts onely in this, whether that which hath a bare ſhew of piety or wiſdome, can have it in reſpect of that which is confeſtly impious and fooliſh; and thereput it a little more home to me, as he ſaith, and yet can do no more but ask, Whether zeal may
not have a ſhew of true zeal, and yet be nothing but rage and madneſs? it is ſtill to as little purpoſe, equally beſide the queſtion; And ſo when he asks, Whether the Devil transforming himſelf into an Angel of light, muſt have ſomething really of light or piety in him, or elſe cannot have ſo much as a ſhew of piety? Tis evimay, without having any reality of piety in him, and yet it is as evident, that if he have that ſhew of piety, in reſpect of humility or charity, or any thing elſe, that humility or charity, or whatſoever elſe, muſt be of the number of thoſe things that are accounted good and pious, for otherwiſe his having the appearance or bare ſhew of them would not conclude him to have the appearance of piety. The matter is evident enough, if he will pleaſe to open his eyes, I cannot have a ſhew of piety in Will-worſhip unleſs Will-worſhip be a branch of piety, and ſo by proportion a ſhew of Will-worſhip a ſhew of piety.
anſwer is yet more obſervable (and according to his directions, I ſhall note it once for all) that the words are not, which things have a ſhew of wiſdome and Will-worſhip &c. for then, ſaith he, as wiſdome was good and taken in a good ſenſe, ſo might the reſt be taken, and the fault be, that they had onely an appearance, not the truth or power; but the words are, they have a ſhew of wiſdome in Will-worſhip &c. and if they were faulty becauſe they had onely a ſhew of wiſdome, they will be more faulty that they had but a ſhew of piety, or worſhip, or humility. All which I ſhall very eaſily grant, and as in the latter part I ſhall fully comply with him, that thoſe doctrines of abſtinences, Col. 2. were faulty, becauſe though they had a ſhew of Will-worſhip and humility, yet they had not the reality of thoſe virtues in them, ſo from the former part of his words I have all reaſon of analogie to conclude, that Will-worſhip is taken in a good ſenſe, by its being evidently joyned with humility and ſelf-denyal, for thoſe ſure are good things alſo, as well as wiſdome, and that all the fault was, that the doctrines of abſtinences had onely the appearance of thoſe virtues not the truth or power of them. How inevitably this concluſion is founded on theſe very premiſes given me by the Diatribiſt, is ſo evident, that I hope I ſhall not need farther to enlarge to ſhew it. By the ſame reaſon that Will-worſhip muſt have been concluded good, if it had
wiſdome, in this forme [a ſhew of wiſdome and of Will-worſhip] it muſt certainly follow that Will-worſhip is good, becauſe it is joyned with humility in this forme, [in Will-worſhip and humility] humility being as confeſtly good, as wiſabſtinential doctrines ſtill equal, that they had onely the appearance, not reality of all theſe.
reſerved for the cloſe of the concluſion, The words
do no more inforce us to take it in a good ſenſe then when we ſay, Judas made a ſhew of love to Chriſt in his traiterous kiſs, and the Papiſts devotion in bowing to ſtocks and images. But I deparallel to the words Col. 2. 23. (the leaſt change may have an influence on the matter) and then it muſt be thus, 1. Judas had (not made) a ſhew of love to Chriſt in his traiterous kiſs, and the Papiſts have a ſhew of devotion in bowing to ſtocks and images. And 2. in ſtead of triterous muſt be placed ſome word, which ſhall no more vary the kiſs, then the addition of Will varyes the worſhip, (for that the uncommandedneſs of worſhip makes it traiterous, or ſo much as ill, muſt not be ſuppoſed here, where it is the onely queſtion.)
premiſed this, I now anſwer to the example as it is by him ſet, that as the words in the Apoſtle were certainly true, ſo theſe words, as they are now ill ſet, are as undoubtedly falſe; for conſider the kiſs, with that ſo diſtinctive contrary adjunct, as a traiterous kiſs, (which addition as it is neceſſary to make it ill, ſo it deprives it of all appearance of love) and then Judas had no ſhew of love to Chriſt in this, viz. in his traiterous kiſs. If indeed he had ſaid, Judas had a ſhew of love to Chriſt in kiſſing him, or ſaluting him friendly, then it had been true, and then the concluſion had been evident that a kiſs or friendly ſalute is an act or indication of love, an hearty kiſs of an hearty love, and a feigned kiſs of a feigned love; or if the addition of traiterous kiſs, had made no greater a change, then the addition of will or uncommandedneſs to worſhip, then again it had been true; But ſupkiſs to be a traiterous kiſs, viz. a kiſs given as a watchword, whom (and when) the Souldiers ſhould
ſhew of love to Chriſt in that kiſſe. And ſo in like manner, if the propoſition had been, The Papiſts have a ſhew of devotion in bowing, it had been true beadoration or bowing is a ſpecies or indication of devotion, but becauſe Idolatry is neither of theſe, and bowing to ſtocks and images is Idolatry, there can therefore be no truth in that propoſition, ſet, as by the Diatribiſt it is ſet, and ſuppoſed to be delivered by any Orthodox pen (for ſuch ſure was the Apoſtle's to his Coloſſians) but the direct contradictory will be true and clear to all that count bowing to ſtocks and images a ſin, For to them the Papiſts have no ſhew of devotion in bowing to ſtocks or images, no ſhew of piety, but only of impiety in Idolatry.
d
argument for the good ſenſe of the word, from all the evaſions and Section his maſterpiece of dexterity, and therefore I have ſo punctually and ſubtile refuges of this Diatribiſt.
third reaſon being taken from the Greek fathers underthough they interpret
only of appearance, yet paraphraſe Will-worſhip by words of good ſavour,
pious, religious &c. The Diatribiſt begins with a triumph and ovation, Firſt, ſaith he, this is well that the Greek Fathers agree with us in expoſition of the firſt words, a ſhew (not, as he, ſomewhat real) of wiſdom, nay they expreſſely oppoſe againſt it power and truth, and can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worſhip of God, be taken in a good ſenſe? And do not the Fathers imply as much, Chryſoſt:
he ſeems to be religious, but is not ſo, Oecumenius
pretending religion in worſhip. And is there any goodneſſe in hypocriſie?
reprehended but cheriſhed in the Diatribiſt, that he is ſo very much rejoyced to hear the newes, that the Greek Fathers and he are of a minde, in any the leaſt particular, I hope it will incourage and ingage him to a more familiar con
complain of at the preſent, is firſt that their interpreting
ſhew, ſhould be deemed an agreement with him, more then with me, who he knowes have produced them, and never expreſt any diſlike to that interpretation. All the difference between us being but this, that the Greek
two rendrings, rationem and ſpeciem, I that deſired to proceed on ſure grounds, propoſed them both, and, which ſoever ſhould be adhered to, ſhewed the neceſſity of good ſenſe. Tis true indeed, if ratio, the argument for the good ſenſe would proceed moſt irreſiſtibly, But ſuppoſing it with the Fathers to ſignifie ſpecies, a bare ſhew or appearance, yet the argument holds very firmGnoſtick doctrines cannot have ſo much as a ſhew of piety in Will-worſhip, unleſſe Will-worſhip real be piety real, and the appearance of Will-worſhip a foundation of an appearance of piety. And this being the ſenſe of the Fathers, which rendbare ſhew, this ſure was fit to be confronted to the Diatribiſt's pretenſions, as a third argument.
ſtrange way of anſwer to this argument, to ask, as he here doth, Can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worſhip of God, be taken in a good ſenſe? I reply, by demanding what it is, of which the Fathers ſay, that it hath neither
power nor truth? Sure the doctrines of abſtinence, and not the Will-worſhip; And yet his anſwer proceeds as if they ſuppoſed it of the Will-worſhip, and without that, hath no appearance of force in it. And is not this a ſtrange perverting of plain words? Chryſoſtome ſaith, the falſe teacher ſeems to be pious, but is not, and Oecumenius, that he ſimulates piety, and from hence Mr. C. concludes that Will-worſhip is not taken in a good ſenſe. But I pray is not piety taken in a good ſenſe, even when the hypocrite ſimulates piety? Nay, would he pretend to it if it were not good? Doth a hypocrite pretend to that which is acknowledgedly ill? This were ſure to appear what he is, and that is contrary to his being an hypocrite. The product is plain, Will-worſhip is rendred by piety, not by appearance of piety, & unleſs piety it ſelf can be taken there in an ill ſenſe, Will-worſhip muſt be taken in a good ſenſe, Certainly I need adde no more ('tis pity I ſhould be required to ſay ſo much) of this matter.
interpreter of Clemens, who renders in religione, from whence I thought I might conWill-worſhip ſignifies religion, and ſo that it was not taken in an ill ſenſe, he is pleaſed to ask, [Why, Is not religion it ſelf of various ſenſes? The ſimple word ſignifies falſe religion, as well as true; but the compoſition makes it worſe, and alters the ſenſe, becauſe it addes the work of mans will to worſhip, which is abominable to God]
queſtion will ſoon appear; For 1. What if both religio and various ſenſes, and ſignifie falſe religion as well as true, heathen, or Judaical, as well as Chriſtian? Is there any appearance of reaſon to determine it to the former, in this place, or in that interpreters acception of it? If there be, then there is an account of the words being taken in an ill ſenſe, without any influence of the mans will upon it; if there be not (as he is obliged to affirm there is not, ſaying p. 69 that the Apoſtle brands them as deſtructive, becauſe they are but Will-worſhip, not becauſe they are outdated or Judaical, much leſſe then, becauſe they are any more dangerous ſort of falſe worſhip, ſuch as was uſed among the heathens) then what matters it, what in other places it ſignifie, whenſoever the adjuncts or context ſo determine it, unleſſe it do (or can be pretended to do) ſo here?
ſignifying falſe religion as well as true) the compoſition makes it worſe; worſe then what? then falſe religion? This is fairly to reſolve that the uſe of any thing uncommanded in the ſervice of the true God, is worſe then falſe religion indefinitely, i. e. then Idolatry or Superſtition; and the reaſon annext is of the ſame temper, [adding the work of mans will is abominable to God.]
foundation of charge of Idolatry, or whatever is moſt abominable on this poor Church of ours, for the bare uſing of any moſt innnocent ceremony. But this all the while incumbent on the Diatribiſt to prove, and as it will not be granted for asking, ſo it is not ſo neerly approaching toward truth, as to want any faranſwer, then the reciting of it, I cannot yet be ſo uncharitaC. as to imagine it his ſerious opinion that kneeling in prayer or thanksgiving to God, on purpoſe to expreſſe our lowly reverence to him, or bowing at the name of Jeſus, in token that we believe him to be the eternal God, in oppoſition to the ancient or modern Arians and Socinians, is abominable to God, and worſe then falſe religion.
following queſtion confirms this to be his opi[Do not all Idolaters pretend wiſdom in their inventions, citing in the margent Pſal: 106. 39. went a whoring with their own inventions] yet tis not to be believed, that he can in earneſt thence conclude, Therefore all inventions of men are Idolatry, and worſe then Idolatry; If he can, 'tis ſufficient to reply, that though all Idolatry be invented and deviſed worſhip, yet all inventions of men are not Idolatry, though every beaſt be a living creature, yet every living creature is not a beaſt; And ſo that though Idolatrous Will-worſhip be abominable to God, yet all Will-worſhip is not Idolatrous.
Doth not, ſaith he, this pretence (of wiſdom) make it more odious to God, as taking upon them to be wiſer then he, and more devout then he requires?] But it may ſuffice once for all, that he that uſeth an uncommanded ceremony in the ſervice of God, doth not take upon him to be wiſer then God, but walking regularly in obedience to the divine rule, whereſoever there is any particularly given, acts according to reaſon and the more univerſal rules of Decency, &c. where God hath
not particularly preſcribed any thing. And ſo again in acts of uncommanded devotion; doing that voluntarily out of love to God which God requires not ſub periculo animae, and ſo which is not extorted by fear, either of offending or ſuffering, this is again no elevating our own wiſdome above Gods, but our making uſe of thoſe advantages and thoſe liberties which God in his wiſdome choſe to afford us, that there might be ſomewhat for us freely to exerciſe his graces upon, and ſo for him as freely to reward in us. And of this there is no fear, that it ſhall ever be counted any irregular acting, and having God's promiſe to be rewarded, it is ſafe from being odious or abominable before him.
good ſenſe of the word as farre as in my 3d. Reaſon I pretended from the Greek Fathers con
Latines and later interpreters, to which the Diatribiſt now calls me, and asks me why I did not tell him, how they rendred the word? To this I anſwer, that as I have not commodity to examine all thoſe interpreters in this matter, ſo I did not think my ſelf obliged to do it, having never pretended that the notion which I give is univerſally received by all Expoſitors, I acknowall men have not rendred the word in a good ſenſe, particularly that the vulgar Latine reads it Superſtitio (though in what acception of that word I know not, moſt probably in an ill ſenſe) but ſure this with no more truth or analogie for ſo inPaſſive
decernitis, v. 20. which is no leſs then to change ſubjection into command, undergoing a yoke, into impoſing of it, one contrary in
ill ſenſe ſhould be transfuſed into thoſe Expoſitors which follow and neLatine tranſlation, neither examining the original word, nor the context, to reforme that tranſlation by it. This was the task which I then undertook, and having found the context to incline it to a good ſenſe, and the Greek word to bear it very well, and the Greek Fathers to concur with me in their novulgar Latine, and thoſe who had been lead by it, (and ſo we know are the Papiſts, and from them others alſo, who do not
notice who tis that leads them) and attempt that here which I ſaw ordinarily practiſed by all other ſorts of men, the Learned Papiſts themſelves (and, I doubt not, by this Diatribiſt, when he conceives himſelf to have reaſon for it) i. e. depart from their words and conduct, as in other ſo in this particular.
concurrence as will ſecure it from any cenſure of ſingularity. Beſide the Greek Fathers forementioned, the p. 69.Diatribiſt tells me I have Bellarmine's conſent (adding ſome other Papiſts alſo) and I hope his authority alone were conſiderable enough, if there were not alſo ſome others, to weigh in the balance with Salmeron and Eſtius, which are all the modern Expoſitors here cited by him.
Proteſtants, to Hugo Grotius, already cited, I now adde Monſieur Daillé in his late tract de Jejuniis, written ex inſtituto againſt Bellarmine, and yet in this place of St
Paul
l. 1. c. 7.Bellarmine the very thing that I concluded, viz. that thoſe falſe teachers had a threefold colour of wiſdome, 1. In Will-worſhip, 2. In humility, 3. In auſterity to the body, for which three things they admire theſe their doctrines of men; defining cultum ſponte & voluntariè aſſumtum nulla cogente Dei lege, a worſhip undertaken voluntarily and of their own accord without any law of God conſtraining them, and again that by the whole diſcourſe of the Apoſtle it appeares that they commended and ſet off their doctrines of abſtinence by this, that voluntarily ex quadam zeli & ſanctificationis abundantiâ ſuſciperentur, they were voluntarily undertaken out of an abundance of zeal and holineſs. And ſo in his opinion if abundance of zeal and holineſs were taken in a good ſenſe, Will-worſhip muſt be reſolved to be ſo taken.
learned man, who will not be deempartial to me againſt the Diatribiſt, may now deſerve to be conſidered by him, as ſoon as the contrary of any modern Expoſitor produced, or, I believe, producible by him.
antient Latine Fathers, whom he hath already produced, they are but three, Ambroſe, Hierom, and the vulgar Latine, and thoſe three may be reduced alſo, and in fine will
one ſingle vulgar Tranſlator. This is generally ſuppoſed to be St
Hierome (and if it be not, tis cert
Hierome followed, St
Hieromes ſhort notes on the Epiſtles being affixt to that tranſlation) and ſo St
Hieromes name is no addition to that, onely ſerved the Diatribiſts turn, as in a falſe muſter, to bear two names to appear twice, and fill two ſpaces in his catalogue.
Father now remaining, St
Ambroſe, if thoſe Comments be his, which go under his name, they will bring no great prejudice to our pretenſions, for by paraphraſing [ſimulatione religionis, all that can be concluded is, that thoſe doctrines of abſtinence had not any reality, but onely a falſe guiſe of religion in them, and ſo it follows there, Hinc ſe ſapientiae rationem habere putant, quia traditioni humanae nomen religionis applicant, & religio appellatur cum ſit ſacrilegium, Hence they think themſelves to have ſome appearance of wiſdome, becauſe they apply the name of religion to humane tradition, and it is called religion, when it is ſacrilege; And this I may caſily grant, and conſequently that the Will-worſhip here, and ſo likewiſe the humility, were not either of them truely ſuch, and ſo offended in this, that they were not what they pretended to be, and would not have been criminous, if they had been really ſuch; which ſtill devolves all the fault on the doctrines and on the hypocriſie, not on the Will-worſhip, or Religion, whoſe name would never have been pretended to by hypocrites, if it had not been good. See §. 7. of this ch. n. 10.
Theodoret which is acknowledged to be a Greek Father, came to be ranked among the Latines, and a Latine interpretation of Greek or Latine, or particoncurred with me in this ſenſe, & therefore am not obliged to give any farther account of his interpretation, Onely this I am ſure of, that tis not the uncommandedneſs of the worſhips, that he finds fault with, but 1. Their teaching thoſe for Gods commands, which are their own; (That is the meaning of their introducing their own ordinances,
their unſeaſonable Judaical doctrine) and 2dly. Their bare ſhew of piety and humility, without
truth of either (concluſion, it is moſt evident, that the abſtinences without the doctrines would not have been deemed by him reproveable, and ſo not the bare uncommandedneſs of the worſhip, for thus we have it in the cloſe, For abſtinences ought to be by counſell, not as from deteſtable, but as from the moſt delectable things. Which is the very thing, which all this while we have endevoured to conclude from that place.
Latine Fathers, he haſtens to later interpreters, and thoſe are two, Salmeron and Eſtius, and thoſe two are one again, the one taking from the other as the manner is, without any conſiderable difference. But to give his Teſtimonies their full weight, we will view them diſtinctly.
Salmeron begins with obſerving, that whereas the Vulgar Latine reads, in Superſtitione and humilitate, & non ad parcendum corpori, the Greek hath onely three, words,
which three, ſaith he, ſunt tres colores oſtendentes rationem & ſpecimen ſapientiae, are three colours ſhewing a ſpecimen (which by the way is more then ſpeciem, or bare ſhew, ſome real evidence) of that wiſdome (to which thoſe doctrines of abſtinences pretended) And the firſt of theſe, ſaith he, ſignifies cultum ſpontaneum, ſive voluntariam religionem, a ſpontaneous worſhip, or voluntary religion pro arbitrio cujuſvis abſtinendi a cibis, of abſteining from meats as every man ſhall think fit, and afterwards, illâ voce alludit ad voluntarias oblationes legis quae nedaboth dicuntur, Deut. 16. & Amos 5. By this word he alludes to the voluntary oblations of the Law, which are called
Diatribiſt to conſider, how fitly Salmeron was called out to give teſtimony againſt me, (he, and one more, in the name of all later interpreters) when it is evident from theſe words, that he ſaith the very ſame thing, which all this while I contend for, if I could have thought fit to have defended my ſelf from ſingularity, by his Teſtimony.
allude to v. 18. volens in humilitate & religione, and ſo goes along with Eſtius, and others in that miſtake, which I had taken notice of in them,
miſtake, if the evidence of the truth, or ſome other better guide had not rectified him; But as it is, I have no reaſon to complain of him, as to the word
ſignifying, ſaith he, the virtue of humility, is here uſed for a feigned humility, which is contrary to the Goſpel, becauſe by it the Judaizers Evangelio legem admiſcebant, mixt the law with the Goſpel, And as this is alſo perfectly concordant to my notions, ſo to this it is, that he brings the teſtimonies of Auguſtine and Thomas, and not for the notion of Diatribiſt cites them out of Eſtius.
animadverſions, I ſhall view thoſe teſtimonies alſo. The one thing which Salmeron cites from both of them, is this that omnis ritus colendi Deum qui à Deo non eſt, nec à Spiritu ſancto per Eccleſiam traditus, ſed voluntate hominum inventus, ſuperſtitioſus eſt, every rite of worſhipping God, that is not delivered from God, nor from the holy Ghoſt by the Church, but is invented by the will of man, is ſuperſtitious. Where it ſeems, that which is delivered by the Church, being by him ſuppoſed to be from the holy Ghoſt, doth in no degree fall under this cenſure, And then the Diatribiſt hath free leave to make his beſt advantage of this citation.
Eſtius his main endeavour in the interpretation of the verſe, is to evince that ſpeciem in genere, ſive veram ſive falſam, a ſpecies in general, whether true or falſe, which is very little for the Diatribiſts advantage, for granting it to ſigniſpecies, if that ſhould prove a true one, then that is perfectly deſtructive to his intereſts, for ſuch a ſpecies of wiſdom nothing could have in Will-worſhip, if Will-worſhip were ſuppoſed to be impious and fooliſh; And if it ſhould prove a falſe ſpecies, and ſo a bare ſhew of wiſdom, yet is that very reconcileable with the good notion of Will-worſhip as hath oft been ſhew'd.
followes in him, is, ſaith he, ſecundum Auguſtinum & Thomam, according to Auguſtine and Thomas, that theſe abſtinences have rationem ſapientiae non verae, ſed ejus quae ſita eſt in ſuperſtitione & humilitate, quae falſa eſt ſapientia, not true wiſdom, but that which is placed in ſuperſtition and humility, which
is falſe wiſdome. But where Auguſtine or Thomas give him authority to pretend their accord with him, he cites not. In all reaſon this defect muſt be ſupplied by Salmeron, who cited in the margent, Auguſt: lib. de verâ rel: & lib. 2. de doctr. Chriſt. c. 25. and Thomas 2a. 2ae
qu. 93. art. 1.
Auguſtines book de vera relig. it is, to which he referres, we have no direction, and ſo are left to gueſſe, that it is cap. 55. Non ſit nobis religio in phantaſmatibus noſtris, Melius eſt enim qualecum
And as to the truth of this poſition I give full conſent, that all fictitious falſe worſhip is to be avoided, not only (as he contents himſelf to ſay) unfit to compare with true, ſo I no where undertake to be advocate for any falſe or fictitious, or fantaſtick religion. The commemorating the birth of Chriſt on the 25th of December, I hope, is not ſuch, nor any Ceremony aduſe in our Church.
d
de doctr. Chriſt. c. 55. ſtands thus; Having at the 20th
Chapter defined Superſtitioſum ſuperſtitious, to be whatſoever was inſtituted by men, for the making or worſhipping of Idols, and that either belonging to the worſhipping any Creature, or part of a Creature as God, or to conſulting or making any pacts with Devils &c. and having fallen on the ſeveral ſorts of divinations c. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. he begins his 25th ch. quibus ampu
i. e. non cum daemonibus, ſed cum ipſis hominibus inſtitutae, the former being lopt off, and eradicated from a Chriſtians minde, let us farther view ſuch inſtitutions of men as are not ſuperſtitious, i. e. are not made with Devils but with men themſelves, And having advain inſtitutions (which ſure no way conto humane ſociety, and reſolves that ſuch are not to be avoided by a Chriſtian, imò etiam, quantum ſatis eſt, intuenda, memoriaeque retinenda, but in a competent manner to be obſerved and retained, and this how little it belongs to the preſent purpoſe, to the proving ill ſenſe, is already ſo appa
Aquinas 2a. 2ae. qu. 93. art. 1. It is the very ſame, which long ago, we conſidered in the former part of this Tract, ch. 3. §. 3. n. 5. and to the view of it, there preſented, I refer the reader, finding nothing more in that whole place art. 1. which was not there punctually conſidered, unleſſe it be a citation out of the Gloſſe Col. 2. quòd ſuperſtitio eſt, quando traditioni humanae religionis nomen applicatur, that it is ſuperſtition when the name of religion is applied to the tradition of men, which words have nothing in them, which I am not ready to acknowdogmatizing is a ſin, and conſequently that ſo good a name as religion ought not to be pretended for, or applied to it.
anſwer to my fourth reaſon, hath, I think, nothing of moment in it, but what hath oft been ſpoken to already, unleſſe it be that he ſaith, he hath not obſerved any ſuch difficulty or obſcurity in that text Col: 2. 20. &c. but dares ſay, the Doctors expoſition makes the greateſt obſcurity that ever he met with: But of this there is no diſputing, I muſt not expect that he ſhall acknowledge my interpretation to be clear, when he diſinvolutions or difficulties of that other which he hath eſpouſed, when, if he did, he were obliged to for
fifth reaſon taken from Heſychius's rendring it by voluntary piety or worſhip, and the notion which he had of ſignifie that which a man did voluntarily, and own accord, agreeably to which the freewill-offerings are rendred by the Septuagint
voluntary performances, his anſwer is brief, that this is no advantage to my cauſe, for the words may both ſignifie well-deviſed worſhip in an ill ſenſe. And though in humane authors the derivatives and compounds of this word expreſſe the Freewillingneſſe of the perſon, yet that will not help the Doctor who doth not underſtand
in reſpect to the willingneſſe of the perſon in a commanded worſhip of God, but voluntary worſhip, i. e. worſhip not commanded by God, but offered to him by the free will of man.
worſhip is forbidden or falſe, then being ill, the voluntarineſſe of it can infuſe no goodneſſe into it, as when it is of it ſelf good, the uncommandedneſſe cannot make it ill.
dly this was not it on which I laid the weight (only I thought ill with gainſayers, as this other which I ſaw was fallen under great prejudice with ſome) but rather that which followed of the other comſignifie no more but doing ſomewhat voluntarily, or of their own accord, without any neceſſity to doe it.
dly. Then I ſay that acknowledging it my notion of the word to ſignifie worſhip not commanded by God, the authority of Heſychius and the other Greek Gloſſaries which concur with, or folthat to be the mean
parallel directly betwixt Will-worſhip and voluntary oblations, or performances of things not commanded, then adde 1. from Heſychius again, that voluntary, proceeding from his own will, and that ſure is diſtant enough from the will or command of another. The words in Heſychius are certainly falſe printed (as much of that book is) adverbially, for ſo Suidas fetcheth that word out of approved authors; and which way ſoever it is, the ſenſe is the ſame, that from his own, not anothers will or command, whereas the word to ſignifie voluntary in performing commands, is by him ſet
former certainly ſignifies the freeneſs of the matter, not of the perſon, one that is willingly deaf or diſobedient,
freely or willingly which is commanded, for no man is commanded to be diſobedient, and in like manner the latter is rendred by Suidas,
he that is made ſuch by himſelf, and not commanded by the city, adding voluntary, to commanded by another, and Phavorinus repeats the very ſame words, onely with the change of the Gender
Heſychyus had ſaid, he that chooſeth ill voluntarily, i. e. he which of his own accord chooſeth the evil, both in Phavorinus and Suidas, where ſure that which he chooſeth voluntarily, is not firſt commanded by God, being ſuppoſed to be evill. And ſo ſtill theſe compoſitions from perfect accord with my notion of Will-worſhip, i. e. a performance voluntarily taken up, without any command of God.
Diatribiſt, who takes it here in an ill ſenſe, and places the ill in this, that it is an uncommanded worſhip, ſhould yet here diſpute againſt this ſignifivoluntary worſhip, uncommanded by God, and phanſie that I pretend no more but the free-willingneſs of the perſon in a commanded worſhip of God.
th §. that though the word in other authors be taken for voluntary worſhip, and be but once uſed in Scripture, yet the Spirit of God uſeth words in a ſenſe clearly different from other authors, inſtancing in Eph. 5. 4. taken for a vice, which in Ariſtotle is taken for a virtue,] will ſoon receive anſwer, For 1. Heſychius being the author now peculiarly under conſideration, and his Gloſſes having a ſpeciall propriety to the explicating of words in Scripture, what is ſaid by him, is not ſo much the ſenſe of other authors, as of the Scripture itſelf, and ſo cannot reaſonably be thought diſtant from it.
dly. Though ſome words are taken in the Scripture in a ſenſe different from other authors, this is not applicable to all words of Scripture, ſome are uſed in ordinary vulgar ſenſes, and by much the greater part of words there, and from thence to conclude of different ſenſe, is to conſyllogize from particulars, which is againſt all Laws of Logick.
dly. Whenſoever a word in any place of Scripture is affirmed to be uſed in ſuch a different ſenſe, that muſt be concluded either by the circumſtances of the text, which ſo inforce it, or elſe by comparing it with other places of Scripture, where that ſenſe is neceſſary; as when vice, Eph. 5. 4. tis manifeſt by the context it muſt do ſo, for to it is immewhich are (not onely not convenient, but, as that phraſe denotes) very inconvenient, nay as the companions of it there, filthy, noiſome, unſavory, ſo as folly oft ſignifies uncleanneſs, and ſo this is a viſible reaſon alſo, why the word is taken in an ill ſenſe, when Ariſtotle, meaning onely cleanly, not beaſtly jeſting, takes it in a good ſenſe: But of contrary, the ſociety in which tis found, humility and ſelf-denyal or auſterity determine it to be the good ſenſe, as certainly, as the companie of ill. And ſo much for my 5t Reaſon.
laſt reaſon [becauſe things done in the ſervice of God are not therefore ill becauſe ſpontaneous, but on the contrary, that when out of a pious affection a man ſhall do any thing elſe beſide what God hath commanded by any particular precept, this action of his is ſo much more commendable and acceptable to God,] he thinks it ſufficient to diſtinguiſh of voluntary either as it demanner or the efficient cauſe of worſhip; in the firſt reſpect that is voluntary, ſaith he, which yet is neceſſary, viz. commanded by God, in the ſecond, that onely which is done by the will of man contradiſtinguiſht to the will of God.
diſtinction is very far from anſwering my reaſon. For of the ſecond, it is, he knowes, that I underſtand the word, and that I might prevent all want of this or the like diſtinction, I ſpeak moſt plainly, uſing the word Spontaneous, not voluntary, on purpoſe to denote that which was done by mans will on his own accord, without any command of Gods; for ſo ſure Spontaneous ſignifies (however the Diatribiſt here confounds it with voluntary, and ſo involves, in ſtead of extricating, mixes, when he went to diſtinguiſh) that which is ſuâ ſponte from a mans own incitation, not from any external impellent, whether command or puniſhment attending it, for this indeed being done thus freely, is perfectly a work of love, and that renders it ſo extremely greatefull, and rewardable by God. I ſhall give you the deſcription of it in the words of Hiſt. Eccl. l. 5. c. 22.Socrates ſpeaking of Eccleſiaſtical rites;
Seeing no man can ſhew any written command for this, it is manifeſt that the Apoſtles left this to every mans judgement and will, that every
man might do good, neither by fear nor of neceſſity.
in worſhip deviſed by man the will bears all the blame, and then the more voluntary; the more abominable] I anſwer, that worſhip is either falſe or true, bad or good, Heathen or Chriſtian, His rule is perfectly true in unlawful wicked worſhip, all the blame thereof lyes on the will of man, but it can have no place, where the worſhip is lawfull, for then no blame is due at all, but the more free it is, tis ſo much the more commendable. Now it is of lawfull and Chriſtian worſhip that we here ſpeak, as he knows well enough, or elſe it were not imaginable we could take it in a good ſenſe, and of this he muſt needs underſtand us alſo; or elſe he could not make all the blame of it in mans will or deviſing, as he doth.
worſhip in itſelf, and materially lawfull, i. e. whilſt it is abſtracted from the conſideration of Gods commanding it, or not, ſhould by not being commanded by God, become unlawfull, this is to confound things moſt diſtant, forbidding and not forbidding; For the Law and Will of God being the rule, in agreement with, or oppoſition to which, lawfull and unlawfull conſiſts, it is as impoſſible that any thing ſhould be unlawfull in reſpect of Gods Law, which is not forbidden by it, as that any thing ſhould be lawfull which is forbidden.
affirming (but offering no proof) that the voluntarineſs of an action is the
or irregularity of it, firſt, this is a begging the queſtion; 2. 'Tis ſet in ſuch terms, that it hath not the leaſt appearance of truth in it, for how can the voluntarineſs be the irregularity, unleſs the Law forbid voluntarineſs, which certainly it no way doth, as was formerly evidenced from hence, becauſe there is no univerſall negative command in Scripture, prohibiting all acts and degrees of acts, beſide what are in particular commanded.
one inſtance, which here he thinks fit to mention, that of the 2d
Commandment, which, ſaith he, forbids all things, i. e. all worſhip and all degrees of that worſhip, beſides what are particularly commanded. Which though it be as far from all appearance of truth as any thing affirmable by any (for what word is there in that Commandment,
ceremony deviſed by man and every degree whether of charity or devotion, which is not particularly under precept, be preſently metamorphoſed into a graven image) hath not yet any the leaſt proof to back it, and ſo ſtill is the meaneſt begging of the main queſtion imaginable. And ſo having more largely ſpoken of this before, this is ſufficient alſo to be ſaid here in the vindication of my laſt reaſon.
miſtake and abuſe of vulgar tranſlations rendring it Superſtitio, that being moſt probably S. Hieroms, and his words being found agreeable to it in ſome places, and from thence Mr. Calvin hath affirmed it, Superſtitio Graecis dicitur
firſt occaſion of the miſtake, will be evident enough to any, who conſiders how ordinary it is for the Romaniſts on one ſide without farther inquiry or conſidevulgar tranſlation, and for the reformed on the other to follow the ſteps of Mr. Calvin, and not alwaies to examine his grounds of affirming, which certainly were very farre from ſolid in this matter, it being evident to all that know any thing of words, that Greek for Superſtition, and not Scripture, and not found in any author, but ſuch as may be reſolved to have uſed it from thence, Mr. Calvins words, that Superſtitio is calGreeks
Greek word in that one place is by the vulgar tranſlator rendred Superſtitio. And then this is an evidence of that which there I affirmed, that the occaſion of taking ill ſenſe (which I muſt be allowed to deem a miſtake) is the vulgar tranſlators rendring it Superſtitio.
Greek words
man may ſay as much for
it ſelf as the Doctor ſaith for
and bring the Doctor for his voucher who ſaith that
ſometimes is taken in a good ſenſe.
Doctor never ſaith that good ſenſe among Chriſtians, who ſure never allowed the worſhip of Daemons, but only among heathens, who do allow it. 2. That if it were ſometimes taken in good ſenſe, yet that were not ſufficient to conclude that it were all one with good things are not the ſame, no nor all ill, and therefore in whatſoever ſenſe the words are taken, whether both in good or both in ill, the one in good, the other in ill ſenſe, yet ſtill the nature and imdiſtant, & ſo ought not to have been convulgar tranſlator or by Mr. Calvin, and being ſo unduly confounded, the Diatribiſt cannot from thence raiſe any more ſolid argument for the ill ſenſe of the one, then I can (which I pretend not to do) for the good ſenſe of the other.
dly He objects, that as the Doctor knowes, is taken alſo ſometimes in an ill ſenſe, as well as a good, why then, ſaith he, may they not both equally ſignifie ſuperſtition? eſpecially when applied to falſe or men-deviſed worſhip. I anſwer, that Chriſtians is never taken in an ill ſenſe, unleſſe by virtue of ſome Epithet joined with it, which it ſelf is ill, as James, vain religion, and then alſo tis the vaill ſenſe, not the religion. And again that vain or ill religion, is not ſuperſtition neither, but an unagreeableProfeſſors practice to his religion. Now he knows it is of Chriſtians that now we ſpeak, and ſo there could be no place for this exception, nor for any thing to be founded in it, nor
ſimple or the compound ſhould be rendred ſuperſtition; As for the men deviſed worſhip that that ſhould be ſynonymous with falſe, that is the old artifice of begging the queſtion, in ſtead of ſaying ought for the gaining of it.
laſt exception is, that Superſtition or Will-worſhip is more general then
that's but one ſpecies of ſuperſtition, if taken (as the word imports) for Daemonum cultus. But all falſe worſhip is ſuperſtition, and the rather becauſe it is ſpontaneous, voluntary, i. e. Will-deviſed worſhip.] Here is a fair proportion of miſtakes, without any tender of proof for any, no leſſe then three in theſe ſo few words.
Firſt, he begins with a preſumption that Superſtition and Will-worſhip are all one, and that he knowes is now the one thing dediſputing, and he cannot be ignoillogical an argument that is, we have oft minded him of that fallacy.
Secondly, he affirms that either of theſe is more general then
Superſtitio being ſuperſtitum cultus, is directly all one with daemonum cultus, the Superſtites and languages, and the other notion of Superſtition (that in Aquinas for prohibited or illegitime worſhip) that is but a branch of the former, ariſing by analogy with it, and is not any oppoſite Species to it; and for Will-worſhip, if that be more general then one with ſubſtance, which is the more general, is not all one with a body, which is a Species of ſubſtance; The truth is that the generical Will-worſhip, as that comprehends all worſhip uncommanded by God, hath ſeveral Species under it, Jewiſh out-dated, and ſo now uncommanded worſhip, heatheniſh forbidden, and ſo uncommanded worſhip, and finally Chriſtian acceptable, yet not commanded acts, or circumſtances, or degrees of worſhip; And as the genus is not all one with any one Species, ſo Will-worſhip in general is not any one of theſe, but all of them together. And 2. It implies the word to be capable of a good as well as of an ill ſenſe, and ſo indeed it is, being taken in a latitude, Will-worſhip, or as he will ſtyle it, men deviſed or Will deviſed worſhip, may be of two ſorts, (as the generical word Worſhip, may) either true,
falſe, heathen or Chriſtian, and as the one is ill, ſo the other is certainly good.
Will-worſhip in this text, which is not the generical, as that is common to good and bad, but that which is in the Diatribiſts underſtanding a wicked and falſe, and in mine a good and a Chriſtian Will-worſhip, and which ſoever of the two it is, it is certainly not both, and ſo ſtill but a Species of the generical Will-worſhip, and ſo not the genus it ſelf.
all falſe worſhip is ſuperſtitious, and the rather becauſe it is ſpontaneous, this is a ſtrange involution again; For the whole truth of that propoſition [All falſe worſhip is Superſtition] conſiſting in this, that all worſhip of falſe gods, or forbidden worſhip of the true God, is wont to be compriſed under that name, the former according to the literal ſenſe of the word Superſtitum cultus, the latter as reducible, or by analogy agreeſuperſtruct upon this, that that falſe worſhip is the rather ſuperſtitious becauſe it is ſpontaneous, It being certain, that if it offend not ſome other way then by being ſpontaneous, i. e. if it be not in reſpect of the matter of it, falſe worſhip and ſo forbidden, it is not ſuperſtition at all, and if it be falſe worſhip, in it ſelf forbidden, then ſure it is more then ſpontaneous, for ſo muſt all be that is actually forbidden. So that there is not the leaſt degree of appearance of truth in that laſt affirmation.
falſe worſhip is more then ſpontaneous (the uncommandedneſſe of it is precedent and inferior in order of nature, to its being forbidden, and its being forbidden is an addition to its not being commanded) the falſeneſs conſiſts in its being deviſed by mans will, not ſimply, but in oppoſition to Gods, i. e. when tis forbidden, and it would not otherwiſe be falſe worſhip, if it were not forbidden either directly or by analogy with ſomeforbidden, and what is forbidden is more then not commanded, and ſo more then ſpontaneous, and ſo the ill of it cannot be increaſed by being ſpontaneous, and ſo it is not the rather ſuperſtition (or any other kind of evil) for being ſpontaneous.
worſhip which is ſuppoſed not to be forbidden, is conſequently thereto, to be reſolved not to be falſe, and
falſe, it cannot be Superſtition (for ſuch onely is falſe worſhip) and if ſo, then again the voluntarineſs or Spontaneity of it cannot make it more falſe or more Superſtition, then before it was, becauſe it was neither falſe nor Superſtition before, and the bare uncommandedneſs cannot render it either, Gods not commanding implying his permiſſion, and ſo a liberty allowed by God, and that is ſo far from being all one with prohibited, that it is in effect the very contradictory to it, this being permitted by God, whereas all that is prohibited is not permitted. And ſo here is a competent number of infirmities in very few words.
one behind, the great impertinency of this, and of the two former anſwers to the point in hand, the occaſions, to which it is imputable that Will-worſhip came to be taken among many in an ill ſenſe, which without queſtion (at leaſt without any word of exception from this Diatribiſts three branches of this 18th §.) is the vulgars rendring Superſtitio, and Mr. Calvin's following the vulgar.
ſecond cauſe of miſtaking this word I had ſet down at large, §. 19. to be the reflexion on the Judaical
building of, and officiating in the Temple, all was to be done according to the pattern in the mount, from which ſome may have made a ſhift to conclude, that ſo it muſt be in the Chriſtian Church, no rite, no circumſtance, no degree of worſhip to be uſed there but what hath Chriſt's example or precept to authorize
it. To this he replyes, 1. That I much miſtake the queſtion, for it is not about a rite or circumſtance or degree of worſhip commanded, but of the worſhip it ſelf, and herein Chriſtians are equal with the Jews, we muſt not vary from the preſcription on the mount in the 2d
Commandment to conſtitute any part of worſhip, but what we have the authority of Chriſt for in the New Teſtament, adding the ground, for this, both the 2d
Commandment, and this text Col. 2. to juſtifie that aſſertion.
brief reply, 1. That this is not, in any word, to the point now in hand, the occaſion of taking Will-worſhip in an ill ſenſe, and tis evident that though all were true which here is ſaid, that I miſtook the queſtion, and that no part of worſhip may lawfully be ſet up among Chriſtians without the example or precept of Chriſt, yet this of the Jewiſh obligation to do all according to the pattern in the mount, may be occaſion to give men prejudices to all that is not under particular command, or according to pattern of Chriſts, and his Apoſtles, which was all I aſſumed in that Section.
dly. 'Tis moſt certain, that I do not miſtake the queſtion, nor can I miſtake it (who had the ſetting it my ſelf) unleſs I firſt ſet it one way, and then handle it another, And this certainly I do not. For the very deſign of that Treatiſe was to inquire, whether the obſervation of ceremonies uſed and preſcriChurch of England were criminous, onely upon this account, becauſe they were not commanded by God; And in this I was then ſure that I had adverſaries enow, who concluded it ſo, upon this one way of probation, becauſe all Will-worſhip was criminous, and the uſe and impoſition of all uncommanded ceremonies were Will-worſhip.
Diatribiſt be not in the number of thoſe adverſaries, then hath he done himſelf and me and the reader very great injury, in diſputing againſt that concluſion which he doth not oppoſe, then hath he moſt prodigally miſpent and laviſht out all his pains, in conſuting (or exerciſing himſelf upon) this tract, of which this was the onely deſign, not to plead for any new kind or parts of worſhip, but to juſtifie the uſe of uncommanded ceremonies and circumſtances, and ſuch are days of worſhip, and to ſhew that being unforbidden as well as uncommanded, they were
lawfull and free to be uſed by Chriſtian people or preſcribed by Chriſtian Magiſtrates. And if he hath nothing to reſiſt in this, then why ſhould he delight in this impertinent ſeverity, arreign and triumph over a poor innocent Tract, that never thought to provoke any, which allowed the uſe and obſervance of uncommanded rites, and days of worſhip, never attempted in the leaſt to bring any new part or kind of worſhip into the Church? Upon this, and other viſible reaſons, it will ſure be needleſs here to examine again his two grounds, which we have formerly been ſo oft acquainted with, the 2d
Commandment and Col. 2. 23. It was no ſmall infirmity of diſcourſe in this place to mention them.
d part of his reply, is, that in worſhip that is condemned which is not commanded] But 1. What is that again to the point in hand, that particular occaſion of taking Will-worſhip in an ill ſenſe? 2. I ſhall demand, is that propoſition univerſally true, ſo as to extend to every ceremonie in worſhip? If it be, then it ſeems, I miſtook not the queſtion (as very lately I was told) nor my adverſary neither) this Diatribiſt being directly contrary to me herein, if he thus affirme, that in the worſhip of God every ceremonie is forbidden which is not commanded.
Photius's
Philoſtorgius, which I propoſed and explained, he acknowledges he hath little to ſay, yet ſomewhat he is willing to note for his own advantage, viz. that I ſeem to make it a fault to ſit at the reading of the Goſpel, which the Eccleſiaſtical Canons did not command, and yet make it no fault to adde a Will-worſhip of a mans own which
the divine law doth forbid.
anſwer, that the Diatribiſt ought in all reaſon to have markt, what there I ſet viſible before his eyes, and then he could not poſſibly have mentioned this. For 'tis evident in that place, 1. That I had taken notice of the reading of the Manuſcript in the Oxford Publike Library, which hath Gotofred's Printed Copie, and 2. That as this latter reading imported it a fault to do that which the Canons commanded not (for which very cauſe I examined, and then ſaw reaſon to reject that reading) ſo the former and right reading, to which onefault to act
contrary to Canon, to do many things which the Eccleſiaſtical Canon did not admit or permit, or which was not in uſe with the Church of God, but the contrary, viz. that of ſtanding up at the Goſpell.
Edit. Savil. Tom. 6. p. 975.Chryſoſtome (or whoſoever was the Author of the Oration
When the Deacon is about to open the Goſpell (that Chariot drawn with four horſes) we all look very earneſtly upon him and are ſtill, and when he begins to read (and ſo to run his race in that Chariot) preſently we ſtand up and uſe this acclamation, Glory be to thee, O Lord.
Diatribiſt never expected that his Exercitations ſhould be examined by any, or but compared with the plain words of the Treatiſe to which they related, when he thought fit to obſerve this.
divine Law, which he muſt needs diſcern to have been there cleaLaw or word of God, but the Canons or unwritten cuſtomes of the Church, as there appeared by Nicephorus reciting that place of Philoſtorgius, and reading evidences from Epiphanius and Athanaſius and Pſeudo-Clement, and Nicephori Conſtantinop:
Annotation on Col. 2. publiſhed ſince that Treatiſe. To all which I now adde Leo, who having mentioned Divinarum Reverentia Sanctionum, the reverence of divine ſanctions, ſoon explains his meaning firſt by quod publicâ lege
Ser. 3. de jejun. 7. menſ.
celebratur, then by quod univerſa Eccleſia ſuſcipit, that which was obſerved by publick Law, that which the univerſall Church received.
Anglican Councels, Can. 60. Sub Edgaro, where pilpoppunza is tranſlated ficta ad libitum adorationes, but ſhould be rendred
fontis adoratio, not Will-worship but Well-worſhip, for which I referre the Reader to the former place in the Annotations.
The third occaſion of the miſtake cleared. Worſhip of Angels forbidden, not only not commanded. The reviving Judaical worſhip not called Will-worſhip, Col. 2. 23. Maimonides's words wreſted to a diſtant ſenſe by the Diatribiſt. Original of Angel-worſhip. Vain worſhips. Clemens confounding of Col. 2. 18. with 23. Worſhip of Angels &c. a forbidden Will-worſhip. The impoſing of virginity and abſtinences, as from God, the only crime, found fault with by S. Paul and the ancient Catholiks. Alcibiabes his uſing, and remiſſion of auſterity. The like of Spiridion and Marcianus. Cyrill of meats. 1 Tim. 5. 23. explicated.
occaſion of the miſtaken ill notion of confounding of two verſes very diſtant, the 18th and 23d of that 2d
Chap. to the Coloſ. the voluntary humility and worſhipping of the Angels in the one, and the ſhew of wiſdom in Will-worſhip and humility in the other. To which end I at large cleared the difference between thoſe two phraſes. To this he replies, that the diſtance pretended between them is ſo little, that they may eaſily be reconciled, that reſpecting a new deviſed worſhip only, and this the reviving an old out-dated worſhip.
anſwer, 1. that the worſhip v. 18. being expreſſely the worſhip of Angels, that ſure is much more then Will-worſhip in the Diatribiſts notion hitherto expreſſed of it, and therefore 'tis ſtrange he ſhould now labour to perſwade us they are all one, or eaſily reconciled. Will-worſhip, as he hath hitherto defined it, is bare uncommanded, will-deviſed, or men-deviſed worſhip, and that he hath ſtill pronounced unlawful upon that one account, becauſe not commanded. But can he think the worſhip of Angels to be ſuch? Is not that diſtinctly forbidden in the firſt Commandment?
forbidden, above that which is onely not commanded? 2 The Will-worſhip v. 23. is not truly affirmed to be the reviving old out-dated worſhip, For 1. the abſtinences from mariage there ſpomeats, had never been commanded among the Jews. 2. Tis not there affirmed of one or other abſtinence, that it was Will-worſhip, Only thoſe doctrines of abſtinences of both ſorts are ſaid to have a ſhew of wiſdom in reWill-worſhip diſcernible in them, and ſo likewiſe they are ſaid to have in reſpect of the ſelf-denial, and the worſhip of Angels in reſpect of the humility, that either is, or is pretended in them. And yet I hope it will not be ſaid that humility or ſelf-denial is the reviving of Judaiſme.
advantage he reſolves to get by that §. and having no other means to acquire it, he will have it out of ſome words which I had cited out of Maimonides, the words are theſe, that the greateſt part of Idolatry came into the world, exiſtimando hanc varietatem eſſe Dei voluntatem, by the opinion that God was honoured by the worſhip of his Angels or officers, and that it was his will to have men exerciſed in this variety of worſhip. From hence the Diatribiſt ſubſumes, that the error that brought the greateſt part of idolatry into the world was, that men conceived and taught that vain worſhips and ſuperſtitions were the will and pleaſure of God.
vain worſhips? doth he mean bare will-deviſed, uncommanded worſhips, which have in his opinion no other crime in them, but their uncommandedneſſe? If ſo, then hath he much miſapplied Maimonides's words, as muſt be viſible to him, thoſe clearly belonging to the worſhip of Angels (and others beſide the one God) which all men are ſtrictforbidden to worſhip. And then what a confuſion of things moſt diſtant, what an injuſtice is this?
vain he deſigned falſe forbidden worſhips, ſuch as are by him fitly joined with ſuperſtition, and ſuch as the worship of Angels was, then indeed he knowes, or muſt in charity believe, that 'tis as much mine intereſt and inclination, as his, to faſten an ill character upon them, and to believe as much of the danger and criminouſneſſe of affirming them acceptable to God, as Maimonides
Diatribiſt wiſh me to believe. I ſhall not fail therefore, I hope, to obey his admonition, if it be really ſuch, and be abundantly cautious neither to juſtifie nor imitate, what I ſo much diſlike and abhorre in them that are guilty of it.
Clemens Alexandrinus confounding thoſe two the 18. and 23. verſes, was by me produced and willingevidence of the point there in hand, that ſome have (though without all reaſon) confounded them, and it is not imaginable how this which ſo evidently proved what I brought it to prove (evidencing the occaſion of the miſtake) ſhould be ſo ſpeedily mentioned to the diſproving of it, or be farther argumentative againſt me, then I had before acknowledged by proDiatribiſt cannot pretend that Clemens his reading was the true, copies of the New Teſtament will abundantly confute him. And then it is no very good indication of the truth of his cauſe, which is fain to catch hold on ſuch ſupports as this, which is acknowledgmiſtake in him, from whom it is produced, and ſo in all reamiſtake to any that borrowes it from him.
Diatribiſt inlarges in two long Sections more to enerverſes, And I need make no farther reply to them, then to refer the reader to the two parts of the obſervation (§. 22. and 23. of the Tract of Will-worſhip) to which his anſwers are applied, the ſecond of them clearly anſwering all that he hath objected to the firſt (if he would but have had patience to have lookt ſo much forward) and as clearly preventing what he hath ſaid to the ſecond.
worship of Angels being not only not commanded but forbidden by God, the voluntary worshipping of them is acknowledged by me to be a fault, but that reſulting from the unlawfulneſs of the matter, which is under interdict in the firſt Commandment of the Decalogue, not from the voluntarineſs or uncommandedneſſe of it. And the ſame I ſhall not doubt to yield of the abſtinences from meats and mariages; Chriſt hath given perfect liberty for the uſing of both, and they that dogmatize
impoſe either or both thoſe abſtinences on Chriſtians as from God, are falſe teachers, and ſo that is their fault in impoſing, and the like in thoſe who ſubject themſelves to thoſe ordinances; And yet for all this a ſpontaneous abſtaining from meats, at ſome time, for exerciſe, not for deteſtation (in a religious faſt, not out of opinion of the unlawfulneſſe of meats) being in it ſelf perfectly lawful, and ſo likecelibacy or virginity in him that can receive it, there is no pretenſe from the uncommandedneſs of either, or both of theſe, that they ſhould be deemed culpable, or made parallel to that other ſort of uncommanded worſhip, where the matter is under interdict, the worſhip of Angels or impoſing of Iudaical abſtinences.
Pauls doctrine in ſeveral places, and the arguings of the Catholiks againſt the Montaniſts. S. Paul, who reſolves mariage to be honorable among all, and ſo brands them for heretiks who forbid to mary, doth yet not only allow but recommend virginity; and ſo for meats, he profeſſeth all to be lawful to all, and that no queſtion is to be made for conſcience ſake, and accordingly cenſures the Gnoſticks that they commanded to abſtain from meats, and yet the ſame Apoſtle was himſelf frequent in faſtings, and certainly had not the leaſt diſlike to thoſe performances.
Catholiks or orthodox Chriſtians of the Primitive Church, which objected it as a fault to the Montaniſts, that they impoſed faſting, and made it neceſſary (as may appear by the character of Montanus given by Apollonius in Eccl. hiſt. l 5. 6. 18.Euſebius, that he was required and exacted faſtings as by the law of the Paraclete, for ſo he ſtyled himſelf, and the ſame is evident by Tertullian in his Tract, De jejuniis, when being turned Montaniſt he pleads their cauſe againſt the Orthodox under the name of Pſychici) and which anathematized the Marcionites and Encratites &c: for deeming meats unlawful, do yet every where commend and preſs the uſe of faſting, as hath formerly been ſhewed in part, and as it is known to all that have but lookt into their writings.
Euſeb. hiſt. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3.Epiſtle of the Chriſtians of Lyons and Vienna to the Aſiaticks concerning Alcibiades, is remarkeable, he
very auſterely, uſing nothing but bread and water, and when he was by the perſecutors caſt in priſon, he attempted to continue this ſtrict diet, but Attalus, who was in priſon, and had once been carried out into the amphitheatre, adviſed him to leave it, having received a Revelation, that he ſhould not do well not to uſe the creatures of God, adding that he would by that means, leave an example of ſcandal, of ſnare, of ſtumbling to others, whereupon ſay they, he eate freely and gave God thanks. Here it ſeems his former courſe of auſterity and ſevereſt abſtinence was no way diſliked (and had long been practiſed by that Holy Martyr) onely at this time it was thought not to be ſo fit to be continued, whether in reſpect of the combat which he was now to undergo, (a combat in the amphitheatre, and if he macerated himſelf too much he might not be ſo fit for ſo weighty and difficult an undertaking, and others alſo if they ſhould follow his example might weaken themſelves overmuch, and ſo be enſnared by that means) or in ſome other reſpect, wherein his abſtinence might by the example be hurtfull to others. And upon theſe conſiderations he intermitted it; an example both of the practiſe of the ſevereſt abſtinences, and of the free uſe of meates according to the doctrine of Chriſtian liberty.
Sozomen. l. 1. c. 11.Spiridion, one of the Biſhops that ſat in the Councel of Nice, who though with his family he obſerved Lent moſt ſeverely, yet on occaſion of a weary gueſt made no doubt to break his cuſtomary rules, and his gueſt being more ſcrupulous then he, ſaying he was a Chriſtian, Spiridion replied, was the rather not to ſcruple, becauſe he was a Chriſtian, the Scripture it ſelf affirming that all things are pure to the pure. And the ſame we have in the paſſage of Marcianus to Avitus, in Tom. 3. p. 791.The doret, giving his reaſon for the breaking his aſcetick Laws of faſting, that charity was more honourable then faſting,
the former being a work of Gods preſcribing, the latter of our own freedome.
Cyrill of Jeruſalem Cat. 4. may conclude
Many offend in this matter concerning meats, ſome eate indifferently all kind of meats, that which is offered to Idols &c. others abſtain, and condemne all that eate, and ſo the ſoul is diverſly polluted in this matter of meats, by not knowing the profitable cauſes of eating and not eating, when we faſt we abſtain from fleſh and wine, not hating them as abominations, but expecting our reward, that contemning ſenſible delights we may injoy the ſpiritual and intellectual Table, and that now ſowing in tears we may reap in joy in the world to come. Deſpiſe not therefore thoſe that eate, and partake, becauſe of the weakneſs of their bodies, neither find fault with (Barocian MS. reads not thoſe that uſe a little wine for their ſtomack, and frequent infirmities, neither condemne them as ſinners (the Barocian MS. adding to the Printed Copies,
nor hate fleſh as ſtrange (or unfit for a Chriſtian) for of ſuch the Apoſtle took eſpecial notice, ſaying, they forbid to marry and abſtain from meats, from ſuch keep thy ſelf, and abſtain not from meats as deteſtable things, if thou doſt thou haſt no reward, but ſuppoſing them good, omit to make uſe of them
Barocian Copie reads) becauſe of the intellectual better things which are ſet before thee, or wich thou hopeſt to receive.
faſting and abſtinences being freely and ſpontaneouſly uſed, and not as neceſſary, or the contrary unlawfull, but perfectly ſpontaneous and uncommanded abſtinences, are yet ſo far from being ſinfull (if they be not joyned with condemning of others which eate) that they are highly rewardable by God. Nothing could be ſaid more dilucidly and fully to this whole matter.
Cyrills will by the way give us a fuller underſtanexhortation of S. Paul to Timothie, 1 Tim. 5. 23. Drinke no longer water, but uſe a little wine &c.] then formerly I had taken notice of in the Annotation on that place, in relation to the words precedent there, Lay hands ſuddenly on no man, neither partake of other mens ſins, keep thy ſelf pure, drinke no longer water &c. Thus, thoſe that by the Gnoſticks infuſions and falſe doctrines, c. 4. 1, 2, 3. have been ſeduced into error and by that means fallen under thy cenſures, are not
favorably uſed, nor too ſpeedily abſolved, and then (on that occaſion, as in a parentheſis) be ſure thou fall not thy ſelf into their ſnares, thoſe errors, or faults conſequent thereto, which thou art to cenſure in others; And theſe errors being ſpetwo, the commanding to abſtain, from mariage and from meats, for the former of them, be ſure, that as thou abſtaineſt from mariage, ſo thou preſerve thy ſelf perfectly pure from all the Gnoſtick pollutions conſequent to their doctrines of hating mariage, (that is the meaning of auſterities and faſtings, which may be uſefull to virginal Chaſtity, yet do not this to the hurting of thy body, but in conſideration of thy infirme habit of body, thy frequent indiſpoſitions, give thy ſelf the uſe of lawfull liberties, take wine ſometimes in a moderate proportion, & keep not thy ſelf ſo ſtrictly to water-drinking, as perſons of auſterity uſe to do.
uncommanded performances (ſuch ſure were virginity or faſting) had no ill character faſtOrthodox Fathers, who yet would not indure to have them impoſed on Chriſtians, as from God, but brand all ſuch, as attempt it, for falſe teachers.
laſt occaſion of the ill ſenſe of Epiphanius's mention of denotation of the Phariſees name, in reſpect of the voluntary performances wherein they pretended to exceed other Jews. And I leave the Reader to view in that place, §. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. what I thought fit to note on that word,
confidence, that he will need no farther reply of mine to demonſtrate the invalidity of all this Diatribiſt's exceptions againſt thoſe Sections.
ſuperfluity of either noxious, or ridiculous, or but (for number) many and ſo burthenous ceremonies, is not pleaded for by me, and that is anſwer to his 24th §.
dly. That what was blameable in the Phariſees was not their bare uſing of ſome lawfull, indifferent, or elſe good, and commendable things, not commanded by God, but their teaching ſuch for doctrines, and laying them as burthens on others, and what was conſequent to this, their diſcriminating themſelves proudly and faſtidiouſly from other men, upon this account, and that prevents his 25t §.
dly. That I no way plead for the Phariſees, but affirme them generally to have been ill men and hypocrites; Onely I ſay that when they impoſed that name of Phariſee upon themſelves, ſure they meant not to reproach themſelves by ſo doing, and that Epiphanius ſaith they thus impoſed it on pupoſe to denote their performances of theirs, wherein they conceived themſelves to exceed all others, which again was the preventing of all that he addes §. 26. And leſt there ſhould remain any doubt of this (the Diatribiſt ſetting it quite another way, and affirming that Epiphanius cals the hereſie of the Phariſees by that name, as offending both in Will-worſhips of their own deviſing, and alſo in the abundance and ſuperfluity of them) I ſhall ſet down here the words punctually as they are found in Epiphanius, and leave the Reader to judge on whoſe ſide the truthlyes in this particular. Haer. 16.They were called Phariſees for being ſeparated from others, becauſe of the abundant Will-worſhip whether preſcribed or cuſtomary (ſo among them, for Phares in Hebrew is interpreted Separation.
ground for the Diatribiſts gloſs, either that Epiphanius calls the
hereſie of the Phariſees by that name, when he only ſets it down as the interpretation of that name of Phariſees, long before Epiphanius, impoſed on them; or that this name was given them as a character of their offending both in Will-worſhips and in the ſuperfluity of them? Certainly neither of theſe hath the leaſt appearance of foundation in Epiphanius, I wonder the Diatribiſt could think fit to cite them from him.
thly That though hypocriſie were the Phariſees chief crime, and withal the fewel to their pride and deſpiſing of others, yet their doing ſome things which were not commanded was no part of this their hypocriſie, but on the contrary, either their ſaying but not doing, or their doing the lighteſt and neglecting the weightieſt duties, or their preferring their own traditions before the commanded duties, and making the obſervance of the one (as in Corban) their commutation and excuſe for neglecting the other, and this indeed was farre more likely to inflame their pride and deſpiſing of others then the real Chriſtian neceſſary performances would have been; the lighteſt things aſcending higheſt, and appearviſibly, whileſt the weightier ſink down and lie hid.
prejudice to thoſe real performances of more ſtrictneſſe then the law exacts, faſting twiſe in the week, and the like, ſuppoſing, as we here ſuppoſe, that they are not uſed to the ſupplanting of neceſſary duties (but go along very friendly with the practice of them) and offend in no other reſpect, but that they are uncommanded performances. And this avoids all his artifices in §. 27.
thly That Mac. 2. 42. ſignifies more then a well mindedneſſe to the law, meaning by that the precepts of God, moſt evidently a ſpontaneous performing of ſome things which the law required not. Let the place be there viewed, and theſe two things will be evident, 1. That that phraſe Aſidaei by way of periphraſis; Now of them tis certain that they were ſo called from mercy, but ſignifies ſaith in Pſal. 36.Kimchi
excellence of goodneſs,
Rabbini in Prov 22. 28.abundance of goodneſs, and in Maimonides, exceſſum & ſupremum gradum in one place, the exceſſe and higheſt degree of any performance eſpecially
in P
of charity or beneficence, and in More Nevoch. Part. 3benignitatem erga
aliquem cui nihil planè debes, vel erga eum qui beneficio dignus eſt, at non tanto, benignity to him to whom you either ow nothing, or not ſo much as you afford him, by which it is manifeſt that the name Aſidaei denotes not only willing but ſpontaneous agents, which keep not themſelves within the line of the law, as to do nothing which is not commanded but have their voluntary performances to offer to God, above that which the line of law, as the Rabbi Iſmael in Beracoth. c. 1.Rabbines ſtyle it, exacts of them, and ſo are properly ſtyled volunteers in or to the law, as that is oppoſed to preſt or hired ſouldiers of it.
ſecond thing is, that the men that are there particularly mentioned in that place of the Maccabees, are thoſe that liſted themſelves voluntarily under Mattathias to defend the law by arms, which was no where required of all men that were Jewes, but was the act of the Zelots, at that time, and ſo again an ſpontaneous and uncommanded performance, above or beſide the law; and ſuch as theſe were farre from being blamed, being every where commended in thoſe men. And the Diatribiſt will never be able in the leaſt degree to make good againſt Scaliger (what he undertakes §. 28.) that our Saviour condemned them.
Fault was when the laudably, whileſt ſpontaneouſly, they at length impoſed on others, as neceſſary, and for that it is, that (beſide their hypocriſie of ſeveral kinds) the Phariſees are juſtly cenſured in this matter, and not for the uncommandedneſſe of their actions, and this with the former, are a full anſwer to §. 28.
not commanded, are not yet unlawful or prohibited in the ſervice of God, and conſequently that all uncommanded ceremonies and circumſtances (and under that head, Feſtivals i. e. Times) of worship are not prohibited to a Chriſtian, I thought it neceſſary in that Tract of Will-worship to reflect on the free-will-offerings of the Jewes, which being ſpontaneouſly, and without any obligation of divine law preſented to God, were ſo farre from being deteſted or diſliked, that they were accepted and rewarded by him.
Treatiſe, conceiving the New Teſtament, Col. 2. and taken in the notion of ſpontaneous performances, to be diparallel to thoſe voluntary or uncommanded oblations among the Iewes, and from thence concluding, as I thought, irrefragably, that the uncommandedneſſe of a few decent rites, or uſeful ſeaſons ſet apart for the worship of God, could not upon that one account, their being uncommanded, become preſently unlawful and criminous, when even under the allowed and accepted. And if in any other reſpect there were difference betwixt the things thus compared, yet I was ſure there was none in that, wherein I compared them, both agreeing evidentnot commanded or preſcribed by God, and ſo though the obſervation of rites or ceremonies or feſtivals arrived not to that excellency of being parts, but only circumſtances of worship, yet they would by thoſe precedents be ſeabominable or criminous in the ſight of God upone account of uncommandedneſſe, for if ſuch they were, then the uncommanded, either ſtand together, or both fall under the ſame condemnation.
fault with me for not ſetting down or ſhewing wherein the formality of a free-will offering conſiſted, he is pleaſed to ſpend ſome leaves on this task.
ſupply of his, there being evidently no more required to the formality of a free-will offering, but that 1. it were not particularly commanded by any law of Gods, and ſo were ſpontaneous (not neceſſary) to offer, or not to offer; 2. that it were offered to (and graciouſly accepted by) God, as being of thoſe kindes which are known to be allowed by him; and both theſe being evidently ſet down by me in that Treatiſe §. 29. I have little to thank him for in his diſcourſe on this ſubject, finding the greateſt part of it to concern the preſcribed, commanded ſacrifices, and the willingneſs firſt, and ſecondly ſome lower degree of freeneſs obſervable in them, both which are certainly nothing to our purpoſe, who ſpeak only of thoſe oblations which were not commanded and might freely not have been offered (to which none but the laſt member of his diſtinlibertas exercitii) and yet were graciouſly accepted by God when they were offered, which one ſort of oblations (meddling not with any other that were any way commanded) make it viſible, that even under the government of the Iewes where God preſided immediatly and gave lawes premanner of his worship, ſome things were yet left to mens free-power and choice, if they offered, they ſhould be accepted, if they did not offer, they ſinned not, which is the perimage and clear interpretation of that Will-worship, for which that Treatiſe undertook to plead, that it was not criminous in a Chriſtian.
freewill offerings, defined by him, p. 91. juſt as I now, and then defined them, there is but one thing onely which he obſerves by way of praecognoſcendum to his anſwer to that Treatiſe, and I muſt here take a particular view of it, beall his contrary hypotheſis muſt be founded; It is this, that the formality of a freewill offering, as contradiſtinguiſhed to the offerings commanded by the Law, conſiſting in this, that it was left free for a man to offer or not to offer, beyond what was poſitively required by the Law, here, ſaith he, the Leviticalneſs or Ceremoniality ſeems to ly, whereby (he pronounceth that) they are now aboliſhed. And afterwards oft to the ſame purpoſe, that they were parts of the worſhip of God in thoſe times is true, p. 92. intimating that thoſe times differed from theſe times in this reſpect; and this inference, ſaith he, hath too much of the
ſhew of wiſdome, but neither ſubſtance, power, nor truth in it. It was ſo in the Old Teſtament, therefore it may be ſo in the New, p. 93. and Divines reſolve that the worſhip of God then, was far different from the worſhip of the Goſpell, and conclude the contrary. It rather follows, that they are not parts of worſhip now, becauſe that Levitical worſhip was aboliſhed. p. 94. And this is his principall engine of battery to demoliſh all that I had ſaid from that parallel between thoſe freewill offerings and the New Teſtament.
examine and conſider this reſerve of his, for if it ſhall fail him, it is evident he hath no other refuge to retire to.
reſolved between us, that the kind of the worſhip (that by bloody ſacrifices &c. among the Jews) was indeed Levitical, no longer to continue then the Jewiſh prieſthood of the Tribe of Levi continued, and ſo is long ſince aboliſhed by Chriſt, and accordingly I never meant (and I hope he cannot think I meant) to conclude that the ſame kinds of freewill offerings which were acceptable then, that of ſlaying a Bullock or a Ramme &c. do now continue acceptable among Chriſtians.
dly. Then the onely queſtion muſt be of the ſpontaneouſneſs of the oblations, whether that being confeſtly lawfull and acceptable
Law, it be now unlawfull under Chriſt, or in plain termes, whether Gods acceptance of uncommanded oblations, when the matter of them is confeſt to be ſuch as is acceptable to him, be to be deemed Levitical, and ſuch as being peculiar to the Moſaical oeconomie, is not now to be lookt for, being aboliſhed under Chriſt?
queſtion thus plainly ſet, his affirmation is too far from the the leaſt ſhew of probability, and ſo utterly diſtitute of all proofs, either from reaſon or Scripture, as far as he hath here diſcovered himſelf (and ſo but a begging of the queſtion in him that thus affirmes) that there is no need of my pains in diſproving it; Yet ſhall I offer a few conſiderations to this purpoſe, and the firſt ſuch as may be of force adhominem, to this Diatribiſt.
three ſpeciall proofs, which he hath brought in his Preface and in his Diatribe, to infer the ſinfulneſs of Will-worſhip, viz. the 2d
Commandment, the ſumme of which is, as he oft ſaith, Gods preſcribed worſhip, and all deviſed worſhip, an exceſs and ſo ſin againſt it; The words of Deut. 4. 2. where all additions to the word are prohibited; And (to the particular of Feſtivals) the 4th
Commandment, againſt which, ſaith he, it is an offence in the exceſſe to obholy day, but that one of the Weekly Sabbath. Now of theſe three it is plain, that they are all taken out of the words of the Judaical Law, and conſequently if they were fitly urged to Chriſtians, then muſt it needs follow, 1. That they were thus of force againſt all uncommanded ſervices in the Old Teſtament: and 2. That by way of analogie they ſtill hold under the New Teſtament, which if they do, then is this the direct contradictory to both the Diatribiſt's preſent pretenſions, to his allowing unpreſcribed uncommanded worſhip under the Old Teſtament, for how can that be when his proofs againſt uncommanded worſhip are all fetcht from the Old Teſtament, to the aboliſhing in the New Teſtament what was allowed in the Old, for if ſo, how can the analogie hold betwixt the Old and the New, in which his three proofs were founded, as to the application of them to Chriſtians?
hypotheſis, proving ſo irreconcileable with his preſent pretenſion,
choice which part of his method he will adhere to, the former or the latter; The former he canMoſaical Law) for it is manifeſt by the free-will offerings, and now confeſt by the Diatribiſts, that uncommanded worſhips were allowed; and ſo lawfull among the Jews; And the latter he cannot, having formerly ſuppoſed in his arguing, that the analogie holds in this matter beTeſtaments.
Syllogiſme the premiſes whereof ſhall be both fetcht out of the Diatribiſt, the Minor from his very words, the Major from that on which his arguments are founded, thus, Whatſoever was lawfull under the Old Teſtament, is lawfull under the New; But freewill or uncommanded offerings were lawfull under the Old Teſtament; (and then having given me me my premiſes, twill be great unkindneſs to deny my concluſion) therefore, uncommanded offerings are lawfull under the New Teſtament; Quod erat demonſtrandum.
d
argument againſt his affirmation ſhall be, the conſideraliberty, and advantages which reſult to Chriſtians from the abolition of the Moſaical Law. That liberty muſt conſiſt, in the taking off, not in the impoſing of weights and interdicts, whereas, by this Diatribiſts affirmation, there ſhall by this abolition of what was Levitical. i. e. by this libert, y come in a multitude of unprofitable burthens, which never lay upon the Jews; Whenſoever I ſhall do any thing in the ſervice of God, which I am not particularly commanded to do, I am preſently enſnared, guilty of an abominable ſin, whereas a Jew might, by his confeſsion, bring a thouſand free-will offerings, and in each of them be accepted. This ſure muſt be directly againſt one main part of the deſign of Chriſt's coming, and therefore is not to be admitted in the 2d place.
dly. It is ſufficiently known, and by the Apoſtle affirmed, that they were poſitive ordinances, and Eph, 2. 15. A Law of Commandments in ordinances, which Chriſt did by his death cancell and naile to the Croſs, and indeed nothing elſe is capable of abolition or cancelling, But this of the free-will offerings, among the Jews is not any Law or Commandments or Ordinances, but rather a negation
bare allowance to be deemed) and therevoluntarineſs of them, was none of the things which were aboliſhed by Chriſt.
thly. If it were true, which is here ſaid by the Diatribiſt, that the Leviticalneſs or Ceremoniality of the offerings ſeems to ly here, viz. in the uncommandedneſs or freedome to offer or not to offer (wherein he truly ſaith, that the formality of a freewill offering conſiſts, as that is contradiſtinguiſhed to the commanded offerings) then ſure the Leviticalneſs &c. would not extend to the commandedneſs of the other offerings, and conſequently the commanded offerings under the Law would not be Levitical, Which as it is palpably falſe, and contrary to plain Scripture, Heb. 9. 1. 20. and elſewhere frequently, ſo it will farther concommanded offerings are ſtill in force, for by the Leviticalneſs and Ceremoniality, ſaith he, it was, that thoſe other are ſuppoſed to be now aboliſhed.
tly. Againſt his concluſion I thus argue, Whatſoever was lawfull before the Moſaical Law to mankind, and remained lawfull under the Moſaical Law, and is not now prohibited by Chriſt or his Apoſtles under the Goſpell, that certainly is now perfectly lawfull and free to Chriſtians; But ſuch are freewill offerings, Ergo. Of the Major I ſuppoſe there will be no doubt; And the Minor conſiſting of three branches, is manifeſt in the firſt of them, among many others by Abel's oblation, which the Fathers geneprecept from God, and tis affirmed by the antient Author of the Pſeudo-Clement, c. 22. (I ſay not how truly) that before the Jews idolatries and high provocations, ſacrifices themſelves were not impoſed on, or commanded the Jewes, but onely left to their free power,
If thou wilt do it, but upon their provocations impoſed,
that being conſtrained and compreſt by this yoke, they might be kept from idolatry. In the 2d branch, it is granted by the Diatribiſt; And for the 3d, it muſt ly upon him to ſhew any prohibition of Chriſts or his Apoſtles, which forbids to do any the leaſt thing in the ſervice of God, which is not particularly commanded: Now this he hath not yet attempted to do (no not here, where it was moſt ſeaſonable and neceſſary to do it, the
weight of his cauſe being divolved upon it) and though it be not incumbent on me to prove a negative, yet having all Chriſts prohibitions before my eyes in the New Teſtament, where this would be diſcernible, if there were any ſuch, and being ſure that I cannot diſcern the leaſt glimpſe of any ſuch, and withal rememDiatribiſt affirms it, viz. upon the Leviticalneſſe and ceremoniality of theſe free-will offerings, which hath already been competently diſproved, and how ſuſpicious and cautious he was in affirming that, that the Leviticalneſs ſeems to ly there, not daring to affirm any more, then that ſo it ſeemed, (and that I muſt ſuppoſe only to himſelf, no concurrence of any other mans judgement appearing with him) I doubt not but that I may with ſobriety aſſume, that there will never be produced by him any ſuch prohibition, and then there can be no way of ſuperſeding the concluſion, that uncommanded performanſervice of God are ſtill lawful.
perfect, being only a negative probation, I muſt (to adde yet more force to it) referre the Reader to the many poſitive inſtances, in the New Teſtament, of ſuch free-will performances, as contra-diſtinguiſht to thoſe which are under precept, ſet down in that Treatiſe of Will-worship, §. 30, 31, 32. &c. and much more largely in the Annotation on Col: 2. And then this will abſolutely ſuperſede all that he hath thought fit to obſerve here proemial to the inſtance of the Iudaical free-will offerings, or to reply to my three obſervations of them.
Gods promulgate allowance of thoſe free-will offerings among the Iewes, without which he conceives it had been unlawful to the Iewes to offer them, 1. that allowance being no command, is an irrefragable proof that acts of uncommanded worship may be allowed and accepted by God: and 2dly. it muſt be ſome poſitive prohibition which is required to make any thing unlawful, the want of a declared allowance will not do it; and 3ly. there are many evidences under the New Teſtament of the like allowances for thoſe things, which are not under precept, yea, and ſometimes of more then allowance, of Gods accepting and rewarding of them.
deſires to have it obſerved, thoſe voluntary oblations were a part of Gods worship, then, though I am not obliged to make good the parallel ſo farre, as that every rite and feſtival ſhall be a part of Gods worship alſo, yet certainly I may conclude 1. that Will-worship is ſuch, and that is the whole matter of our preſent debate; 2dly that the voluntary (I mean uncommanded ſpontaneous) uſe of theſe rites &c. is now as lawful, as it would have been, if they had been parts of worship, both by force of the argument, à majori ad minus, (parts of worship are much more conſiderable, and more ſpecially taken care for by God then rites and other ſuch circumſtances, the reaſons of which may be temporary and uncertain, upon ſome new or accidental emergents, whileſt the reaſons of performing, or inſtituting parts of Worship are moſt conſtant and certain) and alſo becauſe among the ſame Iewes, as we have uncommanded offerings, ſo we have uncommanded daies of worship, both feſtival, the feaſt of Purim, and of the Dedication of the altar, and faſting, that of the fourth and fift, and ſeventh and tenth moneth, in Zachary, and all theſe allowed by God among them, at leaſt approved, when uſed without any precedaneous ſpecial allowance.
Diatribiſt, when he thinks it for his turn, ſaith expreſly) that a ſpecial allowance of God was as good, and equivalent to a command, then, 1. So Gods approbation will be alſo; and 2dly I ſee not how he can avoid the inference, that then, it ſeems, theſe other feſtivals and faſts ſtood by as good an authority as did the weekly Sabbath of the fourth Commandment, or the great yearly Sabbath, the day of Expiation. But this by the way, what influence it will have in this whole ſcheme of Phenomena, I leave him to conſider.
th §. proceeds after theſe preluſory skirmiſhes, to adapt anſwers to the ſeveral inſtances, which I had given of performances uncommanded, and yet accepted by God, and the firſt is that of David, whoſe intention to build God a Temple, exceeding Gods command, 2 Sam. 7. 5. 7. was yet very acceptable to God, 1 King. 1. 18. and ſo appears to be by Nathans meſſage to him, in that place of Samuel. To this he hath returned three branches of anſwer, I ſhall take a brief view of them.
this is one of Bellarmines arguments for their religious vowes, and is fully anſwered by Chamier, 1. that it was in time of the law, when free-will offerings were allowed, but the times of the Goſpel give no ſuch allowance] is already anſwered in the laſt Section, where the Leviticalneſſe and ſo abolition of that allowance of free-will offerings was competently examined and confuted. Yet ex abundanti I here adde, that the allowance that was expreſt in the law belonging to ſacrifices, did not exbuilding of Temples, and if ſtill by the analogy or parity of reaſon it may be extended to ſuch other things, which were not expreſt in the allowance, and yet which were not meerly ceremonial, viz. to Davids intention of building God an houſe, when God had never expreſt any ſuch command or deſire, I deſire to hear ſome ſatisfactory reaſon, why the parity of reaſon may not in like manner extend the ſame allowance to uncommanded acts of piety under Chriſt, in caſe no ſuch allowance ſhould appear to be expreſt in the Goſpel.
firſt anſwer therefore having ſo little of ſolidity in it, it was meet that it ſhould be introduced with a prooeme, which might caſt a prejudice upon the Argument, viz. that it was one of Bellarmines for religious vowes, and fully anſwered by Chamier.
Argument is not invalid which Bellarmine hath once uſed, I do not believe him ſo ill a manager, that a ſharp weapon taken into his hands would preſently be blunted. 2dly. Belllarmines uſing it to another purpoſe, that of religious vowes, ſuppoſing it fully anſwered, as to that, can have no influence on my uſing it to prove the lawfulneſſe of ſpontaneous perpiety; It might not come home to ſuch vowes, and yet might and doth come home to reſolutions or intentions.
Chamier and Bellarmine, if it concern only the buſineſſe of ſuch religious vowes, of building a Temple before Gods pleaſure be known concerning it and the like, then this Diatribiſt hath not done well to inlarge Chamiers words to this other ſo diſtant matter, and to vouch his authority both here and formerly, for the abolition of free-will offerings under the Goſpel. It canaides as this.
d
anſwer is, that God doth not abſolutely deny that he had commanded, but ſaith he had not commanded it to David, or any before him, not becauſe he would not have it done, but becauſe not yet, and therefore foretels that Solomon ſhould do it. To this I anſwer 1. that here is very nice diſtinguiſhing betwixt abſolutely denying that he had commanded, and ſaying, he had not commanded. Can conſcience ever be ſatisfied of the ſinfulneſſe of voluntary oblations, or the charitableneſs of judging a Church ſuperſtitious for uſing uncommanded rites, upon ſuch anſwers as theſe?
intricacy, and take a ſunder this ſubtile fabrick, I demand, did God ever command David, or any governor before him to build him a Temple, or did he not? If he ſhall ſay, he did; Then is that expreſſely repugnant to the plain words of Nathan 2 Sam. 7. 5. Thus ſaith the Lord, ſhalt thou build me an houſe to dwell in? the queſtion implies, that he ſhall not, and v. 7. Spake I a word with any of the tribes of Iſrael, ſaying, Why build ye not me an houſe of Cedar? and ſo forward to the ſame purpoſe; But if he ſhall acknowledge that God never did thus command David or any before him to build him a Temple, then it is clear, his intention to build was a free-will offering, under no command of Gods, and yet that intention accepted and
commended by God, which was all I undertook to conclude in this inſtance.
dly. What he addes, that God ſaith this not becauſe he would not have it done, but becauſe not yet &c. is evidently nothing to his advantage, for ſtill it is confeſt God would not have it done by David, which was all I contended, and then Davids deſigning to do it, was without command, and ſo a freewill offering; As for the prediction, that Solomon ſhould do it, 1. That is no intimation in the leaſt of any command to David; and 2. It folDavid's reſolution of doing it, and was God's anſwer to David, v. 13. on occaſion of his reſolving to build God a Temple, v. 1, 2. and ſo that is onely a farther evidence, that what David reſolved to do, was, without any the leaſt command, onedignity of the matter ſuggeſted to a pious ſoul v. 1. 2. and accordingly was approved by Nathan, v. 3. Goe doe all that is in thy heart, and alſo by God, 1 Kin. 8. 18. though he were not permitted to actuate this pious reſolution.
d
anſwer is, that the houſe that David would build was not to be a part of worſhip, but by accident, as the houſe of Obed Edom, or the place where David ſetled the Arke, and our Churches now, onely a circumſtance of worſhip. I anſwer, 1. So is a Feſtivall now, a time, as that a place, and ſo equally a circumſtance of worſhip. And 2. It being already evident that voluntary oblations were then lawfull, and that thoſe are parts of worſhip, 'tis viſible that this had equally been lawfull, if it had been a part, as it is now, being but a circumſtance of worſhip.
dly. The intention of building this place was ſure a pious intention, an act of reverence and love to God, whoſe houſe it was deſigned to be, and ſo that being uncommanded muſt needs be an parallel to the compare it.
virtue in theſe anſwers ſave oneevidence his diſtruſt in his voluntary oblations were now aboliſhed under the New Teſtament, for if really they were, having rendred that for his firſt anſwer, he could not have wanted or ſatisfied himſelf with ſuch evaſions as theſe.
d
inſtance was that of St
Paul, who might have received hire for his labour among the Corinthians, but would not, and counts and calls this matter of boaſting. This, ſaith he, is as little to the porpoſe, if not leſs, for it is not in an action of worſhip, but an action of common life as himſelf ſpeaks, and it is alſo a miſtake to call it a free-will offering, when it was a due
ſaid that this was in an action of common life, the Reader, if he will view the place at the top of p. 17. will find that it is miſreported, and truely I ſhould have been to blame to think the Apoſtle's preaching and officiating among the Corinthians, in which this was, to have been an action of common life; And I ſhall appeale to this Diatribiſt himſelf, whether he can really doubt, whether an Apoſtle's exerciſing his office be not an act of worſhip, and conſequently any (but) circumſtance thereof, a circumſtance of worſhip, and this over and above, an act of ſacred alms and ſo of piety. And if it be ſo, then this inſtance of St
Pauls not receiving hire, was either an action or in an action of worſhip, or both, and ſo ſurely a free-will offering.
dly Then, for his aſſertion, that it was a due debt (for which he cites Chamier) I ſhall make my appeale no farther then to the text it ſelf, and the notion, which the Fathers had of it.
Cor. 9. The preaching of the Goſpell, ſaith the Apoſtle, was committed to him, and was under precept and ſo no free-will offering of his; That is his meaning, when he ſaith, For if I do this willingly, v. 17. volunteer (ſo ſaith In 1 Cor. 9.Theophylact,
If I had not been commiſſionated to preach, but had done it of my ſelf, If I did preach the Goſpell without any command, and ſo 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 honorable circumſtance to inhanſe it, but if involuntarily, i. e. Theophylact, if I am commiſſionated to preach, and ſo my preaching be an act of obedience to a plain command, and ſo neceſſary, v. 16. (and woe to me if I do it not) then all that can be ſaid of me is, that being intruſted with a Stewardſhip, I diſcharge it, it is manifeſt that I do it not ſpontaneouſly, but I performe my Lords command, for this is the meaning of involuntary; And ſo there is nothing of excellence in this, no reward, Upon which it follows, What reward then ſhall be to me? i. e. What in this whole matter ſhall bring me in any reward? To which the Apoſtle anſwers, preaching the Goſpell, I do it freely, without making it chargeable to the auditors, ſo that I make not uſe of (not as we render it, abuſe not) my power or liberty that I have in the Goſpell, i. e. the power of receiving maintenance from others, whether by hire from them to whom he preacht, (the labourer being worthy of that) or by way of aide from other pious perſons (ſuch as Phoebe and the like, intimated by the Chriſtian women that attended and miniſtred to them v. 8.) without putting my ſelf to bodily labour to earn neceſſaries, v. 6.
reward, And although this was not obſerved by Cephas and other Apoſtles, v. 5. yet ſure Cephas is not conceived to have ſinned thereby, but 'tis poſitively ſaid that twas lawfull for all, v. 7. 11. 14. for as for Cephas and others, though onely Paul would not uſe it, v. 12. and accordingly both there, v. 15. and after, 2 Cor. 11. 9, 10. he diſtinctly counts and calls this matter of rejoycing or boaſting, in reſpect to the reward which he was allowed to expect from God for it.
voluntarie act of piety in that Apoſtle toward his Corinthians, and ſo ſure it was conceived by St
Auguſtine, Potuit Beatus Panlus ex Evangelio ſibi victum quarere; quòd maluit operari, amplius erogabat, Bloſſed Paul might have had his food for his preaching; that he choſe rather to labour for it with his hands was a greater liberality then he was bound to. And In Act. 21. Tom. 4. p. 860. l. 12.t
Chryſoſtome,
he ſaid not thoſe words, Act. 20. 35. becauſe it was ill to receive, but becauſe it was better not to receive. And Ibid. lin. 20.the fourth and higheſt degree of munificence,
for one that preacheth, and hath power to receive, yet not to receive. And on the place to the Corinthians,
One was a praecept, the other a virtuous action of his own choice,
above the Commandment, and in this very reſpect, it hath a plentifull reward; And again, of the word neceſſity, he ſaith, that it pertains to the command by which it became neceſſary
in oppoſition to the freedome in receiving (i. e. the power to receive from the Corinthians, v. 12.) forementioned. So again. Theophylact,
preaching the Goſpell is a precept to me, and ſo a debt from me, and if I do it, there is no great matter of excellence in it, but to preach without charging them is the honor of my will, and in that reſpect there is place of boaſting, in this I may fitly rejoyce.
difficulties or doubts in this matter, and to ſhew how punctually home it comes to the matter for which it was brought, to ſhew not onely the lawfulneſs but acceptation of ſuch uncommanded performances now under the Goſpell, as well as the Law.
exception he offers againſt this, is that from v. 18. where what he doth he ſaith was done that he abuſe not his power in the Goſpel; But ſaith he, to abuſe power is to ſin, &c. But that
uſe to his own advantage, and not only to abuſe; Thus in Lyſias,
he took and uſed them, and in Iſocrates in Panegyr.
to make a ſeaſonable uſe of other mens actions, by way of example: in Plato,
Ep. 8. he hath not rightly uſed the gift. And ſo 1 Cor. 7. 31. uſing the world as if they uſed it not, ſo it muſt be rendred in proportion to what goes before, weep as though they wept not, rejoyce as though they rejoiced not, buy as though they poſſeſſed not, and ſo the vulgar reads, tauquam non utantur, as if they uſed not. And ſo Chryſoſtome on Act. 21. in the place even now cited, doth thus paraphraſe it, not to receive what he hath power to receive, and ſo here Theophylact expreſſely interprets it, ſimply to uſe;
ſhewing that they which received, ſinned not a whit, which is the direct contrary to the concluſion of this Diatribiſt from the ſame premiſſe; And ſo Chryſoſtome alſo ſhewed, that they which received are not worthy of accuſations, guilty of any fault; which they muſt be, if they are bound by any ſpecial call, as the Diatribiſt cites from Chamier (but againſt the whole contexture of the place) to do what they did. And ſo this may ſuffice for the ſecond Inſtance, ſo particular, and that in the New Teſtament.
d
inſtance was taken from Paul's going up to Hieruſalem, Act. 21. when, being told by a Prophet v. 11. that bonds expected him there, he might lawfully have avoided that danger, and gone ſome other way, and been juſtified by Mat. 10. 23. and yet in this conjuncture, when he might have abſtained, he would yet needs go up, v. 13. and ſo that was his to this, ſaith he, the like may be anſwered, viz. that it was no free-will offering, for though by the general allowance he might have fled, yet if he should have refuſed to ſuffer, with the retarding of the Goſpel, he had ſurely ſinned.
To this anſwer the reply may be brief, that Pauls not going to Ieruſalem at that time, did in no wiſe imply either his refuſing to ſuffer, or retarding the Goſpel: 1. The not going, when he knowes, that if he goes, he ſhall ſuffer, is not refuſing to ſuffer, it is only the diverting at that time, the not caſting himſelf upon apparent danger, which we find ſometimes exemplified by Chriſt, Mat. 12. 15. upon knowledge of the Phariſees deſigne to kill him, though ſure he never refuſed to ſuffer, but eſteemed it a prime part of his miſſion.
Origens obſervation, Chriſt did not this for fear of death, i. e. refuſing, or being in the leaſt degree unwilling to ſuffer, giving thereupon this univerſal axiome,
Tis no degenerous thing to avoid dangers prudently, and not to go among them.
Paul who was not obliged to runne into danger here, any more then to go unto the multitude, or into the Theatre, Act. 19. 30, 31. both which when he was willing to have done, he yet abſtained from both, upon the intreaty of the diſciples, & the Aſiarchae that were kind to him,
liberty, & induſtriouſly avoided the perſecutors hands, 2 Co. 11. 33.
not going up was no way the retarding the Goſpel, only the reſerving himſelf to do Chriſt more ſervice upon earth, in preaching the Goſpel and confirming the Churches; For of this there is no queſtion, that the Goſpel might be advanced by his life, as well as by his death, and as it appears in his Epiſtle to the Philippians, it might be better for the Chriſtians committed to his charge, that he ſhould continue to live and labour among them, and accordingly the pious Chriſtians here beſought him that he would not go up, and, I hope, were not guilty of deſigning treachery to the Goſpel in ſo doing, and ſo the Diſciples, v. 4. who had by the Spirit, i. e. by the gift of prophecy received knowledge of his danger, adviſed him alſo. Not that I think the Spirit, either by them, or by Agabut, diſſwaded his going, for then it had been an act of obedience to the Spirit, and ſo of duty not to go, but that the Spirit made known his hazard, which there he ſhould run, leaving it free to him to go, or not to go, and that there were Spiritual reaſons on both ſides, and for not going, over and above, motives prudential, in regard of his own ſafety, and no command to deſpiſe theſe, nor conſequently ground of neceſſity or obligation to go up, only an intuition of ſome things that ſeemed to be more excellent, exerciſing of many admirable graces, of courage, and conſtancy, and confeſſion of a perſecuted Chriſt, every of which received luſtre from the certain foreſight of his danger, and theſe, it ſeems, weighed down the ballance with him againſt all the importunities of his friends, ſuperadded to the contrary motives, and accordingly he choſe that which was moſt noble, moſt excellent, moſt contrary to fleſh and blood, made not uſe of that liberty which God had given him, and in that reparallel to the former, that of refuſing of hire,
made not uſe of the power which he had, and ſo ſtill his voluntary, ſpontaneous oblation of himſelf even to martyrdome, without any command or obligation for it at this time.
Origen ſhall conclude this in his Books againſt Celſus,
Though a Chriſtian fly (and yet that is more then not going up here) yet he flies not for cowardiſe, but obſerving the commandment of his Maſter, (and then ſure he offends not, much leſſe betrayes his Maſter) keeps himſelf pure, that others may be profited by his preſervation, and ſo ſtill this is not the betraying, but rather advancing of the Goſpel.
command to S. Paul or others, binding to be bound, beaten, ſtoned, is here acknowledged by the Diatribiſt, and from thence I conclude, therefore it had not been ſin in him not to go up, when he knew he ſhould be bound, for ſin is a breach or tranſgreſſion of a law. This Diatribiſt therefore defree-will offering, that he choſe the danger, when he might have preferred his ſafety, ought in all reaſon to have ſhewed the ground which rendred his going neceſſary, which having not attempted to do, but only in ſtead of it, affirming, that if he had refuſed with the retarding of the Goſpel, he had ſurely ſinned (which is equivalent to acknowledging that his bare not going to Ieruſalem had not been ſin, in caſe it had not been (as certainretarding of the Goſpel) tis certain there remains no appearance of reaſon for his negation, nor conſequenly of objection or pretence, why this ſhould not be a former, or any thing which is moſt ſpontaneous.
anſwer of ſome, that this was an inſtinct or motion of the Spirit, is not here adhered to by the Diatribiſt, and thereStorie, and therefore muſt not be ſuppoſed, without all proof.
inſtance is in the almeſgiving or works of mercy where the quotum (what proportion of the whole every rich man ſhould ſet apart for this purpoſe out of his yearly revenue) being left free, and not particularly defined by God, there is evidently place for voluntary oblations, above that which is under command or neceſſary, as is ſet down undeniably in that Tract. §. 32.
evidencing of it; the firſt from the very denotation of the names, Saducaei and Aſidaei or Eſſeni among the Iewes: A proportion there was of charity and liberality, which was by law required of all, and this was called their righteouſneſſe, and from hence I ſuppoſe the Sect of the Sadducees, called Tſadikim, firſt derived their title, they that obſerved the whole righteouſneſſe of the Law, did all that by the Law they were required to do, and ſo tranſgreſt not in this reſpect, But beſide this, there was neceſſary proportion abundance of goodneſſe or mercy, as hath formerly been ſaid, and from thence the Eſſeni had their title Chaſidim or Aſidaei, and they were ſuppoſed to have their over-meaſure, performances more then the Law exacted from them, and ſo that is an example of what I now ſpeak of, the free-will performances of mercy.
Second ſhall be from S. Pauls language, 2 Cor. 8. 2. where ſpeaking of the Corinthians equalling the Macedonians in liberality to the poor Jewes, he gives them no command to do ſo,
I ſpeak not by way of precept, v. 8.) but only his advice or opinion, his ſingle life, 1 Cor. 7. 25. I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my advice; And if the Corinthians did obſerve and practiſe according to this advice, if they did give in proportion to the Macedonians, or (in caſe they did not) yet ſtill the Macedonians themſelves, which certainly were thus exemplarily liberal, and that of their own accord, v. 3. without any obligation of precept lying upon them, and yet farther above what they were well able to do, are again an inſtance of doing more in this kind, then either all men at all times, or they at this, were obliged to have done, and ſo this was a
inſtance of works of mercy, he firſt reſolves, that it may be anſwered in part, that it belongs not to the queſtion, which is of worſhip, not of actions of civil life.] But to this I reply, 1. that an anſwer in part is no ſatisfactory anſwer, and ſo this profeſſing to be no more, needs not be conſidered. 2. that the parity of reaſon holds from one act of Chriſtian performance to another, that if in duties of charity between fellow Chriſtians, there may be an above the commands of the law of Chriſt, there may alſo by analogy be the ſame in matters of Chriſtian worſhip, there being neither reaſon nor revelation of Chriſts will, not yet of his allowance, to one more then to the other. But then 3dly This of works of mercy is generally defiChriſtian performance of it, an act of worſhip, ſet in the front of ſuch by Chriſt, Mat 6. 1. appointed to be exerLords day (as a work of the day) 1 Cor. 16. 2. and accordingly interpreted by Chriſt to be done to himſelf, Mat. 25. 40. and ſo by S. Paul ſtyled ſacrifice, an acceptable ſacrifice, Phil. 4. 18. Heb. 13. 16. And yet 4. to remove all ſcruple, I wiſh that after the cuſtome of the Primitive Apoſtolick Church, this almes be preſented to God, in the offertory at the Sacrament, and then, as it will certainly be a branch of Chriſtian worſhip, ſo my inſtance ſhall be ſet particularly to that ſort of almes, and it will certainly hold in that, as exactly as in any other.
imperfect anſwer being not confided in, he is pleaſed to
adde more, 1. That the queſtion is not of a degree of an act of obedience, commanded, as Almes-giving is, but of the act it ſelf, if not commanded nor allowed in the ſpeciall nor in the generall. But this anſwer cannot be of any manner of uſe to the Diatribiſt. For 1. The queſtion being certainly this, Whether Ceremonies and Feſtivals in a Church are criminous, if they be not commanded by God; and ceremonies and Feſtivals, being geſtures and times, and ſo circumſtances not acts of worſhip, 'tis viſible that the queſtion is not onely of the act it ſelf. 2. The reaſon being the ſame of circumſtances and of degrees, of one acceſſorie and of another, it follows, that if uncommanded degrees, may be lawfull, uncommanded circumſtances muſt be lawfull alſo. 3. Though almes-giving in general be commanded, yet as long as the degrees be uncommanded, the argument from the lawfulneſs of thoſe degrees will hold to the juſtifying of Ceremonies or Feſtivals, becauſe as almes-giving is commanded, ſo praying to, and praiſing of God is commanded alſo, and theſe ceremonies and Feſtivals are as viſibly circumſtances of prayer and praiſing as theſe degrees are of almes-giving. Nay 4. To take away all poſſibility that this anſwer ſhould be uſefull to him, the inſtance which I ſet of almeſgiving is of an uncommanded act, for ſuppoſing the utmoſt degree of the uncommanded mercy to be once defined and determined, and ſuppoſe me to exceed that proportion in giving, 'tis evident that that exceeding is an act firſt, and then an uncommanded act; an act, for ſo is every exerciſe or work of mercy, and this giving is ſuch an exerciſe; and an uncommanded act, for ſo is all which is not under precept, and ſo this is ſuppoſed to be, and herein it is perfectly anſwerable to the free-will offering among the Jews; Sacrifice or offering was a determined and commanded duty, and every exerciſe of that, above what was commanded, was a freewill oblation, and as ſuch accepted by God; and ſo it is here.
cautious reſtriction added in the cloſe of that anſwer, which pretends that the queſtion is of ſuch acts, which as they are not commanded, ſo neither are they allowed in ſpecial or in general, he muſt needs know that this is an impoſing on the reader; For 1. The queſtion being of the lawfulneſs of uncommanded acts, and allowance, whether general or ſpecial, being yet no command, for no man is bound to do all that he is allowed to do; tis evident
acknowledging the lawfulneſs of allowed acts, as they muſt needs be lawfull, if they be allowed, is the acknowledging the lawfulneſs of ſome uncommanded acts; for ſuch are they which are no more then allowed.
Diatribiſt this Dilemma; Are theſe high but uncommanded degrees of mercy allowed either in general or ſpecial now under the Goſpel, or are they not? If they are not, then this cautionary clauſe was very impertinently added, and my inſtance, though it proceeded of degrees which are not thus allowed, yet proceedings of degrees which are not commanded, was a valid inſtance. But if they are allowed, as I ſuppoſe by his caution he will affirme, why then, it ſeems, there is either general or ſpecial allowance ſtill under the Goſpel for uncommanded acts, and then there is as much for them under Chriſt, as there was under Moſes for freewill offerings, and ſo the Leviticalneſs of the freewill offerings conſiſted not in this, that they were thus allowed, and then this was no part of that Levitical Law, nor conſequently of that which was aboliſhed, as p. 91.Diatribiſt's whole ſcheme is demoliſhed, or rather fallen aſunder of its own accord, as all infirme fabricks are apt to do.
d place, as if it were an anſwer to the inſtance, is but an attempt or two of the Diatribiſt's, out of my words to gain ſome advantage, and thereby to conclude that there is ſome middle rule that binds men ſo, as that whatſoever is more or leſs then that, offends either by way of exceſs or defect.] But both this and all the other artifices were exactly prevented in the manner of my ſetting of the inſtance, of a proportion exceeding that, whatever it is, which can be defined our duty, and yet not offending againſt any other ingagement of the givers. For if that which is done be more then that which we are any way bound to, 'tis impoſſible it ſhould tranſgreſs in the defect; and yet being no way forbidden to give ſo much, not being guilty of neglecting any other part of duty incumbent on us, 'tis on the other ſide as impoſſible that there ſhould be any exceſs. Nay there being, in the New Teſtament, a viſible allowance, of ſelling all and giving to the poor, of laying that all at the Apoſtles feet, and St
Paul commending the Macedonians who had been willingly liberal above their power, 1 Cor. 8. 3. and the like, our greateſt liberalities, if they be prudently ordered and ſeaſanably placed (and there is no neceſſity, that he that is moſt liberal or merciful ſhould be a fool) are competently ſecuoffending on that ſide.
Diatribiſt that from the poſſibility of falling into extremes, was willing to collect a middle rule, and from thence a debt, ſhould in any reaſon have aſſigned that rule, and produced his authority for it in the New Teſtament, and then the weakneſs of his anſwer would ſoon have been viſible. For I ſhould immediately have aſſigned ſome proportion exceeding that middle, and made my inſtance of that, and ſo have proceeded as formerly. But the truth is, ſuch a middle cannot be produced; And if it cannot, then is this an evident proof, that there are no ſuch middle points quos ultra citráque nequit conſiſtere rectum, the variation from which is always criminous; Nay if it were not ſimply impoſſible, and yet cannot eaſily be done by every man for himſelf, or by the teacher for all, then ſtill it is evident that this obligation is not univerſally revealed, & ſo no duty univerſally obligatorie; and then my inſtance ſhall be ſet to ſuch a perſon, to whom it is not obligatory.
Goſpel for defining or determining the middle rule, which conſtitutes a debt. The truth is, that this middle rule conſiſts not in any indiviſible point, but in a latitude, wherein there are many degrees, but all within the rule of allowance, though not all within the rule of precept, he that obſerves the duty in any degree of the latitude, doth well (for if not, then that was too great parſimonie, and ſo no obſers vation but a breach of the rule) and he that goes yet farther, but not beyond the latitude, doth better, for ſo he muſt, unleſs he go too far, which if he do, then he is prodigal, and that is a breach of the rule again on the other ſide.
allowance not onely for ſome one point, but for every degree within the latitude, ſo every degree of that latitude doth not bind every man, ſo as to make that degree a debt or duty in that man; No nor the general rule of giving according to God's proſpering them (the onely thing which the Diatribiſt hath ſtill behind) For beſides that that rule, 1 Cor. 16. 1. ſeems to have a propriety to that particular time in congreat diſtreſs and famine in Judea, and conſerule for all other times; Beſides this, I ſay, it is manifeſt, that they which do obſerve that rule, i. e. offend not in the defect againſt it, may yet be able to exceed the proportion, which that rule ſtrictly required, and then not onely do well (as they muſt, if they offend not againſt any other rule) but alſo do better, for ſuch muſt all that be, which is more then well, and yet degenerates not into ill.
obſerve that rule of giving as God hath proſpered him, to give the tenth of his profits weekly or yearly, and ſuppoſe him to do well in ſo doing, i e. not to offend againſt the rule, as it is ſet and meant by St
Paul, or if the tenth be not a fit proportion, let any other be aſſigned which is fit, and then ſuppoſe that man yet to give more, ſo that ſtill he offend not againſt any other precept by exceſſive giving, and then you have the inſtance of the uncommanded yet acceptable work of mercy, ſtill the ſame, as formerly, though ſomewhat more explicitely ſet, and ſo a more manifeſt evidence, that nothing is by this Diatribiſt (I may ſay, can be) produced as a valid exception or objection againſt it.
circumſtances of time and place and perſons in regard of the neceſſities of the poor, the caſe which I ſet is not capable of thoſe conſiderations, my inſtance being not laid in any particular almes, terminated in a particular perſon (though that alſo would admit of a latitude, I might give as much as were my duty to that particular perſon, and then I might exceed that, give more to him, and that would be my weekly or yearly conſecration or ſetting apart of ſome more liberall proportion for pious and charitable uſes, not foreſeeing parreſtraining my ſelf from giving more, if objects offer themſelves to my charity, above what my aſſignation will extend to. This ſetting the caſe evidently prevents all thoſe difficultis ariſing from circumſtance of time and place and perſons by remaining abſolutely looſe and abſtract-from all theſe, and thus the caſe was (and is to be) ſet, and will not doubt to ſecure it ſelf from all objections by thismeans.
fift inſtance was in ſecret prayer, 1. of the adjoining bodily worſhip to it, any ſuch as is moſt humble, and yet not under command, as proſtration &c: 2. of the frequence of it, ſeven times a day, with David, or ſome other proportion above that which is by the evangelical law ſuppoſeable to be required of us. To this he anſwers briefly, that Prayer indeed is a worſhip of God, but for the manner, geſtures, times frequency, they are not properly worſhip, but circumſtances, rites, &c. left to the liberty of every perſon, and ſo though free, not parts of worſhip.
anſwer is very brief indeed, but needed not to have been larger, being in theſe few words a yielding of the whole cauſe; For is it not evident, that if geſtures and times be free, then ceremonies and Feſtivals are ſo too, and if they are, then are they lawful at once and uncommanded, for freedome comprehends both thoſe being free to be done and ſo lawful, free to be left undone, and ſo uncommanded. I need adde no more, ſure, of that.
plain matter, and reduce it into an intricacy: And the way to do it is to confound or ſhuffle together, theſe two things, placing the worſhip of God in them, and pleaſing God by them. But to this I anſwer, that theſe are two diſtant things, and ſo in all reaſon to be ſevered. He that juſtifies or defends the uſe of the humbleſt geſtures in the ſervice of God, and affirms them to be more acceptable to God, then either the leſſe humble geſtures, or thoſe which have no humility at all in them, doth not yet place worſhip in them but willingly acknowledges that God may be worſhipt without them.
defending of other Feſtivals annually commemorative of the birth and aſcenſion of Chriſt, &c. beſide the weekly commemoration of the reſurrection, and affirms it to be acceptable to God that we obſerve theſe alſo, and that the thankful pious obſervation thereof is more acceptable to
God then the contrary whether negligence or contumacy, doth not yet place the worſhip of God in theſe Feſtivals, but in the prayer and thanksgiving which are offered to God in thoſe Feſtivals. And the ſame will certainly hold in all other particulars, to which either the Treatiſes arraigned by this Diatribiſt, or this defence have attempted to extend it. Such are the frequent, daily, and conſtant houres of prayer, either publick, or private, ſuppoſing as ſtill I do, that they do not interfere with, or ſupplant any other duty, or run out all into formality, &c.
frequency of Prayer, he would fain perſwade us that it is not a debt) and to that end tells us firſt of pray continually, that the ſcope of it is to command frequent prayer every day, and 2. that it hath reſpect to the frequent occaſions and neceſſities of men every day, and ſo bindes to pray as oft as need ſhall be, with ejaculatory prayers at leaſt. And yet in the midſt of this, ſpeaking of the particular number of 7 times a day, he is coni. e. that it is no debt. And if ſo, then is that all that I contend for, ſuppoſing a man to pray as oft as that precept [Pray continually] obligeth, & withal to uſe ejaculatory prayers as need ſhall be, and yet farther to have more frequent daily returns to the ſolemn performance of that duty, then that precept is pretended to require, then ſtill this is under no precept, and yet no doubt acceptable, and ſo ſtill as exact a
miſtake in making the difference ſo great betwixt a precept and a grace, And my ſetting down of that difference conſiſting of many degrees, of which each ſuperaddes to the former, and not any one ſingle, but all taken together are a perfect ſtating of it, the Reader is deſired to review the whole matter §. 39. and by ſo doDiatribiſts objections to the
prevented and anſwered in the following, ſave only the laſt of them, and therefore that only reexamined.
objection is p. 103. that ſure as grace it ſelf, ſo any meaſure or degree of grace being a talent alſo, requires a proportionable return to that degree, as to whom more is given, of him is more required. But to this alſo my anſwer hath formerly been intimated, viz. that as in the middle rule of almes-giving there is a latitude, ſo here in the proportionable return to any degree of grace, this proportionable return is not ſo placed in any indiviſible point, that as he that comes ſhort of that point offends in the defect, ſo the exceeding that point in the leaſt degree ſhall be an offence alſo, but, as I ſaid, in a latitude, wherein there may ſtill be a variation, and yet all the degrees of that within the latitude.
And therefore as it may be true of two men that have the ſame grace in ſpecie, that both may uſe it well, and yet one make better uſe of it then another, ſo it is ſuppoſeable of the ſame degree of the ſame grace, for though to that degree of grace, there be ſome degree alſo of return proportioned, that who ſo fails in that, offends by defect, yet it doth not follow from thence, that whoſo exceeds that minimum quod ſic, that leaſt degree that was prooffend by way of exceſſe, but indeed the contrary will be moſt viſible, that he that thus exceeds is more acceptable and more highly rewardable.
ten talents intruſted to him to occupy withal, and having gained other ten, was accepted and rewarded, had he been yet more induſtrious, and brought in his Maſter more profit, gained eleven or twelve talents by thoſe ten, tis not imaginable but this would have been acceptable alſo to his Lord, and yet more highly rewardable.
laboured more abundantly then all the Apoſtles, and this by the grace of God that was in him, and by ſome eminent meaſure of that grace, and ſuppoſing that meaſure to have been no greater in him then it was either in John or Peter, yet would this certainly have been accepted by God, and more richly rewarded, and not uſed like the giants on Procuſtis his bed, all the exuberance cut off and caſt away, I mean required to come down to that lower dereturn, which either of thoſe other diſciples did make, or
loſe his reward of that higher degree. And ſo this is full anſwer to all his exceptions againſt the difference by me aſſigned bePrecept and Grace.
incidental wonder at my expreſſion when I ſaid [it is the deſigne of grace only to ſtrengthen and incline, which he that makes uſe of as he ſhould, is promiſed a reward] upon which he cries out, This is ſtrange divinity, doth God give grace only to ſtrengthen and incline, and leave men free to uſe it or not to uſe it? ſo grace might be given in vain.] To this I briefly anſwer, 1. from the words of Scripture, Heb. 12. 28. that men are exhorted to have grace, i. e. I ſuppoſe to make uſe of it, as when to him that hath, Chriſt promiſeth it ſhall be given, and he ſhall have abundance, tis evident it ſignifies, to him that makes uſe of the grace which he hath, and certainly that exhortation were in vain, if the contrary were not poſſible, and ſo likewiſe when he which hath not (makes not due uſe of it) is threatned with the auferetur, & ejicietur, taking away from him his talent, and caſting him into utter darkneſſe, ſure tis ſuppoſed poſſible, that ſome man may not make uſe of his talent, or elſe theſe threatnings muſt be in vain, or men both deprived and caſt out without any demerit.
Apoſtle exhort, that we receive not the grace of God in vain, that we grieve not, quench not (as elſereſiſting) the Spirit? Doth he not tell us of ſome that did abuſe the grace of God unto wantonneſſe? and can none of theſe be done? Is it not poſſible, through our own corruption and ſinful negligence and default, to reſiſt, to grieve, to quench the ſpirit, be it of prayer, of faith, of charity &c. to abuſe it to wantonneſſe, or not to uſe it through idleneſſe? What then is the meaning of laying up the talent in the napkin, that was ſo pureceive the talent, the grace in vain?
Divinity moſt demurely, if they be a while obſerved, need no other evidence to confute them but what their own words will yield us they that leave nothing to mans will, do yet often exhort and reprehend men, which muſt certainly be vain and ridiculous, unleſſe they that are exhorted be in ſome poſſibility by Gods grace to do what they are exhorted to do, and they that are reprehended
Diatribiſt; He that juſt now thought the Divinity ſo ſtrange, that grace might be given in vain, addes in the very next words that S. Matthew ſaith, take him and caſt him into utter darkneſs for not uſing his talent, which certainly is that identical ſtrange thing, with grace being given him in vain, as to all fruit, or uſe he made of that grace. And in the very next words again he addes, Is he not threatned with loſs of his talent for not uſing it?
ſtrange divinity here cenſured, may have been ſomewhat elſe, not my ſuppoſing that it was left phyſically free or poſſible for man to uſe or not to uſe grace, but that it was morally free, i. e. lawful, or that which included no ſin, and then Gods not giving of grace in vain, muſt be his not giving it ſo as that it ſhall be no ſin not to uſe it; And if that be his meanexpreſſions were very ſtrange, much more then my divinity, ſo ſtrange that I, whoſe divinity it was, could not undiſguiſed by him, (for who would ſay that to give grace without any deſigne of laying obligation ſub periculo animae to make uſe of it, were to give grace in vain? Is there no other poſſible uſe of grace but to condemn them, and render them unexcuſable? this indeed is another branch of no very old Divinity, though theſe daies have not made it ſtrange with ſome men) ſo I ſuppoſe I have already given anſwer to this in the former part of this §. and muſt not now ſo ſoon repeat it.
grace bring obligation with it, and that to ſome return proportionable to that grace, yet ſtill this proportionable return conſiſts in a latitude, which hath ſeveral degrees in it, and as the loweſt of theſe are under obligation, ſo the ſuperior are not, but yet ſuch as will be accepted and rewarded by God, to him that arrives to them. And ſo much for that of the difference between the grace and precept, which he thought would have yielded him ſo great advantage.
Tract of Will-worſhip, was by me added for the preventing of miſtakes; To which end three heads of objections I propoſed, the firſt ariſing from the obligation that prudence ſeems to lay upon us to do alwaies that which is fitteſt and beſt, the ſecond from the general precept of loving the Lord with all the heart, &c. the third from the ſeeming favourableneſs of our doctrine to the Romaniſts works of ſupererogation, & to each of theſe I gave particular anſwers, which muſt be viewed in that Tract from §. 40. to the end. And to theſe anſwers, what he now oppoſes, I ſhall now examine
Every man is bound to be prudent to that degree of prudence which he loſt by ſin. To this I anſwer, that if he ſpeak of the mans own actual ſins, whereby he hath any
infatuated himſelf, there is then truth in his affirmation; but tis not appliable to the matter in hand, viz. to ſuch an high degree of prudence as now I ſpeak of, for of that he may come ſhort, without any degree of actual ſin as ſhall thus infatuate and deprive him of prudence; and beſides, ſpeaking, as I do, of a pious, merciful, and ſo of a regenerate man, I may ſuppoſe him by the inlightning wiſe Spirit of God returned to that ſtate of prudence from which his own actual ſins may have degraded him, & in caſe he be ſo, then, as he is as prudent as by this rule of the Diatribiſts thus underſtood he is bound to be, ſo certainly he is yet capable of growing in that, as in other graces, and ſo of being yet more prudent, and if he do ſo, and thereby obey that exhortation of S. Peters, Grow in grace and in the knowledge—he is ſtill free from ſin in this reſpect, though he have not yet ardegree of prudence that humane, but lapſt nature is capable of.
ſin he means not actual but original ſin, and ſo thinks that every man is bound to be prudent to that degree of prudence that Adam loſt by his fall, this ſure will be found to be a miſtake; For this loſſe of Adams was a puniſhment of Adams ſin, and when it is inflicted by God on his poſterity, muſt be lookt on as a puniſhment, and he that is puniſht cannot be obliged not to be puniſht, No man is now obliged to be as prudent as Adam was in his integrity any more then to be as healthy, i. e. in effect to be immortal, Nay ſuppoſing Adam to have ſinned and ſo to have tranſgreſt the Law in that, it cannot be imagined, that it is over and above that, a new or farther act of ſin in him to be leſſe knowing, prudent, or healthy, then he was; all theſe, without any new act of his will, nay contrary thereto, falling upon him by Gods decree or punitive juſtice; and if it were not ſin in Adam himſelf, then ſure it cannot be ſuch in his poſterity, and ſo a man now, one of his poſterity, cannot be bound to that degree of prudence which Adam once had, any more then to be born in the ſtate of innocence and perfection, when yet he is neceſſarily ſuppoſed to be born after the image of the lapſt imperfect Adam, which he could not be, if he were born in this perfection.
every man is bound to be pious in the higheſt degree, proving it by this, that the law requires
perfection of holineſs, and the Goſpel (ſaith the Doctor) yet greater perfection, and every man is bound to be merciful to his ability, as our heavenly Father is merciful (which ſure is the higheſt degree) this is but an heap of paralogiſmes, no one of the proofs belonging to the higheſt degree of piety or mercy, which was the one thing which was to be inferred from them.
perfection of holyneſs which the law required, was but either ſincere and upright, or at the moſt but unſinning obedience, and neither of thoſe includes the higheſt degree of piety, which is poſſible.
law be meant the Covenant made with Adam in innocence, then indeed tis true that the perfection which that required was unſinning obedience, and if Adam had performed that, tis yet evident that he had been capable of higher degrees of piety then that law required, there being in unſinning obedience, a latitude, and ſo many degrees, of which the loweſt denominates it unſinning, and ſo perfect in that ſenſe, and all the ſuperior degrees are additions, and to each of thoſe higheſt the Law cannot be thought to binde when it is ſatisfied with the loweſt.
inſtances formerly given of frequency in prayer &c. wherein it is viſible that Adam in innocence might have exceeded any proportion which Gods law will be ſupAdam had never ſinned, yet might his ſtate have been a ſtate of proficiency, by which it is evident that the perfection required of him was not the higheſt degree of piety, for then he had ſinned by any lower, and ſo innocence and growth in him had been incompetible; BeAdam and his poſterity ſhould have been rewarded according to their works, and ſo have been capable of different degrees of rewards; in caſe they had coninnocence, which yet had been impoſſible if every man had been bound to be pious in the higheſt degree, and had ſinned as oft as he did not arrive to it.
ſpeculation; & by the law I rather ſuppoſe he meant the law of the Jews, & then the perfection of holineſs wch that required muſt, I ſuppoſe, ſignify truth & ſincerity of holyneſs, ſuch as was in Zac. Lu. 1. 6. & in reſpect of which he was ſaid to be juſt & blameleſs in all the Commandments of the Lord—Now tis as certain that
perfection is as capable of degrees alſo, and that all that are thus perfect, are not yet ſo in the higheſt, or in the ſame degree, Tis certain Zachary and Elizabeth were both thus perfect, but no way probable that they were arrived juſt to the ſame degree of it, one might very reaſonably be deemed to excell the other.
Judaical Law by that which we have oft cited out of the Law, that there was one degree of mercy which was called righteouſneſs, that to which they were obliged by the Law; another ſtyled abundance or excellence of goodneſs,
ch the Law didnot command, ſub periculo animae, require or exact from them: This is ſo plain I need ſay no more of it.
Secondly, That greater perfection, which Chriſt required, is yet but a higher degree of the ſame perfection, but not the higheſt that is poſſible; Suppoſe there be eight degrees as of heat in nature, ſo of zeal or piety, or perfection, and ſuppoſe a Jew required to have ſo many of them as would denominate him perfect, i. e. at leaſt five of them, and a Chriſtian to have more then a Jew, ſupſix, yet 'tis viſible that he that hath all that is required of a Chriſtian, is yet capable of having more, then is ſo required, viz. ſeven, & yet not to arrive to the higheſt that is poſſible, i. e. to the 8. degree
degree a latitude alſo, and in it as it were fractions, of each degree (and all this ſubdiviſion little enough to bear proportion with the great difference of the works of pious men here, or with the difference of the degrees of their glory hereafter) and he that hath the loweſt fraction of the ſixt degree, hath the ſixt degree, but not in ſo high a meaſure, as he that attaineth to an higher, viz. to the ſeventh degree, or to another fraction of the ſixt, and ſo 'tis evident in the hypotheſis or application, that every Chriſtian may be obliged to exceed a Iew in piety, mercy &c. and yet nothing hinder but that one Chriſtian may exceed another in every of theſe.
Thirdly, Though every man be bound to be mercifull to his ability, yet 1. That mercifulneſs which is according to ability is not placed in any indiviſible point; Two men that have the ſame abilities, and the ſame opportunity and occaſion requiring mercy from them, may very lawfully give or be merciful one more then another; For ſuppoſing any ſumme that in all thoſe circumſtances both are bound to give, yet certainly one may lawfully exceed that
more then he was thus obliged, and yet not do beyond his ability; and 2. In caſe he do yet give more, even beyond his ability, i. e. deny himſelf lawfull injoyments on purpoſe to inable himſelf for this higher liberality, yet ſure this will not be ſinfull in him, but on the contrary more acceptable and commendable, as it was in the Macedonians; of whom St
Paul teſtifies that they were liberall of their own accord beyond their power, and as ſuch are propoſed for an example to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 8. 3.
Laſtly, The precept of being mercifull as our heavenly Father is mercifull, is not (the Diatribiſt well knows) applicable to the degree of mercy which is in God, for finite creatures cannot attain to that but onely to the kind of it, mercy to enemies as well as friends, and ſo could not with any colour be brought for a proof of his objection. And indeed after all this the Diatribiſt hath let fall a few words in the cloſe of this 4th §. which ſhew he had no belief in the force of it, For having ſet the caſe ſo as is the moſt for his advantage that he could wiſh, all circumman ſhould be bound to give ſo much as will ſupply anothers wants, and to give leſs were neither prudent nor pious, yet he dares not pronounce if an offence againſt either of thoſe virtues, to go beyond this, but breaks off abruptly with theſe words [whatever it were to give more] From which in confidence of his I ſhall not doubt to infer, that in that very caſe, ſo clothed with all thoſe circumſtances, he cannot deny, but that as I am bound to ſupply his preſent wants, ſo I may make proviſion alſo againſt his future neceſſities, and be far from ſinning, do that which is more acceptable to God in ſo doing.
next return to a 2d
degree of my anſwer, is taken from his old Topick, of virtues conſiſting in a middle point between two extremes, from which if it ſwerve to either extreme it is a fault though not obſerved, perhaps obſervable by men, yet juſtly puniſhable by a righteous God. But to this though much might be ſaid afreſh, from the conſideration of that righteouſneſs of God, which doth not uſe to puniſh thoſe facts which have no Law obſervable by man to forbid them, but firſt ſhews men his will, and what is good, and then requires obedience to it, yet becauſe ſo much hath already been ſaid both to that of all virtues being
middle, and to the latitude and not indiviſible point of that middle, I ſhall not now give farther reply to that; Any more then to the next branch of it, of prudence in our created nature, requiring to do what was fitteſt, for to that I have ſpoken already in this §.
prudence, one farther degree of objection, I foreſaw, viz. that Prudence knowing the greateſt perfection to be moſt gloriouſly rewarded, would bind a man to aſpire to perfection, and not to content himſelf with any thing but the beſt. Upon the firſt ſight of theſe words the Diatribiſt is ſtartled, and diſclaimes making any ſuch objection. But to this I anſwer, that he well knows I had no intelligence with him, and conſequently could not divine his pleaſure, but as well as I could propoſed all objections I foreſaw poſſible from him, or any man elſe, of the moſt different perſwaſions.
other which have more force in them (as all this while he hath not propoſed any, but ſuch as thoſe from the 2d
Commandment) I might expect that this my ſervice ſhould not be ſo very ill interpreted and faſtidiouſly caſt off, with a [we ſhould not have framed ſuch an objection.]
averted, was it ſeems, a leaven of Popery, in thoſe words wherein I had propoſed the objection; And 1. If it were ſo indeed, I wonder, what error I had commmitted, or why Papiſts may not be permitted to make objections, or how the Diatribiſt came to have the monopoly of making them. But then 2. What was the ſuſpicious phraſe which I had uſed? Why forſooth, that I mentioned glorious rewarding, This, ſaith he, ſeems at firſt ſight to touch upon the mercenary and meritorious way of Romaniſts.
ſtay, and behold this rarity. For 1. Is the mercenary way all one with the Romaniſts doctrine of merits? If it be, it is to be feared, that David was a Romaniſt, for certainly he affirmes it of God, that he rewardeth every man according to his works, even when he deprecates the mercy and free grace of God, and makes this the prime evidence of it that he thus rewards men. Nay what is Chriſt when he minds them of their great reward in heaven that ſuffer for him, Mat. 5. 12. That give, and pray in ſecret,
Mat. 6. 2. 5. of a prophets reward and a righteous mans reward, Mat. 10. 41. and of St. Paul of ſuch works peculiarly as were not under precept, 1 Cor. 9. 18. and a multitude of the like nature every where in the Scripture? Is not this reward, merces, and is not all that obedience which is performed in intuition of the glory which ſhall be revealed, this very mercenary way? and being ſo, is it preſently the meritorious way of the Romaniſts; Is there not merces ex pacto, reward by the tenure of Chriſts promiſe, as well as merit either of congruity or condignity; and is it as unlawfull to look at and expect the performance of Gods promiſe, as to challenge heaven as the merit of our works?
Chriſt propoſed his rewards on purpoſe to alcome unto him? and is it not lawfull for us to come that very way which God hath called us? Is not hope a Goſpell grace, and ſuch as ſets us a purifying, 1 Joh. 3. 3. and is not the future reward the object of that hope, and ſo that which regularChriſtian about his work? Nay is not that Faith which juſtifies, in this Diatribiſt's opinion, the belief of the promiſes? and may not a Chriſtian then look at thoſe promiſes, which yet he muſt believe?
he muſt firſt look on the commands of God, and beauty of holineſs, and ſeek that firſt for it ſelf, and by and by, it is but carnal prudence, adviſing onely or firſt to look at the perfection of glory. But to this I anſwer, 1. That the forme of my objection was not ſuch as ſuppoſed prudence to look either onely or firſt on glory, but on the greateſt perfection (of virtue here) as the way to the moſt glorious reward (hereafter) And therefore to inſert the word [onely] was that to which he had no kind of temptation.
priority of order, looking firſt on the reward, it is viſible that I had not given the leaſt intimation of it, but contraprudence would adviſe to aſpire to perfection, and to the beſt, meaning evidently the perfection of virtue (not of glory) to which the moſt glorious reward was proportioned. And yet after all this, ſuppoſe I had ſpoken of ſome man (in my objection) who looks firſt at the perfection of glory, and in order to that laſt end, purſues virtue as the one way to it, could he juſtly ſay this were carnal prudence in him and ſinfull?
beauty of holyneſs is a thing ſeldom diſcerned but by the experience and practice of it, and in that caſe ſure there is need of promiſes to excite and attract to that practice (yea and of terrors to drive) and the Goſpel makes uſe of both theſe, and ſo doth Faith, which is the Spiritual, not carnal prudence. And indeed, if the beauty of holyneſs may firſt be lookt on, and that is one promiſe, but that a leſſe perfect one and to be injoyed in this life, then why may not the eternal reward, which is alſo the beauty of holyneſs, and that a perfect beauty, a purity from ſin, as well as immunity from burthens and miſeries, a wiping aſpots, as well as tears, be firſt lookt on alſo.
Diatribiſt, whether gratitude in a regenerate man who hath received from Chriſt the great benefits of election and redemption and juſtification, may not be alduty? If it may, I demand again, whether the reward decreed to him in his election be not lookt on by him, and whether that do not excite this gratitude? If it do, whether this be a carnal gratitude, and the mercenary way of the Romaniſts?
expatiate on ſuch digreſſions: The Diatribiſts divinity in this point is but ſuitable to what formerly he gave us a taſte of, in the paſſage of ſlaviſh fear, and both together are exemplified to us by the woman that went about the city with a firebrand in one hand, and a baſon of water in the other, ſaying, that one was to burn up heaven, and the other to quench the fire of hell, that neither hope nor fear, promiſes, nor terrors might have the leaſt influence on her, but pure ethereal love do the whole work. And all that I ſhall need adde, is only this, that ſtill there is an heaven and hell in Scripture (and all duty is not quite rarified and converted into this love) and many good Chriſtians there are, which make uſe of both theſe, and ofprecept of Chriſt in doing ſo.
looking at the promiſes in our obedience, not only in a Sermon on 1 Cor. 7. 1. but more punctually in an addition to the Pract. Catech. now in the Preſs, p. 416. &c. and ſo ſhall not here any farther inlarge upon it.
objection are fitter for
Diatribiſt to combat with. I proceed therefore to conſider what replies he makes to them.
firſt anſwer, which was this, That though prudence doth adviſe to this of aſpiring to perfection, yet doth it not lay any command, ſo as not to obey it will be preſently ſinful] (a thing which had oft been proved formerly, by the example of S. Pauls adviſes when he had no commands, for ſure Prudence may well imitate S. Paul herein, and do ſo too) To this I ſay, he replies by bare affirming but not proving or offering the leaſt proof for the contrary, only when he mentions the perfection of virtue, he addes [required by the commands of God] as if the higheſt degree of virtue were under command, which he knowes is the thing which through this whole debate is denied by me, and the proofs and reaſons of my denying it given at large, and then what a begging of the queſtion is it to affirm it here, without any tender or overture of probation?
ſecond anſwer then, which was by conſidering the want of ſtrength in ſome men, which makes it not prudent in them to undertake the ſteep way of the greateſt perfection, founded in the words of Chriſt, He that can receive it, let him receive it,] He replies by asking what perfection I mean which will be dangerous to undertake as a ſteep way? that which is required in the commandments of the Law and Goſpel?] I anſwer, twere a contradiction and madneſs in me, when I ſpeak of perfection, which is not under command, to mean that which is required in the commandments, It is certain I mean uncommanded degrees of virtue, the undertaking thoſe courſes be it of virginity, auſterities, abundant labourings, Martyrdome it ſelf, when either I am not comſtrength from God for the going through with them, or have not any reaſon to perſwade my ſelf that I ſhall be ſo furniſhed. For then, if indeed I have not ſtrength, the very undertaking ſuch heights may prove treacherous and precipitious to me. And that this is my meaning, he at laſt takes nomargent with proofs of it, both from this, and from another Tract, and when he hath taken all that pains to finde out my meaning (which I profeſſe to be it, and thought it had been obvious to any man before) he fairly takes his leave of it again, hath nothing to ſay to it, but returns to that perfection of
holyneſs which, ſaith he, is the duty of all, and all that I need return to him, is this, that if it be ſo, it is not that perfection I ſpeak of viz. virginity, &c. for that, I hope is not every mans duty, but at at the utmoſt his, who can receive it.
even the precept of God may ſometimes interpoſe and make it unlawful for us to aſpire to the moſt perfect ſtate (meaning evidently virginity, martyrdome, &c.) he ſaith this is as ſtrange (and again in the rear, by way of exclamation, What ſtrange divinity is this!) demanding whether Gods precepts croſs one another—when he cannot but ſee that my whole diſcourſe and proceſs is founded in the ſuppoſition of that evident truth, that theſe ſtates of perfection are not under any precept of Gods, and ſo that the precept which ſhall croſs the undertaking of them, is far from croſſing any precept of God.
exclamation and wonderment, he is content at length, as he ſaith, to hear me ſpeak and explain my ſelf. And my explanation being by ſuppoſition of a duty of our calling awaiting us on the one ſide, and an opportunity of martyrdome on the other, and that exemplified by S. Cyprian's caſe, that then obedience is better then the richeſt ſacrifice] here he findes place for triumph and ovation. By this tis evident, ſaith he, he means not perfection of holineſs according to the commandments of God, but a conceited perfection of martyrdome, as Papiſts do.
Tract of uncommanded acts, ſhould not mean that perfection which is according to (as that ſignifies required by) the Commandments of God, is too eviſpecial
diſcovery at this time now toward the concluſion of his view of that Diſcourſe. Of that therefore he hath my free confeſſion; But if by perfection according to the Commandments he will allow me to mean (as the words literally import) that ſort and degree of perfection which the Commandments of the Goſpel allow of very well, though they require it not of every man, or lay it under precept, then I ſhall not doubt to apperfection which I inſtance in, viz. that of martyrdome, to be ſuch, (unleſs when ſome diſcharge of known duty or yet greater good calls us another way) and if this be the doctrine of Papiſts, I hope yet that all Proteſtants are not therefore bound to diſclaim
old Engliſh reformation, which I thought had been ſealed by the blood of many martyrs, had lookt on martyrdome as a conceited Popiſh perfection, And if this be the privilege of the preſent deformation to exclude martyrdome out of the catalogue of virtues, as the Martyrs and Saints out of our Calendars, if this Diatribiſt be now one of that Triumphant Church, which hath thrown all croſs from their ſhoulders, and diſpretenſions to this conceited perfection, and reſolved all to be Papiſts which ſhall thus communicate with the ſufferings of Chriſt, and obſerve this conformity with the image of Gods ſon, Rom. 8. I ſhall only tell him that I ſhall be very well pleaſed to be guilty of this piece of Popery, and to ſuffer from this ſword of the tongue till God pleaſe to call me to any higher tryals: Mean while when the Apoſtle and the Church which hath tranſcribed his ſtyle, have uſed the phraſe being perfected by ſufferings, and called martyrdome
perfection, I cannot retract that ſtyle, what envy ſoever fall on me for the uſing it.
Does God call all men at all times to martyrdome? Is there any command for all men to be martyred &c.] is directly the evincing my aſſertion againſt himſelf, for upon that very foundation it is that I ſuperſtruct, thereMartyrdome which is the higheſt degree of perfection, is not under any command, Quod erat demonſtrandum.
third anſwer, which was, that perfection here had degrees in it, and conſequently ſuppoſing men bound to be perfect, Mat. 5. 48. yet it followes not that they are bound to the higheſt degree of perfection) his anſwer is, he will grant this, and yet deny my voluntary oblations ſtill,] But how can that be, when that higher degree of perfection is ſuppoſed to be under no precept, and ſo to be free, and ſo when arrived to, a voluntary oblation? But his grant, it ſeems was only conditional, for it followes in his words [For we ſay there are degrees of, or rather to perfection here, upon condition that he will grant that every degree, even the higheſt, is required by the law of God, and what is ſhort of that higheſt is ſo far culpable] This condition I confeſſe I cannot perform, and ſo muſt loſe the advantage of his grant, And truly to require it of me is to grant my premiſes, and require me to renounce my concluſion,
conceſſion, that there are degrees in perfection, and there may be perfection, where yet there is not the higheſt degree of perfection, it infallibly follows, that the higheſt degree of perfection is not under obligation of that precept which requires no more then that we be perfect, as when the precept binds to no more then to be mercifull in ſome degree, it is evident that it binds not to be mercifull in the higheſt degree, and conſehigheſt degree of mercy ſhall be ſtill free, under no obligation of precept.
own ſenſe in S t Hieromes words, Charitas quae non poteſt augeri &c. citing Ep. 62 for it. But this citation is ſure miſtaken, there is no ſuch thing in that Epiſtle. The place ſure is in St
Hieromes Epiſtle to St
Auguſtine, where he deſires his ſenſe of thoſe words, Jam. 2. 10. He that
Tom. 9. p. 159.keeps the whole Law, and offends in one point, is guilty of all. On which occaſion he diſcourſeth a great while, how one virtue may be found in them which yet are guilty of other ſins, and ſo from one thing to another, not by way of defining, but by raiſing of difficulties to provoke St
Auguſtines ſolution of them.
virtue, that it is the loving of that which is to be loved, and is in ſome greater, in ſome leſs, in ſome none at all, and then addes, Pleniſſima verò, quae jam non poſſit augeri, quamdiu homo hîc vivit, eſt in nemine; quamdiu autem augeri poteſt, profectò illud quod minus eſt quàm àebet, ex vitio eſt. Ex quo vitio non eſt juſtus in terrâ qui faciat bonum, & non peccet, &c. But the moſt full virtue, ſuch as cannot be increaſed, is in no man as long as he lives here, But as long as it may be increaſed, that which is leſs then it ought to be, is faulty, whereby it is that the Scripture ſaith that there is not a juſt man on earth, which doth good and ſinneth not; and, in thy ſight ſhall no man living be juſtified; and, if we ſay we have no ſin, we deceive our ſelves &c.
view of the place it is evident that the virtue, which, on occaſion of the place in St
James, he ſpeaks of, being an univerſall, impartial obſervation of the whole Law, and conſequently every failing in that a vice (for to that all the proofs belong, that there is no man but ſinneth ſometimes) there is no reaſon to extend his ſpeech any farther then to this, and then it will in no wiſe be
appliable to our buſineſs, which is onely of the degrees of this or that particular virtue, which it is certain that man may have, who yet is guilty of ſome ſin in other particulars.
failes of any part of his duty, is therein faulty, or this is ex vitio in him, and if of that onely S Hieromes words [quamdiu augeri poteſt] be underſtood (as it is moſt reaſonable they ſhould, whether wee judge by the occaſion, or the proofes of his ſpeech, or by the expreſs words, quod minus eſt quàm debet ex vitio eſt, that which is leſs then it ought, i. e. leſs then he is bound to do, is faulty) then as I fully conſent to the truth of them, ſo when that is granted, no man can hence infer, therefore every regular act of obedience which comes ſhort of the higheſt degree of perfection, is a ſin; for beſide many other inconveniences formerly noted, this freſh one will be obſervable from St
Hieromes own words, that then every act of virtue in this life is a ſin, for as for that fulleſt perfection which cannot be increaſed, the beginning of this teſtimony acknownot to be found in any man in this life.
Perfection is capable of two notions, either it may ſignifie the perfect obedience of never ſinning, and of this onely St
Hierome ſpeaks, both when he ſaith it is not attained in this life, and when he addes, that whatſoever is leſs then this is ſinfull. Or elſe it may ſignifie any higher degree of exerciſe of any particular virtue, chaſtity, mercy, fortitude, &c. And of this onely it is that I ſpeak (and St
Hierome in the words cited from him appears not ever to have thought of it) and to this onely my affirmation belongs, that there are degrees in that perfection, and that he that hath attained to any of thoſe degrees, ſins not againſt Chriſts precept of perfection, though he was not arrived to the higheſt degree.
the Doctor goes on, If there be any perfection attainable in this life, twill be capable of degrees and growth alſo] and then he addes, whether he be of their mind who hold perfection poſſible in this life, I cannot ſay, but this I can ſay, he ſpeaks contradictions, for perfection admits of no degrees or growth.
Reader may be abuſed, if I do not give him a true narration of my words in that place, §. 46. Having meninterpretation of the perfection which Chriſt commands us to aſpire to, Mat. 5. 48. viz. that it ſignifies mercifulneſs, Lu. 6. 36. I adde, if that ſenſe will not be admitted, yet if it be any perfection acquirable in this life, twill be capable of degrees and growth alſo. Now by a ſlight change of [if it be] into [if there be] this ſenſe is quite altered and made lyable to ſuſpicion, that I teach perfection (I ſuppoſe he muſt mean the unſinning perfection ſpoken of by St
Hierome) poſſible in this life, and to the charge of ſpeaking evident contradictions, that I can talk of growth in ſuch perfection.
juſtice in this, I hope he will be ſenſible of it. The perfection which I there ſpeak of, be it love and mercy to enemies, or be it any other Chriſtian duty ſet unprecept by Chriſt, is certainly in ſome degree attainable in this life by them which have ſinned, and do ſtill ſinne through infirmity, in other things, and perhaps in ſome circumſtances of this, and then I hope there can be no hereſie in this, to ſay that by the grace of Chriſt one may obey ſuch a precept of Chriſts, love his enemies &c. when St
Paul profeſſeth unlimitedly he can do all things through Chriſt that ſtrengthened him.
contradiction can there be in affirming that in this virtue of loving enemies, of mercy &c. there are degrees and conſequently poſſibility of growth? Of mercy it hath oft been exemplified that it is ſo, and whatever particular virtue it be that can be phanſied to be meant by Chriſt by perfection, I doubt not but it will be as viſible, when that virtue is named. But the Diatribiſt attempts nothing that way, onely miſtakes perfection for ſome other thing, either for a ſinleſs perfection, or for ſuch a ſtate as cannot be increaſed, knowing well enough that that is not attainable in this life, and certainly is not the matter of Chriſt's precept, Mat. 5. and as certainly is not the perfection that there I ſpeak of.
if the perfection (ſpoken of in the objection) be not acquirable in this life, 'tis certainly not under Evangelical precept now, citing that of Mat. 11. of Chriſts light and ſupportable burthen, and his commands not grievous, i. e. poſſible to be performed by us] falls under his very ſharp diſcipline, This, ſaith he, is ſtrong and ſtrange confidence.
bear with, but thank him for it; I ſhall onely examine the reaſons which he offers for thus accuſing me. They are three, Firſt, becauſe the Law requires perfect obedience of Chriſtians, as the rule of eternal righteouſneſs, adding that all orthodox Divines have maintained this againſt the Church of Rome, Onely the Doctor is of the Church of Romes mind, and charges the Law with imperfection, citing it from Pract: Cat: p. 94.
miſadventures, I ſhall but name them, 1. That the Law requires perfect obedience of Chriſtians, meaning by that the Moſaical Law, for that onely, be knowes, it is, which the Doctor chargeth with imperfection. The Law indeed ſomeCovenant of exact unſinning obedience, and of that Law or that Covenant it is moſt true that it required perfect, as that ſignifies unſinning obedience. But then 1. This was the firſt Covenant, and is not now in force with faithfull penitent Chriſtians, who are not under this Law but under grace, i. e. under a 2d
Covenant which requires not innocence but repentance, ſincere, not perfect obedience: And therefore 2dly. It cannot trueLaw requires this perfect obedience of Chriſtians, nor conſequently that it is the rule of Evangelicall righteouſneſs, i. e. of that righteouſneſs by which believers are now ſaid to be juſtified: I ſhall not inſiſt on the proving of this here, becauſe it is but a digreſſion in this place, and is abunPract: Cat. concerning the two Covenants.
dly. That he makes this doctrine of the Law's requiring perfect obedience of Chriſtians, to be one of the Doctrines mainorthodox againſt the Church of Rome, when it is indeed but a contention of words, that the Diatribiſt (it ſeems) and ſome others have eſpouſed againſt I know not what adverſary.
dly. That the Doctors charging the Law with imperfection is a thing wherein he complies with the Church of Rome, when tis evident in that place of the Catech: that 1. The words of Chriſt that he came, to fill up the vacuities of the Moſaical Law, and 2. The many expreſs examples of his doing ſo, in that 5t. of Mat. his additions to the Law in ſo many par[It was ſaid of old—But I ſay unto you] and laſtly, the uniforme ſuffrage of all antiquity joyning in this interpretation of Chriſts words, was the ground whereon I built my affirmation, and if in this the Church of Rome were of my mind (as I do not find it is, making ſome of thoſe additions, Mat. 5. counſels, not all of them precepts) I ſhould never diſclaime the doctrin upon that account, any more then the articles of the Creed, which the Church of Rome is acknowledged to believe with us.
d
proof is, that the Goſpel cals for the perfection of the law, Be ye perfect as he is perfect, Mat. 5. and be ye holy as he is holy, 1 Pet. 1. 15, 16. I anſwer, 1. this proves not his propoſition, viz. that it was ſtrong and ſtrange confidence in me, to ſay, that if the perfection be not acquirable in this life, tis not now under Evangelical precept, Acquirable perfection may be (and ſome degree of it is) under precept, but unacquirable perfection is not. Chriſts eaſie yoke is not now made up to us of impoſſible precepts. 2dly. That perfection in one of the places mentioned by him, apmercifulneſs, and the holineſs in the other, that of S. Peter being oppoſed to the former luſts, when they were in ignorance, reſpects either that ſort of purity particularly, or however that more univerſal purity, which is now more ſeverely required of all Chriſtians, in an higher degree, then it had been under the Jewiſh oeconomy; and of eiEvangelical precept. But then ſtill that is nothing to the higher degrees of thoſe, or other Chriſtian virtues, which all this while we ſpeak of. No more is that which follows from the Doctor himſelf, ſaying that Chriſt came to perfect the Law. So he might do, and yet leave ſome degrees of mercy &c. free and not under precept, as hath oft been ſaid.
perfection which Chriſt came to adde is ſtill the perfection of the Law, It is true, it was the requiring of what the law had not required, and ſo the adding more to it, and perfecting it as a law, requiring all that ever ſhall be required of men by law, or precept. But this concludes nothing againſt higher degrees of this very perfection, being ſtill left free, and not under law, the onely thing which now he contends againſt.
d
proof is taken from the account I give in the Pract. Cat. p. 95. of the lightneſſe and ſupportableneſs of Chriſts burthen, 1. in taking off the burthen of unprofitable ceremonies, 2. in taking away the damning power of every leaſt ſin, &c. 3. in giving greater ſtrength. From whence he concludes, It was not then, that he required not perfect holineſſe under the Goſpel. I anſwer 1. concluſion can with no Logick be thus deduced being à teſtimonio negativè. It is very poſſible there might be other reaſons, beſide thoſe I there named, My menthree being ſufficient for the matter then in hand, did no way prejudge or exclude more. But then 2. I grant that this now mentioned, neither was, nor well could have been any part of my account of the eaſineſs and ſupportableneſs of Chriſts Evangelical burthen, above that legal of Moſes, becauſe it was common both to the law of Moſes and of Chriſt, that there were ſome degrees of perfection, which were by neither of them under precept, Moſes's law had place for free-will offerings, as well as Chriſts, nay Chriſts hath put ſome things under precept, as I conceive, which were not under precept by Moſes's law, in this one reſpect there lies more weight on a Chriſtian then did formerIew, but that is abundantly recompenſed by other reſpects, which this is not a ſeaſon to inlarge upon.
objections in this matter, it will I hope be conſequent, that he hath not yet demonſtrated the truth of that aſſertion, which from what he hath ſaid he aſſumes to be apparently and viſibly true, viz. that every man is bound to do that which is beſt, becauſe the law and the Goſpel alſo require perfection of obedience in every commandment; For to this I have oft replied, that both of them require perfect obedience to all, that either of them requires, which notwithſtanding there are ſtill precept either of law or Goſpel requires, or puts under neceſſity of obligation to any.
falſeneſs of that propoſition, that every man is bound to do that which is beſt, I had formerly evidenced by two means, 1. the words of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7. 38. he that marries doth well, but he that marrieth not doth better, 2. by this, that the beſt being a ſuperlative, ſuppoſes the poſitive, which is lower then that, to be yet good, &c.
anſwer; To the firſt, that well and better there, do not refer to moral goodneſs but worldly good, for the preventing of troubles in thoſe afflicted and perſecuting times. But this anſwer will be ſoon ſhaken aſunder, 1. by conſidering that as the well and better do certainly belong to the ſame kind of good, ſo it is viſible that the well cannot belong to the worldly but moral good, and then conſequently the better muſt do ſo too. That the doth well, belongs to moral goodneſs, is evident by v. 28. where adviſing them that are looſed from mariage, not to mary, he addes but and if, or, though thou do mary, thou ſinneſt not, and if the virgin mary, ſhe ſinneth not, What can be more clear then that the doing well is not ſinning, and ſure that is a moral, not only a worldly good.
Apoſtle is as expreſſe that the marying is quite contrary to the worldly good, for having ſaid, that they that mary ſin not, he addes immediately v. 28. but ſuch ſhall have trouble to the fleſh, and what can be more contrary to worldly good? But yet farther 3. the Apoſtle ſets down the advantages of not marrying v. 32. the unmarried careth for the things of the Lord how he may pleaſe the Lord and the unmaried woman in like manner that ſhe may be holy both in body and ſpirit v. 34. whereas the maried man cares for the things of the world how he may pleaſe his wife, and the woman in like manner how ſhe may pleaſe her husband; And then are not theſe ſpiritual (not barely worldly) advantages, and is not the holyneſs of both body and ſpirit, and the caring for the things of the Lord, a greater moral or rather ſpiritual good, then the bare caring for the things of the world, to pleaſe a yoke-fellow? I hope I need ſay no more on this; nor ſure on that which he next addes, that if the perſon have not the gift of continence, it is then not only good but neceſſary for him to mary, for he knowes that as S. Paul ſpake of him that had that gift, when he ſaith he doth better, ſo I that only cited S. Pauls words, muſt be reſolved to ſpeak alſo. But as long as of him that hath that gift, i. e. hath power of his own will, it is true, that if he mary, he doth well, i. e. ſinneth not, but yet doth better if he do not mary, it is evident that I have all that I pretend to, and certainly this is given me by S. Pauls words.
d
argument that the beſt being ſuperlative, ſuppoſes
the poſitive to be good, he replies [I hope the Doctor will not deny but works done by Faith are good, and yet that they are not perfect in this life, i. e. come ſhort of what we are bound to by the Goſpel, will he now ſay they are evil?] I anſwer, I will not ſay they are evil, but they are good though not perfect from all poſſible mixture of ſin. And what now he can gain from this his queſtion thus anſwered by me, as he expects I ſhould anſwer it, it will not be eaſie for any man to imagine, For ſure this is the confirming not the diſproving of my argument, For by his own ſetting it, it is manifeſt, that thoſe things are not evil, which yet are capable of a greater perfection, and then the perfection being the ſuperlative the poſitive is ſuppoſed to be good, and not evil, and yet evil it muſt have been, if every thing which is inferiour to the moſt perfect, were ſin, or if the higheſt perfection were under Precept.
Gregory, that all humane juſtice is convinced to be injuſtice, if it be ſtrictly judged] is 1. contrary to his former queſtion to me [will he now ſay they are evil?] whatDoctor think, the Diatribiſt it ſeems will ſay they are convinced to be injuſtice, and that, I muſt ſuppoſe, is evil, (and is not this great inconſtancy in him?) 2. It is of no force againſt my pretenſions, for when I ſaid, ſuch a thing is good, and another beſt, I never meant that either of them is not convincible by Gods ſtrict judgement to have ſome mixture of evil, but that the evil which is or may be adherent to it in ſome other reſpect (as of all humane actions is acknowledged) being pardoned by God in Chriſt, the lower degree being good, i. e. an act of obedience to Chriſts command, that which is higher and ſo better then that, may yet be ſomewhat which he hath not commanded, and ſo ſtill a Chriſtian. And thus much on occaſion of the ſeveral degrees, and paſſages of my anſwer to the firſt objection, which I foreſaw, that which was taken from the conſideration of what Prudence might adviſe and ſeem to require of us, which hath proved a buſineſs of ſome length.
d
objection from thoſe large comprehenſive words, Thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. I anſwer'd thus, that that phraſe [with all &c.] denoted onely two things, 1. The ſincerity of this Love of God, as oppoſed to partial, divided love, (to which I now adde for farther explication, that what we do according to the precepts of Gods Law, we do out of love toward God, not hypocritically, or as by conſtraint; and 2. not admitting any thing elſe into competition with him, this ſincere love of God, mean while being capable of degrees, ſo that it is very poſſible for two men to love God with all the heart, and yet one to love him more intenſely then another (as was exemplified among the very Angels) nay for the ſame perſon, which ſo loves him, to love him, and expreſs that love more intenſely at one time then another, as appeared by the example of Chriſt, Lu. 22. 44.
theſe two are there required, but not onely theſe, but perfect love, ſuch as caſts out fear, 1 Joh. 4. 18. ſuch as was in Adam in innocency; To which I need ſay no more then what hath formerly been ſaid, that even that perfect love which was in Adam in innocence, conſiſted not in any indiviſible point, but had a latitude, and conſequently ſeverall degrees of that perfect love. But then withall it muſt be remembred that the perfect love, 1 Joh. 4. 18. is not all one with that which Adam had in innocence, for that he confeſſeth is not acquirable in this life, whereas the love in St
John that caſts out fear is in every Confeſſor, and Martyr for Chriſt, and is elſewhere ſtyled, love of Chriſt in ſincerity, Eph. 6. 24. in the notion wherein perfection is all one with ſincerity; But then this
degrees, one Martyr or Confeſſor may be more zelous, & expreſs more intenſe and fervent love, then another doth.
Hierome, was in one part anſwered before, and muſt not now be repeated; As for the other, it may anſwer it ſelf, one part being directly contrary, if not contradictory to the other; For when he hath admitted and allowed of the ſuppoſition, that ſincere love is capable of degrees either in one man at ſeverall times, or in two men at the ſame time, and ſo both obey the precept, yet, ſaith he, thoſe degrees argue love not to be perfect, and ſo far faulty in vitio,] But ſure if thoſe of whom the ſuppoſition is made, do both obey the precept, then they do not offend againſt it; if they do not offend againſt it, then is not this faulty, or in vitio, for ſure every fault or vice muſt be a tranſgreſſion of the Law. The evidence of the matter may, it ſeems, extort ſome few words of truth from a gainſayer, though to acknowledge it intirely and conſtantly, it muſt not be expected.
argument from what we read concerning Chriſt himſelf, that he was more intenſe in prayer at one time then another, when yet the lower degree was ſure no ſin; and prepares to make anſwer to it, viz. that Chriſt was above the Law, and did more then the Law required, but men fall ſhort many degrees of what is required.
anſwer is nothing to the matter now in hand, for the evidencing of which that example of Chriſt was brought by me, viz. that ſincere love is capable of degrees, This was firſt ſhewed in ſeveral men, and in the ſame man at ſeveral times, in the ſeveral ranks of Angels, and at laſt in Chriſt himſelf, more ardent in one act of prayer then in another; wherein what is affirChriſt is common to Angels and men, and ſo ſtill may be though he differ from them in other things, to wit, that he is perfect and never ſins, though men be imperfect and faulty, the beſt of them, For ſtill it muſt be remembred, that it is not the ſinleſs perfection we ſpeak of when we ſay it conſiſts in a latitude, and hath degrees, but ſincerity of this or that virtue, expreſt in this or that performance, and as this, though it excludes not all mixture of ſin in the ſuppoſitum (the man in whom it is) yet may by the grace of God in Chriſt exclude it in this or that act (for it is
act of mercy, give as much as any Law obligeth me to give, and ſo not ſin in giving too little) ſo to this, his, anſwer belongs not at all, nor ſhews any difference or reaſon why ſuch ſincerity may not in any pious Chriſtian, be capable of degrees, as well as in Chriſt himſelf, and the loweſt of them be ſinleſs, and all the Superior, voluntary oblations, more then the ſtrict Law required of us.
ejaculation, pray to God ſincerely and ardently, to avert an evill from him, I ſhall ask, whether he commit any ſin in reſpect of ardency? If it be anſwered, yes, he doth, in caſe it be poſſible for him, or any man elſe, or Adam in Paradiſe, to pray more ardently, I ſhall then hope I ſhall have refuted his anſwer, by the example of Chriſt, who when he prayed ardently, did not ſin, though he fell ſhort of that higher degree, which after that we find he uſed.
alone he addes in this matter, that the example of Chriſt holds forth, that great preſſures call for inlargements of affections, not as voluntary oblations, but as duties. I ſhall onely ask whether they did ſo call for that very degree of inlargement, which Chriſt at laſt uſed, If it did not, then it ſeems this addition was little to the purpoſe, If he ſhall ſay it did, then how could he even now ſay, that Chriſt did ſupererogate in this particular, and that it was not appliable to men.
anſwer to the laſt objection freeing this doctrin of voluntary oblations, or of doing ſomewhat which is free
uncommanded, from all lyableneſs to the ſuſpicion of being favourable to the doctrine of Supererogation among the Romaniſts, which is founded in their opinion that a man may by theſe performances make ſatisfaction for his own and other mens ſins, which I that no way believe or acknowledge, cannot be charged as guilty of that opinion.
evidence, §. 51, 52, 53. I ſhall here adde, and apply one conſiderable ſayt
Cyprian's in the Epiſtle ad Lapſos, telling them that Qui in Eccleſiâ ſemper glorioſi & granditer operati ſunt, opus ſuum Domino nunquam imputaverunt, Thoſe which have through all times wrought gloriouſly and heroically in the Church, yet never thought their Maſter beholden to them. That is the meaning of imputare to reckon their layings out & charge him with whom they reckon to be in their debt. For want of underſtanding of which (or from ſome worſe principle) the latter edition of St
Cyprian by Pamelius leaves out the word [nunquam, never] which the old Baſil edition doth retain, and the ſenſe evidently requires in that place.
full ſenſe in this matter) and by what is already ſaid in that treatiſe, that objection is wholly ſuperſeded, for I do not pretend that God becomes a debtor to any man for any of his moſt bountifull ſpontaneous oblations, but that 'tis an act of infinite mercy in God, as the Pſalmiſt ſaith, that any the moſt excellent work of ours is rewardable with him. And that partly becauſe we being ſinners, the utmoſt we can ever do, can never make ſatisfaction for our ſinnes, and partly becauſe whatſoever degree of perfection either by doing or ſuffering we can aſpire to, 1. It is ſtill a work of God's good grace and ſtrength in us, (for what haſt thou which thou haſt not received? and then what place for glorying?) and 2. It is in no degree meet or worthy to be compared, bears no proportion to the glory which ſhall be revealed, and partly again, becauſe God wants neither our obedience, nor our richeſt performances, we onely are like to receive the benefit of them, and ſo we onely are debtors to our ſelves, and can claime nothing from him, ſave onely on the account of meer mercy.
objects, is that this diſtinction betwixt doing more then is commanded, and doing ſomething which is not commanded, is new, and ſometimes coincident
for he (ſaith he) that doth ſomewhat not commanded, doth alſo ſomewhat more then is commanded. And becauſe he cannot but know my notion there of doing ſomething more, viz. doing all, and and more then all, he therefore preſſeth it farther, that in this ſenſe the Romaniſts in their ſupererogation doe not ſuppoſe that he which ſupererogates hath done all that is commanded him.
Romaniſt is not ſo groſſe, as to affirm him that ſupererogates not to have ſinned, And thereRomaniſts doctrine, or that our doctrine was by that one diſtinction, differenced from theirs, but having by way of foundation laid that diſtinction (as will appear to any that ſhall view the place §. 51.) I make the notion of ſupererogation to be founded in one of theſe two, either in having paid all that is due (i. e. having never ſinned) or 2. (having been a debter, i. e. a ſinner) in paying that debt by ſatisfaction, And the latter of theſe two it was, and not the former, wherein I placed the Romaniſts opinion, and wherein I conceived the doctrine of free-will oblations under the Goſpel to differ from their doctrine of ſupererogating, as appears §. 52. And this he ſees, and ſets down in his next words, It was but the multiplying of my lines, and his own, that he could not earlier take notice of it.
d then at length after ſome prooeme he will proceed; that ſtill I cannot free my doctrine from ſome kinde of ſupererogation, for, ſaith he, ſuch works have not their denomination from ſatisfaction made by them, but they are therefore called ſatisfactions, becauſe they are ſomething more then the law required, ſupererogare is as much as ſuper quod erogavit lex.
bottome all this Diatribiſts ſtruetymology which his fancy, or ſomewhat elſe hath ſuggeſted to him, of the word ſupererogation, which if it ſhould hold, I (after all this debate thus farre prolongyield the cauſe to the Diatribiſt, thus farre at leaſt, that I were a friend to one word made uſe of by the Romaniſts. But I am ſo well aſſured of this Diatribiſts failings in this kind, by the experience of his ſuper ſtatutum, from whence he would have ſuperſtition deduced (and loſt his chief hold, when that origination of the word was wreſted from him) that I may be allowed again to queſtion his skill in that faculty. That erogare
lay out (and not to require) is evident enough, erogare pecuniam in claſſem, to lay out money upon the navy, is Cicero's phraſe, pro Flacco, erogare pecunias ex aerario, in his Oration in Vatinium, erogare in oleum, in Plinie Ep. 240. joyned with conferre in operibus balnei, unde in eos ſumptus pecunia erogaretur, in Livie l. 1. and the ſubſtantive erogatio for expending or laying out, erogatio pecuniae in Cicero ad Atticum l. 15. 32. Tot impendiis, tot erogationibus, ſaith Plinie in his Panegyrick, and in Suetonius 'tis explained by largitio, and profuſio pecuniarum.
ſupererogo is to lay out all and more, and from the opinion of pious mens doing ſo, the Romaniſts have clearly raiſed their treaſure of the Church, as the bank into which theſe payments are made. I could not have expected that there ſhould be any queſtion made of this; As it is, I hope this will ſatisfie it, And then alas what a remote, unhappy etymologie hath this Diatribiſt fallen on, ſupererogare is as much as ſuper quod erogavit lex! Had he been pleaſed to have engliſhed this latine, the miſtake had been too viſible, and therefore that was more prudently omitted; For what can erogavit ſignifie in that period of his? Required? (ſo he renders it in the following period, works, ſaith he, may be ſaid ſupererogare, when men think they have done more then the law required) But 1. that is in no wiſe the meaning of the word, as hath already been manifeſted; 2. whatſoever it ſhall be reſolved to ſignifie, yet in this way of etymologie, the erogavit belongs to the law, whereas we know in the uſe of the word among all Romiſh writers it is the man or the works (not the law) which erogates, i. e. lays out his money, pains, life, &c. and proportionably which ſupererogates. 3. (and which is yet more groſſe) the ſuper muſt in this etymologie be aſſigned to the man, as the erogating to the law, and ſo the one word be divided belaw muſt be ſaid to erogate, the man to ſuper, and what is that, either nothing, or elſe to ſupererogate, and yet that he cannot do in any ſenſe wherein the law could be ſaid to erogate. Thus (beyond all either reaſon or grammar) incongruous, and inconſiſtent is this etymologie.
nature of the word, all that remains of his exercitation, being built upon this miſtake,
ſuperſeded, yet I ſhall attend him
In many reſpects, ſaith he, ſuch works may be ſaid to ſupererogate, 1. with reſpect to the law it ſelf, when men think they have done more then the law required, which makes them not ſupererogatory, but derogatory from the perfection of the law of God, and lays imperfection upon it (as the Doctor hath plainly done above) To this I anſwer, 1. that by his own confeſſion theſe which he now mentions, are not ſupererogatory works, but the contrary, why then doth he ſet them as a firſt inſtance of the mareſpects in which ſuch works may be ſaid to ſupererogate? 2. When he knowes, that that treatiſe of mine, on which he exerciſes his diſcipline, doth not defend the thinking a mans ſelf to doe more then the law requires, but preciſely (in diſtinction from that) to doe ſomewhat which the law doth not require, why ſhould he ſtill confound things thus ſevered, and lay that to my charge which he knows I am not guilty of? 3. There is no truth in his ſuggeſtion, that this doctrine as it is taught by me, is derogatory to, or layes imperfection to the law of God.
law of God, he mean the Moſaical law, then though from Chriſts own words I conclude that he came to fill it up, or perfect it, and ſo that it had in it before vacuities and imperfections, yet the doctrine of the treatiſe of Will-worſhip, is no way founded or concerned in that; As for the law of Chriſt, unlaw of the Jewes, ſome things are left free and uncommanded (and conſequently I affirm it poſſible for a Chriſtian to do ſomething which is not commanded him) I never accuſed that of imperfection, but doe without all doubting ſuppoſe it to be a perfect codex of commands, to which God will never adde more; and when I have done ſo, I found this doctrine of the Chriſtians voluntary oblations, in this perfection (not imperfection) of this law, viz. that even in the greateſt perfection there is a latitude, and the higher degrees of that latitude are not under precept.
d way of ſupererogating he mentions in reſpect to other men, as the Phariſee that ſaid with ſcorn and pride enough, I am not like other men, I faſt twice a week, &c. To this I anſwer, 1. that this as little belongs to the true, as it doth to his falſe noſupererogating. For in neither of them doth the ſuper
intimate ſuperiority above other men, and 2. that he that thus ſcorns and exalts himſelf above other men, is far from doing more herein then is commanded, tis evident he comes ſhort of very duty in an eminent moſt rewardable virtue, that of humility, wherein he that ſtrives not to exceed as much, and more, as in any voluntary oblations, tis evident that he is no good Chriſtian, and I never undertook to plead for ſuch Phariſees, but of all others think Chriſtians obliged to uſe all diligence to avert this ſhipwrack.
Apoſtle himſelf both by his doctrine and practiſe, allowes of a glorying, but it is certainly an humble rejoycing, in having done things which he knowes are eminently acceptable to God, and elſewhere, rejoycing in his own work, and as this is no way increaſable to a Chriſtian by comparing it with other mens defects or charity makes him paſſionately wiſh, and his humility really think all others better then himſelf, ſo it is very far from that ſcorn and pride in all Phariſees which makes them diſcriminate themſelves from other men.
d way he mentions is, with reſpect to the overpleaſing and acceptance of God, when they that think they can do ſomething not commanded, expect to find more acceptance from God then they themſelves or other do for doing onely what is commanded. To this I anſwer, 1 That ſtill this is nothing to the notion of the word ſupererogating, (which ſure ſignifies not overpleaſing) 2. That if one caution be taken in, viz. that uncommanded works can never ſatisfie for diſobediences, and conſequently that it is perfect impiety and folly to neglect any duty, on one ſide, and then to think to compenſate that by doing more then is commanded, on the other ſide: If I ſay, this caution he premiſed, and proporearlyeſt and principalleſt care be taken to ſecure duty, to make good obedience, in cannot be amiſs in the next place to ſuperadde this other care of the moſt eminent heroical (uncommanded) performances, and he that ſhall have obſerved this method uprightly, eſchewed evill, in a ſtrict mortifying of luſts &c. in abſtaining from ſin, and doing all that is commanded (as,
Virtus eſt vitium fugere, & Sapientia prima Stultitiâ caruiſſe—)
failed, ſecured his retrait by an early humiliation, confeſſion, begging of pardon in Chriſt, and ſincere reformation, and then laboured induſtriouſly to ſuperſtruct doing of good, works of the more eminent (I mean uncommanded) degrees of virtue, I ſhall not doubt to incourage him, to think confidently, and expect from our great more and greater acceptance (I ſhall adde, reward alſo) then the ſame perſon could in reaſon expect for doing onely what is commanded.
compare himother men, the poſſible hazard of that, exemplified by the Phariſee, perſwading the contrary, yet of the truth of the ſucceſs there is no reaſon to make queſtion, or ſuſpect, but that of two men which have been equall in obediences, one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection, the more perfect ſhall have the richeſt reward, as is moſt evident whether by condegrees of glory in heaven, or the rule by which God diſtributes them ſtill under the Goſpell, by way of reward to every man, ſecundum opera, according to his works.
Papiſts thinking they can merit with God by ſuch works for themſelves and others, though ours, ſaith he, are not come ſo far yet] is an eſſay of his charitable opinion of us; and I ſhall take it by the beſt handle I can, and conclude from it, then, by his own confeſſion, we are not Papiſts yet, and then I do not (after all that tract of Will-worſhip) maintain works of Supererogation yet, and then I need onely adde, that tis no way uſefull for him to loſe his pains and his charity by confuting thoſe of whom he onely divineth that they may hereafter fall into falſe doctrine, which yet I hope I ſhall not do, having no temptation from all this Diatribiſt's Exercitation, and the arguments therein contained, to fly to any other Sect of Religion to furniſh my ſelf with anſwers for him.
d. Exercitation, is wholly ſpent either in proving it to be my doctrine (which I wilvoluntary oblations are more acceptable and rewardable with God, or in repeating his own ſenſe, the more voluntary the more abominable (wherein it ſeems we are already at diſtance enough, a man need not fly to the
Papiſts doctrine of Supererogation to make the breach the wider) or in charging on this doctrine that it makes Superſtitious Will-worſhippers and formaliſts to overlook others with abundance of contempt and inſolence, adding Characters, by which we may diſcern who they are to whom he is pleaſed to affixe theſe titles.
anſwer is 1. with St
Paul, Rom. 14. that as thoſe which freely do thoſe things which others account unlawfull, ought not to deſpiſe thoſe which do them not; ſo on the other ſide, thoſe which do them not, ought in no wiſe to judge or condemne thoſe which do them, and conſequently that if our Biſhops, whom he ſeems to tranſlate, thoſe who did overlook others, had really been guilty of contempt and inſolence toward them, yet had not this been more criminous in them, more contrary to St
Paul's direction, then this which is here viſible in this Diatribiſt, in calling them Superſtitious Will-worſhippers, and Formaliſts, which firſt preſumes all uſe of uncommanded ceremonies to be Superſtition firſt, and then Formality: and ſo is a double untruth, and 2. charges thoſe two great ſins upon his own Lawful Superiors, and ſo is a double uncharitableneſſe, attended with diſobedience to and ſeparation from them: I delight not now to compare theſe ſins, and affirme, which is more culpable; If his own plain words or conſcience do not accuſe this Diatribiſt in any of theſe, neither ſhall I accuſe him, but rather implore God's pardon for him; And onely adde 2. That I have reaſon to hope and believe that the Governors of our Church, and thoſe who lately preſided in it, did not make their own voluntary performances the foundation or occaſion of any degree of contempt or inſolence towards others which uſed them not; If any did, I neither intended nor now deſign any defence for them: And ſo much for the 2d
Exercitation.
Feſtivals, I had thought that the cuſtomary practice of the univerſal Church of Chriſt, and particularly the perpetual immemorial uſage of the Church of England, continued, as farre as we can diſcern, from the firſt plantation, without any interruption, to the time of writing that treatiſe, might have had ſome weight with any that were not contentious, if it were but upon the account of S. Pauls argument thus drawn from the cuſtomary practiſe of the Churches of God.
Diatribiſt falls preſently into the examination of that place where S. Paul uſeth that argument 1 Cor. 11. 16. and inquires what inferences naturally ariſe from the words of the Apoſtle. But I who deſigned to conclude no more from that reference but only this, that the cuſtome of the Church ought to be of ſome force and weight with any meek ſon of the Church, have no need of following him into that inquiry, if the looſeſt conſideration and very firſt view of thoſe words do not prove that, neither ſhall I farther contend for it.
Paul argued from cuſtome, and I propoſed the like argument, and ſo made a reference to S. Paul, whoſe example I thus farre tranſcribed, and if in other reſpects the analogy held not, it matthis, that cuſtome was conſiderable in circumſtances of religion, ſuch was covering or not covering the head in the ſervice of God there, and ſuch is the obſervation of a Feſtival here; And this is all that I need reply to his firſt §.
ex abundanti adde one or two teſtimonies for the confirming the weakeſt part of that conſideration, viz. the reaſonableneſs of complying with, (ſo as not to oppoſe) the cuſtome of any particular Church, though they be no more then ſo, though they pretend not to be derived from the Apoſtles, whether by inſtitution or practiſe, ſuppoſing withall that they are no way contrary thereto.
t
Ambroſe, ſufficiently known. Ad quamcunque Eccleſiam veneritis, ejus morem ſervate, ſi pati ſcandalum non vultis aut facere; To whatſoever Church ye come, obſerve the cuſtome thereof, if you will neither receive nor give ſcandal.
dly. The (as clear) words of Ep. 28. Tom: 1. p. 69.t
Auguſtine, Ego te illud breviter admonendum puto, traditiones Eccleſiaſticas (praeſertim quae fidei non officiunt) ita obſervandas ut à majoribus traditae ſunt, nec aliorum conſuetudinem aliorum contrario more ſubverti. I would briefely admoniſh you that Eccleſiaſtical traditions (eſpecially ſuch as offend not the faith) are ſo to be obſerved as they are delivered by our Anceſtors, nor muſt the cuſtome of ſome be ſubverted by the contrary cuſtome of others. And yet higher in the ſame Epiſtle, Ʋnaquaeque provincia praecepta majorum leges Apoſtolicas arbitretur, Let every Province eſteem the precepts of their Anceſtors as Apoſtolical Laws, i. e. certainly pay obſervance to them, though they be not of Apoſtolical inſtitution.
Iſidore, l. 2. de Eccl: Offic: c. 43. Nec diſciplina in his melior eſt gravi prudentique Chriſtiano, niſi ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit Eccleſiam ad quam devenerit. There is no better rule in ſuch things for a grave and prudent Chriſtian, then to do in that manner as he ſees the Church do to which he comes.
ſuffrages might be heaped up on this occaſion; theſe few may ſuffice to juſtifie all that I had ſaid in that firſt §.
d §. had propoſed one argument for the antiquity of this uſage among us, founded in the adverſaries ſuggeſtion againſt it. The adverſaries generally accuſe the Chriſtmaſs Feſtivity for ſome heatheniſh mixtures reteined in it; From which, if it were true, or however from the conceſſion of thoſe that affirmargument might be drawn, that therefore it was to be taken as granted, that this uſage was continued among us from the time of our firſt converſion from heatheniſm.
inference can be avoided; For how can any heathen uſage adhere to this Feſtivity, if all heathen cuſtomes were laid aſide long before this Feſtival were obſerved? Can it be imagined that after the ejecting of heatheniſm and the ſolemn abolition of all their feaſts, Saturnalia and the like, when Chriſtianity had gotten the poſſeſſion, there ſhould ſtill continue among them thoſe adherent rites of their heathen feaſts, ſo many accidents without their ſubjects? Or that Chriſtians that had long ſince renounced heatheniſm, and at length received this Chriſtian feaſt, ſhould ranſack their heathen rituals for ceremonies wherewith to adorn it?
no way conſtringent with this Diatribiſt; For, ſaith he, they might be added ſome good while after the firſt converſion of ſome part of this Iſland, the better to win the reſt to a liking of Chriſtian religion, by conforming to them in the celebration of feſtivals. As the like was done to win the Jews in obſerving the old ſabbath, Pentecoſt, &c.
evaſion; For 1. it is by this anſwer confeſt, that as to ſome parts of this Iſland, my argument is of force, and that in thoſe this feſtival was introduced as early as their Chriſtianity, and if that may be granted me, I ſhall conmedium, but think I have gained a very fair confeſſion for the antiquity of this uſage in this Church, that this feſtivity was thus early introduced among us, even as ſoon,
Chriſtianity had gotten poſſeſſion of this whole Nation.
Nation was not converted the ſeveral parts of it together (I mean not every perſon of every part, but ſome of all) or that there was any ſuch interſtitium or interval conſiderable betwixt the converſion of ſome part of this Iſland and the reſt of it, this is incumbent on the Diatribiſt to prove, or elſe the argument remains in full force to the whole Nation, as well as to any part of it. And for this he hath offered no proof, and ſo hath yielded the force of my argument, when he went about to refute it.
dly The example of the Chriſtians complying with the Jews, will ſtand him in as little ſtead; for when was it that the Chriſtians thus complied with the Jews, or that they retain'd their old ſabbath, out of that deſign of compliance with them? Was it not at the time of the firſt converſion of the Jews to Chriſtianity? Can it be imagined that the Jews were a good while before converted to the faith and to the doctrine of the abolition of the ſabbath, and then, ſome good while after that their converſion, the obſervation of their ſabbath ſhould be reduced, expoſtliminio?
conſtringent argument to any gainſayer to prove that baptiſm was introduced at the firſt beginnings of Chriſtianity, becauſe baptiſme is known to be a cuſtome taken from the Jews? And ſo ſure of the ſabbath, and the like; If any ſpace or interval had come in after the planting of Chriſtianity among the Jews, it is no way probable that the ſabbath once laid aſide, as a ceremony naild to the croſs of Chriſt, would ever after have been recalled, and obſerved among Chriſtians; only at the firſt converſion or plantation of the faith ſuch things might from the Jewiſh ſtate adhere unto the Chriſtian, though they were not taught by Chriſtianity, and ſo ſome others from the heathen alſo, tis poſafter the ſpace of many years, when heatheniſme with all its rites and adherents had long ago been caſt out.
d §. The matter is not ſo weighty (being but an argumentum ad homines) as to deſerve any greater length of diſcourſe to vindicate it.
firſt planting of Chriſtianity in this Nation by ſome Apoſtle or Apoſtolical perſon, what was ſaid with competent probability out of our hiſtories, is conſidered by the Diatribiſt in the next place, but nothing ſaid or offered to be proanſwer from me, the whole matter eſpecially being but a Feſtivals: only ſome paſſages of his muſt be ſhortly noted.
Creſcens his being in France removes all improbability from thoſe hiſtories that record the plantation of Chriſtianity in theſe Iſlands in the Apoſtles times] he ſeems to believe it my opinion that Creſcens came over hither, (for ſo, ſaith he, the Doctor would have it, and proves it out of Scripture) which very thing he knowes I abſolutely diſclaim, and only conclude it as credible that ſome other Apoſtle or Apoſtolical perſon ſhould ſo early come over hither and plant the Faith, as that Creſcens ſhould come into France in S. Pauls dayes, which yet the French generally believe that he did, and have received it by tradition, and the words of Scripture may very fitly be ſo interEſtius hath, or that this Diatribiſt can demonſtrate the contrary, I am ſure he hath here produced nothing toward it, but the bare name of Eſtius.
Joſeph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes was the perſon that firſt planted the faith here, I receive from our Stories by tradition, and accordingly ſatisfie my ſelf therewith, and never attribute it to Creſcens or any other, but particularly expreſs my reaſons why I cannot imagine it to be Creſcens, and therefore am very much miſreported in this matter.
Creſcens in that place was only this, that from the authority of the relations of Creſcens's coming ſo early into France, I thought I might conclude againſt the improbability of Joſephs or Simons coming hither, the latter being perfectly as credible as the former, and the paſſage from France to England ſo ſhort and eaſie, that there can be no difficulty or diſparity in the matter, that one ſhould be believed by the French, and the other be incredible to us. This was ſet down intelligibly enough in that treatiſe, if the Diatribiſts haſte or ſomewhat elſe had not caſt the cloud over it.
time of celebrating Eaſter anciently in this Nation I conclude that neither Peter nor Paul nor Creſcens did firſt bring the Faith into this Iſland, and the Diatribiſt thinks he hath thereby gained an advantage, and that the ſame reaſon is of force againſt Joſeph and Simon Zelotes alſo, this is an evident miſtake in him. For it is ſufficiently known that as the Weſtern cuſtome of keeping Eaſter was deduced from S. Peter and S. Paul, ſo the contrary Eaſtern obſervation pretended to tradition from other Apoſtles, particularly from S. John. Now as to the former of theſe it is conſequent, that none of the aſſociates or attendants of S. Paul or S. Peter were the planters of the Faith here (and ſo not Creſcens, who was ſuch, 2 Tim. 4. 11.) becauſe of thoſe it is not imaginable that they ſhould vary from the cuſtome received from thoſe two Apoſtles, as tis apparent the firſt Chriſtians here did, in the celebrating of Eaſter; ſo it is no way concluſible of all others, which related not to thoſe two Apoſtles, and ſuch I ſuppoſe Joſeph and Simon Zelotes were, it beJewiſh account, and accord with S. John, and the Eaſtern Church in this celebration.
indication it appears, that the words of Metaphraſtes concerning Simon Peters preaching the faith, and conſtituting Churches &c. in Britain in the 12th of Nero, cannot be deemed to have truth in them, ſo if it may be ſuppoſed that Metaphraſtes, receiving his intelligence from ſome more ancient author or tradition, miſtook Simon Peter for Simon Zelotes, I ſee not what could be objected againſt the probability of the relation. either in reſpect of the perſon of that Simon, who is by
planter of the faith here, or in reſpect of the earlineſſe of the plantation, in or before the 12th of Nero, i. e. within 34 years after Chriſts aſcenſion.
antiquity of the faith in this Iſland, and that particularly by this Simon Zelotes, I ſhall now add ſome few conſiderations: Firſt out of the See Sir H. Spelman De Exord. Chriſt. Rel. in Brit. p. 2.Theodoret in his Therapeut: Ser: 9. Apoſtles of Chriſt, under the title of p. 123.our fiſher-men and Publicans, with the Lawgivers of the Grecians and Romanes, he affirms that whereas theſe latter did not perſwade or gain upon their next neighbours to live according to their laws, thoſe former wrought upon not only Grecians and Romanes, but
all the nations of the Barbarians (among which we know the Britains were vulgarly contained) and brought them to embrace the Evangelical law; and if this be yet too general, he then addes the enumeration of the ſeverals, and among them by name ſpecifies the Britains,
p. 125.Apoſtles themſelves in perſon paid this obedience to Chriſts command of going to all nations, none excepted, and that with ſome kinde of ſucceſſe every where, particularly here in Britain.
dly From the expreſs words of Hiſt. Eccl: l. 2. c. 40.Nicephorus Calliſtus, who ſetting down the ſeveral plantations of the Apoſtles, hath theſe words of Simon Zelotes,
After the coming of the holy Ghoſt upon him, he betook himſelf to Aegypt,
and Cyrene, and Africk, and paſſing through Mauritania and Lyin the preaching of the Goſpel, and adventuring on the Weſtern Ocean, and preaching the Goſpel to the Brittiſh Iſlands, and depredicating Chriſt as was needful both by many ſignes and wonders, and by divinity and doctrine, and being tried with many afflictions, at laſt with endleſs joy embracing the death of the croſs he departed to his Maſter. Which laſt paſſage of his death, that it belonged to theſe Iſlands alſo, is affirmed by Dorotheus, who addes that he was ſlain and buried here, and thereto accord the Greek Liturgies in their Menelogie, though Baronius and others diſſent in that particular of his death.
Gildas Brito or Badonicus, who affirms that Chriſt was preached to Britanny (under the name of glaciali frigore rigenti Inſulae) ſummo Tiberii Caeſaris, in the laſt year of Tiberius Caeſar, i. e. in the fifth year after Chriſts reſurrection, is by Sir Hen: Spelman cited as author gravis & eximiae fidei, a grave author and of great fidelity, anciently ſtyled Sapiens, The wiſe, and ſo agreeing with theſe former teſtimonies, may deſerve to be heeded by us, and not caſt off, as by the Diatribiſt he is, maaffirmation was meer tradition and far from probability, but not adding the leaſt proof of it, but onno authors of any credit lay it ſo high, with what truth, doth now competently appear, and is yet farther confirmed by a former teſtimony brought by Mr. Fox out of Gildas Albanicus in his book of the victory of Aurelius Ambroſius, where he afp. 107.Britannie received the Goſpel in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius. To this accordeth alſo the Vatican MS. out of which Baronius placeth the reception of the Faith in this Iſland about the year 35. which is two years earlier then the laſt of Tiberius.
other paſſages to the ſame purpoſe, eſpecially for the relations of Joſeph of Arimathea in Guil: Malmesbur: I refer the Reader to that worthy Antiquary, Sir Henry Spelman, de exord: p. 4. &c. And whatever the Diatribiſt ſuggeſts, I ſee not indeed in any or all of this the leaſt degree of either impoſſibility or improbability; For of thoſe Apoſtles that immediatly after Chriſts aſcenſion took their journeys to ſeveral corners of the world, to publiſh and propagate the Goſpel, what difficulty is there in beliefour or five years, ſome one either by himſelf, or by his miſſive, at leaſt that the tidings of that bleſſed newes, ſhould finde the way hither into this Iſland? I ſhall now adde no more of this.
ſuppoſed words of Eleutherius to King Lucius, the Diatribiſt chargeth me for leaving out or not tranſlating nuper (which the Latine in my margent retained) adding that I did it wiſely (I ſuppoſe on ſome deſigne to aſſiſt my cauſe) and leaving others to judge why it was done; this is but a calumny all this while.
nuper in the margent, that was a fair evidence to any charitable pertreachery deſigned the Reader, for it being certainly foreſeen by me that my Readers would eaſily underſtand ſo much Latine as the rendring of nuper would amount to, I had been by any ſuch deſigne engaged to conceal the Latine alſo, the ſetting down that, was the certain way of diſcovering any ſuch ſuppoſeable treachery, and ſo ſure no artifice or maſter piece of wiſdome (which the Diatribiſt imputes to me) but at once an act and puniſhment of folly ſuch as I heartily deſire may alwaies atenterpriſes.
preluſorie anſwers as theſe, the matter is plain to any man that hath eyes in his head; My Engliſh tranſlativerbum verbo, yet by way of paraphraſe perfectly anſwerable to the Latine, the Latine is, Suſcepiſtis nuper miſeratione divinâ in regno Brittanniae legem & fidem Chriſti, and the Engliſh is as explicite to every minute part of it, that before that writing of his (is not that the full paraphraſe of nuper, without defining what is not there defined, how long, or how little while agoe this was, but only before the writing of Elutherius's Epiſtle) the kingdome of Britain had received by Gods mercy the law and faith of Chriſt. I ſee there is no hope of approving my ſelf to this Diatribiſt, If there were, I ſhould not have fallen thus cauſeleſly under his ſevereſt diſcipline, for ſuch I muſt eſteem this his ſuggeſtion, and the inſinuations accompanying it.
viz. not rendring nuper at all, on purpoſe that this converſion of the Iſland might be thought to be long before the time
Lucius and Eleutherius, which was above 140 years after Tiberius's deceaſe, I hope it is by this time plain by what hath here been ſaid of our converſion by ſome Apoſtle, particularly by Simon Zelotes, that I ſhould not much have abuſed the Reader. That the faith was not firſt preacht in Lucius's days, but revived after the death of the firſt planters of it, I refer the Reader to learn from Sir Henry Spelman p. 12. out of our ancient records: And for the truth of the paſſages between Eleutherius and Lucius, as I never had ingaged my ſelf, ſo if from thence, as the Diatribiſt pretends, any inconveniences be now found conſequent toward the ſupport of the Romaniſts plea to our ſubjection, it will be his (not my) concernment to fence himſelf againſt them, having here thus farre acknowledged the truth of the ſtory that Lucius ſent to Eleutherius for ſome to baptize him and his people, withall from hence concluding that Chriſtianity was not here planted from the Apoſtles times.
Nation firſt received baptiſm not from any Apoſtle or Apoſtolical planter, but in Lucius's days from Eleutherius Biſhop of Rome, it could not well be imagined how our ancient Britiſh ſhould be found ſo different from the uſages of Rome in the celebration of Eaſter &c. as it is known they were before, and at the time of Auguſtines coming hither. For certainly the Weſtern manner was conveighed to all who had their Chriſtianity or baptiſme from Rome.
Chriſtianity firſt from Rome in Auguſtines time, if we be yielded to have had it firſt from Rome in Eleutherius's time? I deſire the Diatribiſt, which even now foreſaw the danger, will now ſee to it.
(viz. that the Eaſtern Chriſtians which kept their Eaſter after the Jewiſh manner, kept it not ſo in the Apoſtles times) is neither proved to have any truth in it, nor if it had, would it give any account of the reaſon of the Britiſh retaining the Jewiſh and Eaſtern cuſtome, in caſe they had their baptiſme from Eleutherius, for as to the latter of theſe, though this difference were granted to be of a later original then the Apoſtles times, yet what poſſibility were there that the Britiſh ſhould have
Eaſtern Jewiſh cuſtome from Rome, when the Romiſh was concontrary, or that receiving Baptiſme from Rome, we ſhould have our moſt ancient rites from Greece, quite contrary to the uſages of Rome.
truth of his negation §. 6. that the Eaſtern Chriſtians which kept their Eaſter after the Jewiſh manner, kept it not ſo in the Apoſtles times] It will deſerve conſidering a while, and the rather becauſe this of Eaſter being certainly a Chriſtian Feſtival, the annual commemoration of the reſurrection of Chriſt, and that obſerved by the Aſiaticks on any day of the week on which the quartadecima Lunae ſhould fall, and not only on the Lords day, if that ſhall be found to be ſo kept by any of the Apoſtles themſelves, this will be no ſmall prejudice to the Diatribiſts pretenſions, who will not, muſt not allow any other feſtival among Chriſtians, but that of the weekly ſabbath or Lords day, as tis by him deduced from the fourth Commandment. And accordingly in his reaſoning here againſt it, his arguments proceed not only againſt the Jewiſh manner, but againſt the feaſt it ſelf being obſerved in the Apoſtles times, as will preſently appear.
trial of this negation of his, on which his cauſe ſo much dependeth, I appeal to the hiſtory of that queſtion or controverſie betwixt the Eaſtern and Weſtern Church, as it is ſet down with very little difference by Euſebius l. 5. and Nicephorus l. 4.
Euſebius affirmation of it that all the Provinces of Aſia obſerved it on the fourteenth day,
xy.
as from a more ancient tradition, and again as a cuſtome long before delivered to them; which, conſidering the time wherein this queſtion was agitated at the end of the ſecond Century, can amount to little leſs then Apoſtolical.
weight on this, his 24 Chapter gives us the full debate of it in the Epiſtle of Polycrates to Victor.
Polycrates was the eighth Biſhop of Epheſus, and was then 65 years old, which reacheth up very high, within 30 years of S. Johns time, and he Niceph. l. 4. c. 37.tradition to be Apoſtolical, expreſſely deducing it from two of the Apoſtles, Philip one of the twelve, which, ſaith he, died at Hierapolis, and John the beloved diſciple of Chriſt, who lived and died at Epheſus, adding to theſe Polycarp Biſhop and Martyr of Smyrna, and Thraſeas Biſhop and Martyr of Eumenia, Sagaris of Laodicea, Papyrius, and Melito of Sardis, All which, ſaith he, obſerved, the fourteenth day
according to the Goſpel,
keeping exactly the Canon of faith, and no way varying from it.
Aſiatick cuſtome was by Polycrates (and all the Biſhops of Aſia
conſented to this Epiſtle of his) fetcht from two of the twelve Apoſtles, S. Philip and S. John. And if that which See Guil. Malmeſb. de Antiq. Glaſton. Eccl. ex Freculpho l. 2. c. 4. Et Baron: Tom. 1. an. 35. num. 5. Et MS. Hiſt. Angl: in Vatican. Biblioth.
Philips being in France, and ſending Joſeph of Arimathea and others into Britain, be to be underſtood of Philip the Apoſtle, as Addit is miſſum ſuiſſe Gal
p. 1.Gildas Albanicus expreſſely affirmes, then have we a clear account of the derivation of this cuſtome of keeping Eaſter in this Nation from Philip to our firſt Chriſtians, juſt as Polycrates in Aſia deduces it from the ſame Philip.
irrefragable inſtance of the obſervation of Chriſtian feſtivals among us, not only from the firſt plantation of Chriſtianity among us, but even from the practice of the very Apoſtles themſelves, which was the utmoſt that I could pretend to in this matter.
8. And it is farther obſervable, that Pope Victor of Rome, though he was willing to have proceeded with greater rigor againſt the Aſiaticks, even to cut off or excommunicate all the Provinces
and Churches of Aſia, as heterodox, yet never queſtions the truth of Polycrates's affirmations, concerning his receiving the cuſtome from thoſe Apoſtles; And indeed the other Biſhops aſſembled, were not for ſuch ſeverity, but for peace, and unity, and charity with theſe fellow Chriſtians, and reprehended Victor ſeverely for his thoughts of ſeverity.
Epiſtle of Irenaeus to Victor is very conſiderable to this purpoſe, who though he reſolved on Victors concluſion for the keeping it on the Lords day only, yet he is abſolutely againſt excommunicating the Aſiaticks upon this very ground, that theſe Churches of God did obſerve the tradition of ancient or original cuſtome, and he farther tells him that the Biſhops before him had never broken peace with any on occaſion of this difference, inſtancing in Polycarp who came to Rome in Anicetus's time, and as Anicetus could not perſwade him to leave his cuſtome,
having obſerved it alwaies according to the practice of John the diſciple of the Lord, and the reſt of the Apoſtles with whom he had converſed, So neither could Polycarp perſwade Anicetus to leave his way, and yet they communicated one with another; Here again by Irenaeus his own confeſſion, who was for the Weſtern cuſtome, the Eaſtern was practiſed by John and the reſt of the Apoſtles (ſure more then one) with whom Polycarp had converſed.
Laſtly, There is no doubt all this while of that which the Weſtern pretended for their cuſtome, that they had it by Apoſtolical tradition, ſaith Euſebius,
following the Apoſtolical tradition upward, or from the beginning, ſaith Nicephorus, and that exPeter the Apoſtle, which ſtill leaves the matter moſt evident and irrefragable, that this feaſt of Eaſter, which ſure is a Chriſtian feſtival (and all others are to be rated by that ſtandard) was obſerved and celebrated by the Apoſtles, and ſo is the evincing of all that I need to pretend to, for the vindicating of that Reſolution of the Quaere concerning the Feſtivals of the Church.
reply to this argument thus inforced, I profeſs not to be able to foreſee; what he hath
proof of the contrary, I ſhall now very briefly conſider.
there is no mention of the inſtitution or obſervation of it in Scripture, nor any ground to found it on, But to this, 1. It is ſufficient to anſwer, that there is ſmall virtue in this argument from Scripture negative. 2dly That the Apoſtles word let us keep the feaſt, which by circumſtances is applied to the feaſt of Eaſter, is ſome (be it acknowledged a leſſe weighty) ground in Scripture for the obſervation. 3dly That the mention of the Lords day, Rev. 1. is ſome farther ground whether that ſignifie the weekly or annual Lords day; If it be the annual, there is then a clear evidence for the obſervation of it in the Apoſtles days; and if it ſhould be the weekly, yet in any reaſon the annual day of the reſurrection was the foundation of this weekly day, which we know is to commemorate the reſurrection, as it is evident that the weekly friday faſts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great faſt on the day of Chriſts death in the Paſchal week.
thly If the Scripture ſhould give us no kinde of mention of this, yet ſeeing it hath otherwiſe appeared from the moſt ancient and undoubted records of the Church, that Eaſter was obſerved by the Apoſtles, by Peter and Paul in one manner, by John and Philip in another, what place of doubt or queſtion can there be in this matter?
cloſe of his firſt reaſon that the Apoſtles were ſo farre from inſtituting theſe as Chriſtian feaſts, that they do expreſſely repeal them and cry them down, hath not the leaſt degree of truth in it, as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4. 10.
d proof is from Socrates the Hiſtorian ſaying that the Apoſtles were not ſolicitous to appoint any feſtival days at all, therefore not this of Eaſter. To this I anſwer, that Socrates's words do not at all deny this to have been the practice of the Apoſtles, only his conceit is, that neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles
c.
commanded to obſerve this by any law, and again that they intended not to make laws of feſtival days, referring the original of them to cuſtome, which varied in ſeveral regions, as appeared to
Aſiatick and Weſtern Chriſtians, from whence his concluſion, or (as in the ſame matter he ſaith, the feaſt of Eaſter among all ſorts of people had a peculiar different obſervation from ſome cuſtome, becauſe none of the Apoſtles had made any law concerning it.
Socrates ſaw that ſeveral Nations had their ſeveral cuſtomes of keeping Eaſter, ſome, ſaith he, from Iohn, others from Peter and Paul, ſetting down the very ſtory, as we have given it, out of Euſebius, and from thence he collects (how truly it matters not) that no Apoſtle had given any binding law to all Chriſtians concerning it.
practice Apoſtolical, and not at all of their commanding it by law, am no way incommodated by this teſtimony, And for any more then ſo (practice and cuſtome Apoſtolical) it will be hard for the Diatribiſt to produce any evidence for the weekly Chriſtian ſabbath or Lords day; ſure the New Teſtament hath no where any giving of law concerning it.
d proof taken from the difference of the obſervation of it in the Eaſtern and Weſtern Church, which, ſaith he, makes it evident that it was not inſtituted by the Apoſtles hath ſure now been competently anſwered, for though that difference conclude againſt the univerſal law, yet it no way prejudgeth the practice Apoſtolical, or the decuſtomes from this original.
true, or pertinent to his purpoſe that is which followes, that the obſervation of Eaſter hath better antiquity then this of Chriſtmas, though not Apoſtolical, doth already ſufficiently apApoſtles practice for the one being ſo evident on all hands, by the confeſſion both of the Eaſtern and Weſtern Chriſtians, (the ſeveral practices being derived from ſeveral Apoſtles) that there can be no doubt in that matter; And then the analogy holdargument proceeding in full force from one Chriſtian feſtival commemorative of Chriſts reſurrection, to another commemorative of his birth, or his aſcenſion, will certainly juſtifie
lawfulneſſe of the obſervation, though the antiquity ſhould not equally be pleadable for it.
cleared and vindicated the concludency of this argument.
argument drawn from the title which our ancient records give Chriſtmaſſe day, calling it Midwinter-day (and as I now finde in other Saxon monuments
Midwinter-maſs or feaſt) and with this he is pleaſed to refreſh himſelf and to be cheerful [How ſweetly all agree, &c.] and then to make offer of ſome anſwer; But the truth is, he hath not made any the leaſt diſcovery by thoſe anſwers, that he adverted at all to that one thing, wherein alone all the force of the argument was placed; I ſhall therefore repeat it again for him.
Winter ſolſtice falling now many days earlier then the 25th of December, the acknowledged day of Chriſts birth, we are in reaſon to believe, that at the time when that title of Midwinter-maſſe was beſtowed on this feſtival, the Sun entred into Capricorn (i. e. the winter ſolſtice fell) if not upon, yet very neer to the 25th of December. And then this will drive it very high, up to the Apoſtles and our Saviours time, at the year of whoſe birth though as the learned exactly calculate it, the Sun entred Capricorn on the 24th of December at Rome, yet tis cerIulius Caeſar ordering the Calendar 43 years before that, and believing that in his time it was as Hipparchus had ſaid (viz. that the ſolſtices had anticipated 8. days, for ſo in his time Hipparchus had obſerved) he placed the ſolſtices on the eighth of the Calends, i. e. on the 24th of Iune, and 25th of December: In conſonance whereto, the difference being yet not great, the firſt
Chriſtians might well call this feaſt Mid-winter maſſe, being inſolſtice then, though the farther we deſcend from thoſe firſt times, the leſs exactneſs of truth we ſhall ſtill finde in that appellation.
C. is not pleaſed to make the leaſt word of reply, and ſo hath not qualified himſelf to expect any ſyllable of return from me to his 7th §. Only I ſhall tell him for his utmoſt ſatisfaction, 1. That my argument no way depends on the falling of Iohn Baptiſts, day on Mid-ſummer day, and only mentioned it to ſhew the agreement betwixt them. 2. That if Chriſtmas day were not celebrated till the end of the 2d
Century, it could not with any propriety be called Mid-winter maſſe, for An. 200. the Winter ſolſtice was certainly at a pretty diſtance from the 25. of December. 3. That though now Mid-winter day be a fortnight ſooner then the 25. of December, yet in the Apoſtles times it was not ſo, and ſo that is an argument for, not againſt the obſervation of it in, or neer the times of the Apoſtles, for elſe it could not with any truth be called Midwinter day.
Diatribiſts eyes may be opened to diſargument, and how nothing he hath replied to it.
inferences, the former of which being only this, that the antiquity or immemorial uſage of any feſtival in our nation doth no way argue that it hath any of the corruptions of the Romane See adhering to it, but the contrary, It is freely granted by him: And then I may for once congratulate the unexpected ſucceſſe of that Paper. For it ſeems the uſe of Feſtivals is not Romiſh and Antichriſtian, on the ſcore of which he certainly knowes ſome who have caſt them out, and
reparations, For though feſtivals have none of the corruptions of the Roman See adhering to them, yet, ſaith he, they may have too much of the corruption of thoſe Churches wherein they were firſt invented, corruptions which crept into thoſe Churches not long after the Apoſtles days, and the Romiſh religion is a bundle of moſt of thoſe corruptions.
unjuſt at once and improbable, then what is here without either proof or diffidence ſuggeſted againſt the moſt ancient Primitive (and next to Apoſtolical) Church.
foul and dangerous errors which very early, even in the Apoſtles days, ſolicited and infeſted the Church, there is no doubt; that impure deteſtable ſink of the Gnoſticks, and the ſeveral ſorts of hereticks which all joined together under that title; But then tis moſt evident that the Governors of each Church, by the ſtrength of that depoſitum committed to them by the Apoſtles, uſed all care to ſecure their flocks from ſuch peſts as theſe, and were by Gods bleſſing ſucceſsful in it, noted, branded, expulſt theſe hereticks, and kept the Catholike Church intire from their corruptions.
Churches that cencorruptions, ſhould be infected with them, ſo nothing can be more unjuſt, as well as uncharitable and impious, then to affix that character on the Churches, which belonged only to the hereticks that diſturbed and were ejected out of thoſe Churches.
Apoſtolical Churches themſelves, whileſt the Apoſtles preſided in them, might be blaſted alſo, for we know there was in their very time a myſtery of iniquity,
deceivers and Impoſtors, Antichriſts, and falſe teachers good ſtore, but, as S. Iohn ſaith of theſe, that they went out from us, ſeparated from the Churches, and ſo diſcovered that they were not of them; So it was alſo after the Apoſtles death, the hereticks and ſchiſmaticks infuſed not their corruptions into the Church, and ſo they cannot with truth be imputed to thoſe that were preſerved pure from them, the corruptions of the enemies of the Church, unto the Churches.
Doctor have been accuſed ſometimes of complying with the Papiſts, I am confident he never let any thing fall which yielded them ſo true and ſolid advantage, as this one affirmation of the Diatribiſt, that the corruptions, of which the Romiſh religion is a bundle, are thoſe which crept into the Churches not long after the Apoſtles days: For what is that, but an agnition, that the moſt accuſed Romiſh practices now adays are the ſame which were delivered to them from the Primitive Church. For my part I proteſt my diſſent (and ſo ſure doth the whole Church of England, and every true ſon thereof) to this concluſion.
d
inference now followes, that any ſuch ancient uſage of this particular Church, if it had no other ground to ſtand on (as its foundation) or concurrence of all Chriſtian Churches (as pillars) to ſuſtain it, were a very competent authority for the preſent continuance of ſuch a practice in the Church, and that upon this ſcore, becauſe the Anglicane Church being one of thoſe which by its foundation is
ſubject to no forein Patriarch, is conſequently inveſted with unqueſtionable power to inſtitute Ceremonies for it ſelf, which conſequently may not without great temerity be changed or aboliſhed by any.
objections inſerted by the Diatribiſt, before I read them over, I deſire it may be adverted, wherein the force of my inference conſiſts, viz. in theſe 3 things, 1. that this particular Church of ours being firſt planted by ſome either Apoſtle or Apoſtolical perſon was thereby conabſolute power within it ſelf, as that exſubjection to any other forain power.
dly That in all probability this feaſt was ſet up, or celebrated here, by thoſe that firſt planted the faith among us, i. e. by ſome
Apoſtle or Apoſtolical perſon, by Simon Zelotes or by thoſe 12 which were ſent higher by Philip the Apoſtle, and Ioſeph of Arimathea one of thoſe.
3 That what was by ſo good authority introduced, having no equal reaſon to ſuperſede it (ſuch as was the contrary tradition
Apoſtles in the buſineſſe of Eaſter) may not without temerity now be aboliſhed by any; not by any other perſon or perſons, Pope, or Conſiſtory, becauſe no other hath power over a Church which is founded by the Apoſtles, and not ſubChurch it ſelf, which cannot now be ſuppoſed to have any ſuch perſons in it, as may be fit to compare with the firſt founders of it, at leaſt, not without ſome greater reaſon for the changing and aboliſhing, then they may apuſing of it.
grounds my inference being built, as is there appapremiſſes, and the very expreſſions cautiouſly uſed in ſetting it down, let us now ſee what the Diatribiſt hath to object; And 1. that it is foundation, he willingly grants, ſubordinate to no forain Patriarch, I ſhall only demand whether it be ſubordinate to its own ſons, or to any but the legal Fathers of it? I hope it will be as reaſonable for me to preſume it is not, as it was for the Diatribiſt to grant the former, for elſe M. C. a ſon of this Church by deveſting the Pope of his authority, ſhall only have removed and veſted it in himſelf, and ſuch as he, tranſlaPapacy to the Presbyterie, which I hope he will not profeſſe to do, leſt that be the very crime which was charged on our Biſhops, that they aſſumed to themſelves the Papal power, or the power of ordaining ceremonies, which ſure is no greater then that of aboliſhing them.
Church, it is obſervable what he preſently interpoſeth, Yet, ſaith he, we juſtly queſtion whether it be inveſted with ſuch unqueſtionable power to inſtitute what ceremonies it pleaſe, which may not upon good reaſons be changed and aboliſhed In which very form of propoſing his queſtion or exception, tis viſible what change he hath thought fit to make in my inference, when I ſpake of the power of this Church to inſtitute ceremonies for it ſelf, I never affirmed of thoſe ceremonies once inſtituted that they might not upon good reaſons
be changed and aboliſhed, for I doubt not but the ſame power which may on good reaſons inſtitute, may on good reaſons aboliſh alſo; But firſt I deſired to examine the preſent reaſons of abolition of this Feſtival, whether they were as important as thoſe whereon this Feſtival was ſuppoſed to be inſtituted, viz. that of the pious and thankful commemorating the birth of Chriſt; and withall 2. whether thoſe reaſons pretended for abolition, were not faigned reaſons, as thoſe taken from the heads of Will-worſhip, and Superſtition, have, I muſt hope, been evidenced to be: or again 3. whether they might not otherwiſe be ſatisfied, as that of the riot (charged only as a conſequence accidental to the Feaſt) by care and exerciſe of diſcipline.
thly be farther added this reaſoaphoriſme of Chriſtian policy, that what was thus brought in on ſuch grounds by the governors of a Church, ſuppoſing them but ſuch as are of an ordinary rank of governors, and not the Apoſtolical founders of the Church (to whom certainly more reſpect is due) may not be caſt out by ſons of the Church, or indeed by any other then the authority of the ſucceeding Governors.
conſiderations I ſuppoſe, may competently eviunreaſonableneſſe of this changing the tearms of the queſtion, if not of his plea for the abolition of the Feſtival.
occaſion, he enters into a large diſcourſe concerning the power of the Church to inſtitute ceremonies, I ſhall take leave to paſſe it over untoucht, it being certain that the two branches of the one propoſition, for which I contend, are no way concerned in any part of his ſtate of this queſtion, nor indeed any thing with the leaſt probability ſuggeſted againſt either, viz. 1. that a National Church planted by the Apoſtles or their ſucceſſors may lawfully uſe a feſtival for the commemorating the birth of Chriſt, and on it pray to, and praiſe God in the ſolemn aſſembly, preach out the word and Sacraments, exhorting all good Chriſtians to partake thereof and to lay aſide their ordinary labours, that they may be vacant for ſuch holy exerciſes; and 2. that when ſuch a pious uſage hath gained a reception, either from the time of the firſt planting of the faith among us, or however by immemorial cuſtome (all other Churches in the world for very many hundred years, and for ought we can diſApoſtles practice, concurring with us) it ought not to be declaimed againſt, as Antichriſtian, or laid aſide, or covenanted againſt by this Diatribiſt or others, perſons not in but under authority, upon no weight of ſolid reſons, but upon ſome cauſleſs ſuggeſtions, that it is criminous, under the head of Will-worſhip and Superſtition.
debate betwixt me and any gain-ſayers, that there was nothing left to the Diatribiſt, but briefly to point at the weak part, if there appeared to be any ſuch in either branch of this propoſition, and having nothing from him to this purpoſe, I ſhall now omit to take notice of the infirmities of which this diſcourſe of his is as full as from any writing of no greater length may well be expected, and haſten to his following §§. in hope of ſpringing ſomewhat more pertinent to our controverſie.
th §. proceeded to ſome few conſiderations, the advertchange or abolition of the Chriſtmas Feſtival more unreaſonable; As 1. that this obſervation was an undoubted part of that eſtabliſhment which the Reformation in this kingdome enacted for us, and that by act of Parliament, and not only by Church Canon.
the Reformation was not ſo full as the Reformers themſelves could have wiſht; Never conſidering how far this is from being applicable to the point in hand, For I ſhall demand, Did all or any of the Reformers, to whoſe piety and temper we ow our eſtabliſhment, ever expreſſe their wiſh that all Feſtivals, particularly this of Chriſtmaſſe ſhould be aboliſhed? or did they not? If it ſhall be ſaid, they
Record may be produced, by which this hath been notified to the Diatribiſt; But if he confeſſe they did not, or offer no proof, that they did, then what is it to this matfeſtivities, wherein only our preſent debate is concerned, if in other things of a quite different nature, as that of bringing all notorious ſinners to penance every Lent, mentioned in the office for Aſhwedneſday, they wiſht, and expreſt their wiſh, that the Reformation were more perfect? The rule in law is ſeaſonable to be here applied, Exceptio firmat in non exceptis, Their expreſſing their wiſh that other things might be more perfect, gives us aſſuwiſht not any farther change in this particular of feſtivals, then that which they made in the Romiſh Calendar.
anſwer therefore had little of advantage for him, and yet his only Reſerve is, that 2. this ſeems to grant that the Reformation was made by the State and not by the Church, which now is pleaded for.
diſadvantage of the Church that the State joined with it in the Reformation, confirming and eſtabliſhing it by Act of Parliament; or 2. why is that the fitter to be aboliſhed which ſtands by Statute law, as well as by Eccleſiaſtical Canon, and Cuſtome immemorial; or 3. how doth the Parliaments confirming the Liturgie, and therein the feſtivals, inferre that this feſtival was not firſt introduced by the Church, when it is moſt evident that the Feſtival was in the Church long before that Act of Parliament?
anſwers we can have to an argument, which ſeemed to have been of ſome force with a friend of Parliaments or eſtabliſhed lawes: and therefore we muſt content our ſelves with them.
d
conſideration was, that this and other feaſts of Chriſt are retained in the reformed Lutheran Churches, and where they are taken away, wiſht for by ſober members, as Ph: Mornay Du Pleſſis, and approved by the confeſſions of thoſe Churches as the Helvetian, and in other places the day of Chriſtmas afforded the ſolemnity of a Sermon.
anſwers, that the Lutheran are not reputed the beſt reformed Churches, nor by the Doctor, he believes, thought fit to be compared with England, and ſo not fit precedents for our Reformation.
Lutheran Churches concurring with the Engliſh in this of Feſtivals tis no way to the diſparaging of my argument, that I do not compare the Lutheran Churches with that of England; Tis certainly ſufficient if they and the Church of England together may be able to compare with all other reformed Churches which have caſt out all feſtivals as ſuperſtitious or Antichriſtian; And thus I ſhall, without much inſolence, adventure to make the compariſon.
private perwiſhes, as that of Ph: Morney Du Pleſſis, I may reaſonably reply, that how faſtidiouſly ſoever he reject it, it may very well be allowed to keep the practice of the Church of France from being any example or precedent to us, when the prime members of their own Church have expreſt their diſlikes of it.
Helvetian confeſſion worth his taking notice of? that was no bare wiſh of a private man, but the approbation of a Church, which Mr. Calvin thought fit to write to for their judgement and ſuffrage to his new erected model at Geneva.
giving Sermons to Chriſtmas day, I ſee
former practices, and upon that miſpriſion it is, that he is ſo much concerned to have their prayers as good and as large as the Liturgies, (by the way, if they be not much better, and ſure alwayes to be ſo, why muſt the Liturgie be aboliſhed?) whereas all this while I never thought of him, or ſuch as he, which it ſeems, kept fair with Chriſtmas (from whence I am in charity to believe they thought it not Superſtition) till they had an advantage of ejecting it, and then made all ſpeed to cloſe with the opportunity, but of ſome other preachers in other Churches, where this Feſtival was not obſerved, ſuch as Andrew Rivet in the Low Countreys, who, as I have been informed, conſtantly preacht on that day to his auditors, which was a civility fit to be mentioned to thoſe that will now perform that office on any day of the week, rather then on that.
d
conſideration was, that the raſing this Feſtivity out of the Calendar is an act of ſeparation from the Church of England, and the univerſal Church of all ages, eſpecially of the firſt and pureſt times.
anſwers by denyal of both parts, Not the latter having proved, as he ſaith, that the firſt and pureſt ages of the Church did not obſerve it, Not the former, unleſſe I yield that the Reformation of the Church of England was a diviſion and ſeparation from the Church of Rome, or the reformation in Luthers time a ſeparation from the Catholike Church, as Papiſts ſay it was.
demand, where it is that he hath ſo proved this of the firſt and
pureſt ages not obſerving feſtivals, that he can affirm it certain that this of diſuſing or laying them down is not ſeparation from the Church of thoſe ages? Truly my eyes or my memory very much fail me, or he hath not as yet proved it in any degree, much leſſe ſo demonſtrated it that a Corollary deduced from thence, and depending on that probation, ſhould deſerve to be pronounced certain.
occaſion offered him (at leaſt made uſe of by him) to attempt ſo impoſſible a thing, as is ſuch a negative probation. Of this I am ſure, that for this Feſtival and that other of Eaſter the reaſon muſt be the ſame, and I have already made it as clear as the day, that that was obſerved by the Apoſtles of Chriſt, by Philip and Iohn on the Iewiſh day, and by Peter and Paul on the annual Dominical; And if through the dimneſſe or want of ſtories of thoſe times, this be not ſo eviparticular Feaſt of Chriſtmaſſe, yet the analogy holding directly betwixt the one and the other, the argument remains as firm, that the laying aſide either this or that feſtival, is a ſeparation from the Apoſtolick, and thoſe ſure are the firſt and pureſt times.
ſolemnities and feſtivities commemorative of the Martyrdome of Ignatius and Polycarp, two Biſhops that lived in the Apoſtles times, were obſerved from the very times of their deaths, and that in compliance with other the like feſtivals of the Church before them, which muſt needs come home to the obſervation of feſtivals in the Apoſtles days.
Diatribiſt flatter himſelf that he hath proved the contrary to this, when he hath not ſo much as offered either the leaſt anſwer to theſe, or any the leaſt reaſon or proof of his negation?
latter, I reply, that there is no analogie betwixt the Church of Englands departing from Rome, and the Diatribiſts departing from the Church of England, I might inſtance in many, twill be ſufficient that I ſhew it in two particulars, 1. the Church of England in the Reformation departed not from their lawful ſuperiors, being, as the Diatribiſt acknowledges ſubordination to the Church of Rome, when ſhe departed from her, whereas the perſons then ſpoken of by me, and the
Diatribiſt for one, were certainly members that ought a Chriſtian obedience to the Church of England, as inferiors to ſuperiors, and ſo departed from their lawful ſuperiors wherein Schiſme doth principally conſiſt, as hath elſewhere been ſhewn.
Church of England reformed, and departed from the Romiſh opinions and practices were none of them ſuch as this of feſtivals now appears to be, i. e. common uſages of the
Ʋniverſal, ancient, eſpecially of the Primitive pureſt Church, but innovations unduely brought in by them, and impoſed on all Chriſtians.
Diatribiſts confeſſion here, is more to the advantage of the Romiſh Church, then any thing that he could likely have ſaid, no way clearing his fact from Schiſme, nor offering the leaſt colour to it, and yet acknowledging that the Church of Englands reformation, and ſo Luthers reformation alſo, was as truely an act of Schiſme from Rome, as is theirs from the Church of England. But I muſt put in my proteſtation of diſſent to this propoſition alſo, and that is all I need to ſay to that anſwer.
anſwer to the 4th
conſideration is ſo ſlight, and therein ſo little on which to faſten any reply, that I may ſafely intruſt the Reader with it, and only minde the Diatribiſt, 1. that till he hath more ſolidly proved the obſervation of this Feſtival among us to be ſuperſtition, then hitherto he hath done, twill be great uncharitableneſs thus to accuſe it, and greater injuſtice to deſtroy the innocent for this (if it were true, yet but) accidental and removable crime imagined to be adherent to it.
tract of profaneneſs as he hath done of Superſtition, and been more ſucceſſefull in his evidences
Feſtival is guilty of it, ſhewed that that is deſuper ſtatutum alſo, or evinced the ſame thing by ſome more ſenſible way of probation, tis but a pitiful begging of the queſtion, thus irrationally to accumulate crimes on innocency, to adde the Profaneneſſe to the Superſtition, to ſuppoſe the Feſtival able to work miracles, to reconcile the moſt contrary extremes (as if in the vein of declaiming he ſhould call the ſame man firſt Papiſt, then Socinian) for ſuch he knows are Superſtition and Profaneneſſe.
ſeaſonable for him ſadly to inquire, which is moſt liable to the charge of profaneneſſe, the ſetting apart a feſtival from common uſes to the commemorating the birth of Chriſt in Prayer, Praiſes, Euchariſt, hearing the word read and preached, and profiting by all theſe; or the faſtidious refuſing to joyn with the Church of God in all or any of theſe offices at that time, following the Plough, or attending the Shop in ſtead of it.
ſeriouſneſſe deſire him to review his words p. 147. Where in anſwer to my mention of diſuſing the Creeds and Catechiſme, he ſaith, in a parentheſis, that the Creed is ſtill to be retained in and with the Catechiſme] and demand whether he doth not know, that the ſame Tempeſt that carried away the Feſtivals, ſwept away (more then one) the three Creeds received from the ancient Church and retained in our Liturgie, and together with them the Church Catechiſme, of which, he knowes, I ſpake.
parentheſis, unleſſe it be onour Books (which they have joyned to condemn) though they be not retained in their offices, but ſolemnly ejected by them. Such equivocal anſwers or reſponſes as theſe he knowes from what oracles they were wont to be delivered, and therefore ſhould not be imitated.
th §. is ſomewhat of the ſame making, for when I ſpake of that deeper knowledge of ſome, which was ſome degree above the vulgar ignorance, and yet was obſervable to be impatient of ſound doctrine, to be ready to imbrace any thing that was novel, and contrary to the ancient faith and Principles] he animpatience of ſound doctrine, and readineſs to imbrace any thing that is novel, is not to be found in thoſe of deep or ſound knowledge.
[ſound] can he imagine that I ſpake of thoſe of ſound knowledge, when I ſpake of impatience of ſound doctrine, Twas viſible enough that I ſpake of thoſe, which while they leſſe ſeemed to want ſuch helps as Chriſtmaſſe ſervices and ſermons to teach them the ſound doctrine of Chriſt, did yet moſt really need them to cure the vanity of their own minds, and their itch of any thing that was novel.
temptation he had to break out into thoſe Eulogies of himſelf and his friends, to which cerPaſtors but only to their auditors, who when they have attainknowledge above the more ignorant, are yet experimented to be very fickle and apt to fall off into new doctrines.
flatter himſelf as he doth, that thoſe that ejected theſe Feſtivities under pretence of Reforming abuſes of ſuperſtition and profaneneſſe, are the men only or chiefly that propugne and maintain ſound doctrine, when, as he goes on very glibly, thoſe that were the greateſt favourers of thoſe Feſtivals, are fallen into Arminianiſme &c. or do little appear to maintain the truth.
Phariſee could have ſaid more in his ſolemneſt Magnificat; He, forſooth, and ſuch as he, are the men that only
or chiefly propugn and maintain ſound doctrine, and who can doubt it when he hath thus affirmed it of himſelf? and all others are but as this Publicane, for ſo this new ſtyle of Arminian bears proportion with that ancient; and whoſoever will not think as this Diatribiſt doth, that Feſtivals are forbidden in the 2d and the 4th
Commandments, that will favour ſlaviſh fear, or mercenary obedience, or ſuſpect that grace may be received in vain, muſt precondemnation; and then the beſt that can be ſaid of them is, that they doe little appear to maintain the truth.
deſigns of this ſolemnity, no other then to teach us what we have received in Chriſt, and aſſiſt us to render God a pious publick acknowledgement of it, He is pleaſed not to underſtand this, but to interpret it (condeſign in the firſt inſtituters of this piece of ſervice to Chriſt Jeſus.
change? why, to make the example of Gedeon's golden Ephah applicable to it, in the making of which, ſaith he, though Gedeon's deſign was very fair to leave a monument of his victory, yet it proved a ſnare to him and his houſe and all Iſrael.
example, no doubt, it follows that every Feſtival, or what ever elſe is deſigned as a publick pious acknowledgement of the Chriſtians thankfulneſs to God, is to be lookt on as a ſnare to all the people of God, and ſo upon all reaſons of piety to be aboliſhed.
concluſion thus infercommon notions, or Logick had not warned us that particular premiſes would never induce a concluſion, and that
examples are not always argumentative, For then indeed the Lords day which is ſuppoſed to have been deſigned for all theſe good ends, muſt upon the ſame account be aboliſht alſo.
th §. is long, in making good his charge of Superſtition and Will-worſhip againſt this Feſtival, And it is certain that I have been large enough on theſe ſubjects already, as far as any thing that he could ſuggeſt, appeared to have the leaſt force either againſt ceremonies in general, or particularly this of Feſtivals, and therefore I ſhall not ſtill bind my ſelf and the Reader to that ungratefull penance of drawing the ſame Saw for ever, Yet if any thing ſhall now be afreſh objected, I ſhall not omit to take notice of it.
appearance of Will-worſhip, I ſay that thoſe that retain the uſage, obſerve it in obedience to the Laws of the Church, he hath great diſpleaſure to this, 1. Becauſe I ought firſt to have proved that they which inſtituted that Feſtival had a Lawfull power to do it, adding that the Papiſts may uſe the ſame argument for obſervation not onely of their Holy days, but of their invocation of Saints, adoration of images, and the Maſs it ſelf.
not proving of this was founſuppoſing it. And the reaſon of that ſuppoſition elſeexplained, that as Magiſtrates in generall, ſo particularly the Governors of a Church have an inveſtiture of power from Chriſt to the Apoſtles, whoſe ſucceſſors they are, to ordain and inſtitute ſuch circumſtances of the publick worſhip
God, as are times and place and geſture and the like, in order to decency, uniformity, and the benefit of their Churches.
Diatribiſt can again think fit to compare this with the Papiſts obſerving their own holy days &c. is interkindneſs to them, then I have ever been guilty of, For the plain inference is this, 1. The Church may command in lawfull things, therefore it may as well do ſo in unlawfull. 2dly There is no more unreaſonableneſſe in beſainting all thoſe that are gotten into the Romiſh Legend and Calendar, and conſecrating ſeveral days to the commemorating of them, then in commemorating the birth of Chriſt himſelf. 3dly It is as lawful to invoke all the Romiſh Saints, as publikely to pray to and praiſe Chriſt on the 25th of December. 4thly It is as ſafe to adore images, and the very bread in the Maſſe, as to adore and commemorate Chriſt on that day. What could paſſion, or intereſt, or ſuggeſted more unad
d
diſlike and exception is, that having formerly founded times or dayes deſigned to publike worſhip, on the equity of the 4th
Commandment, I ſhould now devolve the obſervation of this feſtival to obedience to the lawes of the Church, and ſo reduce it as a duty to the 5th
Commandment, and upon this, as an eſpecial advantage, he is pleaſed to expatiate.
clear enough, and was ſo, till he had taken pains to involve it. The difference is very conceivable and intelligible betwixt time or times for Gods ſervice generally conſidered, and this or that particular time. That God ſhould have ſome times aſſigned for his ſervice is of the very law of Nature, and ſo much of morality there is fundamental to the poſitive precept of the weekly ſabbath in the 4 Commandment: Nay farther, the 4th
Commandment being given to the Iewes for the obſerving one day in ſeven, as a fit and moderate proportion of time to be required of every Jew, it might equitably be inferred that a Chriſtian ſhould at leaſt ſet a part one day in ſeven for our great Chriſtian purpoſes, the firſt day of the week on which Chriſt roſe from the dead, And accordingly I ſuppoſe it inſtituted by the Apoſtles of Chriſt.
Jewes beſide the weekly ſabbath requiCommandment, they had many other times of feſtivity, and faſting, ſome appointed by God himſelf in the time of the men, and yet conſtantly obſerved by Gods people and accepted by God, and ſome approved by Chriſt himſelf, and all this without any prejudice to the fourth Commandment, though not by any force of that, ſo now ſtill under the Goſpel nothing hinders, but that the Church of God by the power left to, and depoſited with them, may ordain Chriſtian feaſts, and faſts, and obedience be paid thereto by all dutiful meek ſons of the Church, and this obedience be in them that are thus under authority no act of Will-worſhip or ſpontaneity, but of honour and obſervance to this ordinance of the Church, and ſo a duty of the fift Commandment.
we Chriſtians are by Chriſt reduced to the fourth Commandment, as for one day of ſeven to be holy, ſo for our allowance of ſix daies for our own works, 1. It hath not the leaſt appearance of truth in it, for where did Chriſt reduce us to the fourth Commandment? and tis viſible what the conſequence muſt be in affirming it, even an obligation to the Jewiſh Sabbath, for that certainly was the ſubject of the fourth Commandment.
Chriſtians allowed ſix daies for their own works, tis yet viſible that ſome of theſe ſix may by the free act of particular men be uſed, or by the power of the Chriſtian Church be ſet a part to Chriſtian uſes, as well as ſome days were (not only by God himſelf, but) by the Governors of the Jewes, Judas Maccabeus, and others, ſet a part for the publike ſervice of God in the old Teſtament, at which time tis by all confeſt that the fourth Commandment was in force, in all parts of it.
exception I ſhall note in this §. p. 157. when upon theſe words of mine concerning the poſſible miſtake of the day, that that will be pardonable in thoſe that verily think they are not miſtaken, and that in them that do performe the buſineſſe of the day as compleatly on a miſtaken day as on the true, the excuſe of blameleſſe ignorance will waſh away greater errors then this,] he preſently replies, Does not this ſound ſomewhat like the Papiſts doctrine of venial ſins? and upon that occaſion is put in minde
Bellarmines defence againſt the peril of idolatry in the Maſſe, in caſe the bread be not tranſubſtantiated: And then he askes, Can any ignorance be blameleſſe againſt the Law of God, or waſh away any error without the blood of Chriſt?
fallacy preſently diſcoverable, For 1. he that talks of venial or pardonable ſins, muſt not be preſumed to exclude the blood of Chriſt, thoſe ſins are pardonable under the Goſpel for which that ſins that are reconcileable with true repentance, or the ſincerity of a regenerate ſtate.
ſin ſo much as of ignorance, to miſtake in the day of Chriſts birth; every miſtake is not a ſin, but only that which is a breach of ſome law, and therefore I ſuppoſe it is, that the Diatribiſt was compelled to ſay, Can any ignorance be blameleſſe againſt a law of God? But then I profeſſe not to know any law of God, againſt which it is a ſin (though but of ignorance) to miſtake that day for the annual day of Chriſts birth, which really is not the day.
ten Commandments or any other law of Gods in the Old or New Teſtament this is a breach. When he tells me this, I ſhall attend him more diligently to the remainder of this Section, and anſwer his inweighty conſideration about the very day of the Jews paſſeover, of which he acknowledge; that the very day was as ſtrictly commanded as the buſineſſe it ſelf, and ſo the error muſt be an error againſt a law, whereas he as certainly knowes that this day of Chriſts birth is by none ſo much as pretended to be ſo commanded.
Chemnitius's charge of Superſtition, on Papiſts obſervation of their holy daies, is all anſwered before it be produced, by this one conſideration, that Chemnitius, as a Lutheran, is by the Diatribiſt confeſt to allow this and other Feſtivals; For then hath he granted all that I contend for, who underadvocate for the Legend or Calendar of the Papiſts.
th §. and ſo on to the 27. is all to the head of Riot. Which I was careful to remove from this Feſtivity, And firſt having diſclaimed it as more intolerable in a Chriſtian then in a Jew, and that upon this account, that Spiritual joyes are his eminent if not only portion under promiſe, His anſwer is, that theſe are not limited to one or twelve dayes in a year, but are daily joyes, every day is a Chriſtmas to a godly heart, Rejoyce in the Lord always &c.
weekly Lords day is ſet apart for a Chriſtian Feaſt dedicated particularly to theſe Spiritual joyes; and that this was very reconcileable with the text that ſaid once and again, Rejoyce always, and how then can this be oppoſed to an annual Feſtival?
Chriſtian joyes ſhould principally be Spiritual, and this not as a proof of the lawfulneſs of Feſtivals, but of the unlawfulneſſe of riots, and the Diatribiſts anſwer is wholly to that other head, to which that was never deſigned as a medium.
To which I might 3dly adde, that that text to the Philippians is
exhortation to rejoycing in tribulations, in the ſaddeſt as well as the cheerfulleſt ſeaſons, and ſo the alwaies is to be limited by the context; And then the application of it here was ſtill ſo much leſs pertinent.
d place, my 18th. §. being deſigned to ſhew how ſeparable all riot was from this Feſtival, by the nature of Chriſtian dainties, inſtruction, prayer, praiſes, almes, and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper (none of which were capable of luxurie) and Feſtivity and Hoſpitality, which were clearly ſeparable from it; His anſwer is, 1. that theſe two laſt are thus ſeparable from riot, but very hardly; And I ſhall only demand, Are the leaſure and ceſſation from buſineſs on the Lords day, experimented to be more eaſily ſeparable from it? Is it more ordinary for the ſame men to be drunk upon Chriſtmas day, then upon all, or upon any one Sunday in the year? And have not preachers and magiſtrates been as induſtrious to caſt out this profane Spirit on the Lords day and been as unſucceſsful in their indevours? And ſhall this be any argument for the abolition of that day?
the heathen uſages in it (almoſt yielded §. 2.) as they imply that the feſtival was inſtituted to gratify the heathen, ſo God to ſhew his diſlike of them, hath ſuffered them to be attended with two extremes of true worſhip, ſuperſtition and profaneneſs. But to this I ſay, 1. that the heathen uſages were no way yielded §. 2. but only an argument uſed ad homines that ſo affirmed. 2. If there were heathen uſages in it, thoſe would no way imply the Feſtival to have been inſtituted to gratifie the heathens, It was inſtituted to the honor of Chriſt, and the heathens were farre enough from being gratified with that, and tis ſufficient if the converted heathens, among whom it was inſtituted by their converters, did of themſelves aſſume ſome of their Gentile cuſtomes by them thought innocent in the celebration.
dly Tis great preſumption and intruſion into Gods ſecreteſt Counſels, to ſay that Gods ſuffering this Feſtival to be attended with ſuperſtition or profaneneſs was to ſhew his diſlike if not detestation of it; For who revealed this counſel of Gods to this Diatribist? Beſides, how eaſily might this argument be retorted on the Lords day by a Jew, and all the riot and unprofitableneſs of hearers on that day be made an evidence of Gods diſlike
detestation of the ſetting apart of this day to his ſervice? What impiety of any Sect would want arguments to ſupriot, what had ſuperstition or profaneneſs (either or both) to do with that?
th §. is the accuſing thoſe who keep up and cry up the cuſtome of the festivity, yet have taken liberty to lay aſide hoſpitality and charity not only at the time, but all the year long. To which it is ſufficient to anſwer, that then it ſeems, their hoſpitality is not the occaſion of riot to any, and that is a Competent means of vindicating the festivity ſo farre from that part of the accuſation, which now we have before us.
dly it were perhaps worth examining what degree of truth there is in the ſuggeſtion, and in what inſtances it is foundſuggeſted before, and I had then thought that it was not worthy taking notice of, But now the returning of it again more ſolemly makes me ſuſpect there may be ſomewhat in it; And having no other clue to introduce me into his ſecrets, and the charity and hoſpitality of thoſe that have caſt off the feſtivals, and with it their obedience to the Church, beyond thoſe that have retained both, having never been ſo notorious, that I could take cognizance of it, and the writing a Diatribe againſt all freewill oblations in a Chriſtian, being no vehement indication that thoſe in whoſe defence it was written, were very eminent in the exerciſe of thoſe virtues, I began to pitch upon one thing that might of late have yielded ſome ſhew of truth to his obſervation, viz. that the condition of many mens worldly plenty hath been ſo changed of late, that the men have been forced to abate ſomedegree of that charity and hoſpitality that formerly they had both ability and will to exerciſe, and that theſe fall out to be the men that retain obedience to the Church of England, and ſo keep up and cry up the feſtivals of the Church, though they are not able to keep up the good cheer of it in that degree, which for
Diatribiſt was willing to take notice of this turne of the tyde, and being himſelf one of the proſperous party that had caſt off obedience and feſtivals, but retained hoſpitality and charity, was willing to compare himſelf with others who being deprived
revenues, were not likely to hold up their hoſpitality, then ſure this is a way of anſwer which might ſoon be retorted, if juſtice were allowed to take place, and every man were reinveſted in his own again.
ability to be charitable on one ſide, as to be occaſions of riot on the other, if they muſt be reproacht for their defects in one, ſhould not in reaſon be accuſed for exceſs in the other: And that is all I ſhall reply to this anſwer.
d part of it I reply in a word, that the hoſpitality attendant on this Feſtival was never by me defined or imagined, and is with no juſtice by him ſuppoſed to be a miſers feaſt, nor know I any the leaſt neceſſity that it ſhould be followed with a neglect of charity all the year after, but rather that it be lookt on as a copy which the whole life of a Chriſtian is to tranſcribe from this manner of ſolemnizing the birth of Christ, as a firſt fruits of this duty then paid, as a pledge of the future harveſt, as a ſolemn entrace on that duty then, which in ſome degree is to be exerciſed all the year after.
caſe of notorious abuſe I will believe there is place and ſeaſon for reformation (which I moſt willingly yield, being, as he knowes, as inclineable and deſirous as he or any man, that all exceſſes ſhould be reformed, and never indured among Christians of all other men in the world) his concluſion hath very fairly taken in one term more then was in the premiſſes, and to reformation of exceſſe, annexed of the Festivity it ſelf, meaning evidently, according to the modern ſtyle, abolition by reformation; For elſe, after all his dexterities, it will not do his buſineſs.
exceſs ſhould be aboliſhed, that the Festivity ſhould be drained from all ſuch unchriſtian mixtures, and reformed in that meeker ſenſe, was viſibly the deſigne of the Section to which this of his was confronted; And that, it ſeems, will not ſerve the turn, but as if reformation were never reformation, unleſſe like the breaking in of the Ocean it ſweep and carry away all before it, as if our Dictionaries were to be changed, and that word were to be gloſſed by nothing but vaſtation and depopulation, all that I had
reformation of exceſſes ſignifies nothing with him, unleſſe the Feſtivity it ſelf be reformed alſo, and that juſt as Epiſcopacy was to be reformed, by being turned out of the Church.
becauſe the Feſtivity hath ordinarily been attended with ſuch miſchiefs without the leaſt attempt of reformation) if it have any the leaſt truth in it, is viſibly a reaſon for the contrary; For is it not madneſſe to deſtroy the vineyard, before any leaſt attempt hath been made to dreſſe or manure it, to cut down the tree before ever it was once digged about? were it reconcileable with any tolerable ſobriety to aboliſh the Lords day upon any, much more upon ſuch an account as this of riot and drunkenneſſe ordinarily attending it, withoffender the firſt or ſecond admonition, without ever attempting to reform it? Certainly the rules of ſober diſcicontrary, to attempt and deligently indevour the reformation of the exceſs, and never to proceed to ſeverer reevil is experimented to be not only obſtinate but deſperate, and yet then too, to divide betwixt the nocent and guiltleſſe, and not involve both in the ſame condemnation; And arguments muſt ſure be very ſcanty, when thoſe come to be uſed for the affirmative, which were proper only for the negative; And yet thus is it at this time with the Diatribiſt.
th §. offers us an example of this deſtructive, exterminative reformation, St
Paul's diſcipline on the feaſts of charity by way of deſtruction and abolition, when they began to be abuſed to ſurfetting and drunkenneſs, 1 Cor. 11. 17. But herein are good ſtore of miſtakes, For 1. If that place to the Corinths be examined, it is moſt evident that it was the Lords Supper, inexceſs was crept, and accordingly as he tells them v. 20. that this is not to eate the Lords Supper, ſo for the reforming of what was amiſs, he tells them what the inſtitution of Chriſt was in it, and there expreſſely ſets down the firſt inſtitution of the Lords Supper, In the night he was betrayed he took bread, v. 24. &c. And then I muſt demand, did St. Paul deſtroy and aboliſh this feaſt wherein theſe abuſes were obſerved? if he did, he aboliſht the Lords Supper, and then here is indeed an inſtance home to his purpoſe: But if he did not, why did the Diatribiſt tender us this inſtance, when he knows
drunkenneſs and moſt unworthy behaviour at the Sacrament never ſuggeſted to the Apoſtle the leaſt thought of aboliſhing or diſuſing the Sacrament.
viz. that there were two parts of this Lords Supper, one in taking a morſel of bread, and taſting the wine, in commemoration of Chriſt's body and blood, another in eating and drinking together more liberally, after the former was done, and that this latter is it which is meant by Agapae in S. Jude, and that this latter was taken away out of the Church, upon the too common unreformable abuſes of it; yet ſtill this is nothing of advantage to the Diatribiſt; For ſtill this will but conclude that the carnal external part of the Feſtivity, the eating and drinking part, ſhould fall under this diſcipline, not the Spiritual more Chriſtian part, and tis evident one of theſe is as ſeparable from the other, as the Sacrament from the Agapae.
inſtance of the Love-feaſts was oppoſed, and tis certain no more can rationally, by any analogie, be concluded from it.
my turn (and ſo I hope not for his) then this of the Agapae. For when this diſorder at Corinth had brought this attendant on the Chriſtian feſtival under ſome cenſure, it was thus reformed, (as appears in Juſtine Martyrs Apologie, where he ſets down the whole courſe of the office) The offerings were not leſſened by this means, but otherwiſe diſpoſed of, and that which was not eaten at the Lords Table, was kept in a common bank for the poor, the Stranger, the Fatherleſs and Widow, and a very competent proviſion was made for all by this means.
inquiry it be found that the Chriſtmaſs liberality and hoſpitality ſtill ends in riot, and that there is no hope of reſtraint to be laid upon it, as it runnes in that channel, It is moſt obvious and eaſie for every ſober Chriſtian to turn the ſtream another way, to lay aſide for reliefe of the poor, that which was uſually laid out in the extraordinrry entertainments at this time, and as that is the utmoſt,
ſeverity uſed on the Agapae can extend, or ſuggeſt, ſo it is the very thing which was propoſed §. 20. but it ſeems cannot yet ſatisfie this Diatribiſt.
th §. he cenſures in me as pretty untempered mortar, will not, I believe, be found ſo, in any ſober judging. Tis onely this, that though the eating and ſporting part of this feſtity be ſtrictly to be kept within bounds and as ſtrictly to be reformed wherein it hath been diſcerned to exceed (this had been ſet down before, and was now ſuppoſed) yet for abolition of all hoſpitality and recreation, or remiſſion (as Nazianzen ſtyles it) at theſe times it was to be lookt on as a laſt remedy, and ſo not proceeded to till the diſeaſe were univerſally ſpreading and obſtinate againſt all cure, for whileſt it were lower then ſo, it was ſtill but the ſeaſon of reformation.
Diatribiſt ſhould think fit to infer it my ſenſe (that he might accuſe me) that leſſe or leſſe generall abuſes need no reformation, there can be no tolerable account rendred, but only this, that his ears have been ſo accuſtomed to the new dialect, that of exterminative reformations, that he cannot think the word ſignifies any thing elſe, by whomſoever it is uſed, but (that which indeed it never ſignifies in any propriety of ſpeech) extirpation and abolition. In a word, I think there is no neceſſity of exciſion till the part begin to gangrene or corrupt and ſpread, yet I can admit of medicines long before, and heartily adviſe timely prudent applications, as ſoon as ever the patient begins in the leaſt meaſure to be diſtempered.
th §. is the accuſing of thoſe that uſed cards on the Lords day after the evening ſervice, and the upbraiding their ſuperſtition that they will not touch cards or dice on Chriſtmas day; and the anſwer is ſufficient, that as I ſpake not a word of them that did thus, ſo I never heard of any that thus made a difference betwixt Chriſtmaſſe day and the Lords day, but that if they uſed that liberty on the later, they uſed it on the former too; However if by the Diatribiſt it were deemed criminous in the one, I ſhould have hoped he might have been gratified by hearing it was abſtained from in the other: For my own part I never allowed my ſelf the liberty on either, and know not that I ever ſaw it uſed, and therefore I am ſure there is nothing farther to be replied to by me in that §. I as
obſervation of the Lords day, as of any other Feſtivity, and cannot juſtly fall under the Diatribiſts cenſure for any thing I have ſo much as intimated in this matter.
doctrine as a crime, and a part of ſuperſtition, that the day hath been accounted more ſacred then the Lords day, and the proof brought out of my 20th §. where ſaith he, I call it moſt ſacred, and out of my 24th §. where I ſay it hath been kept if not much more, yet certainly as ſtrictly as any Lords day in the year.
miſpriſion in each of theſe; The phraſe moſt ſacred §. 20. doth not at all belong to the day, (much leſſe to the preferring it before the Lords day in reſpect of ſacredneſſe) but only to a Chriſtian Feſtivity, as that is made up of prayer, praiſes, Euchariſt, charity, hoſpitality, &c: All which being put together I hope I could not offend in ſtyling it moſt ſacred, ſuch as the extravagant, irrational riots of men ought not to aſſault and pollute.
d, there is no ſuch word as ſacred to be found in that 24th §. all that is ſaid is, that in this nation the day of the birth of Chriſt hath been kept (if not much more) certainly as ſtrictly as any Lords day in the year, and this interpreted moſt clearly by the following words) in frequenting the ſervices of the Church, in the uſe of the Liturgie, Sermon, Sncraments, &c. And I cannot imagine how this manner of ſtrict obſerving of it can be criminous in it ſelf, or to the prejudice of the Lords day, on which tis no news to ſay that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which I make an ingredient in the ſtrictneſſe of the celebration, and that which denominates it more ſtrict, is not conſtantly celebrated; and yet ſure no fault that it is conſtantly celebrated on Chriſtmas day.
ſtrictneſſe of obſerving is one thing, and the ſacredneſſe is another, Any private faſt may be more ſtrictly obſevere ſtrictneſſe of duty allotted to it, then to the Lords day, and yet the Lords day, as ſet apart by the Apoſtles of Chriſt, in reſpect of that inſtitution, and of the reſurrection of Chriſt, to the commemorating whereof it was conſecrated, be eſteemed and lookt on as moſt ſacred. I need to ſay no more of that.
ground which he pretends from his own knowledge, to aſſigne of my thus ſpeaking: viz. that we may make the Lords day and Feſtivals to be founded on the ſame authority, viz. of the Church, this he muſt very much diſſemble his knowledge, if he confeſſe not to be a miſtake alſo.
margent he grants that I ſay that the Apoſtles inſtituLords day §. 31. and ſo certainly I do (though I know not in what words of Scripture that inſtitution is ſet down) But, ſaith he, there be other words §. 57. which ſpeak of the Lords day by the ſame authority appointed. To which I anſwer that the words there uſed [though the Lords day be by the ſame authority appointed] belong not at all to the ſtating, of this queſtion, and being introduced in that form [though &c.] they are not any affirmation that the Lords day is not inſtituted by any higher authority then Chriſtmas day, but only a conceſſion of what was asked by the Quaeriſt, without ſo much as examining or inquiring into the utmoſt of the authority by which it ſtood. Of this I had ſufficiently expreſt my ſenſe §. 31. as the Diatribiſts margent conviz. that the Apoſtles inſtituted the Lords day, whereas in that 57th §. I ſpeak as plainly of Chriſtmas day, that it hath its authority from the inſtitution and uſage of the
Ʋniverſal Church; And if when the matter is ſo clear, and my meanone and the other, I muſt yet be accucontrary, and this be affirmed from the Diatribiſts knowledge to be my ground, viz. a deſigne to make the Lords day and Feſtivals to be founded on the ſame authority, and that by him ſpecified, viz. of the Church; Tis certainly moſt viſible, that either this is a calumny in the Diatribiſt, or elſe that the word Church muſt be ſo taken as to comprehend that part of it, of which the Apoſtles were rulers in perſon, and then what harm hath been in that ſpeech thus interpreted, the Church of the Apoſtles inſtituted the Lords day, and either they perſonally, or their ſucceſſors uſed and delivered down the other Feſtivals, the Feſtival of Eaſter being derived undoubtedly from the Apoſtles, Philip and John, Peter and Paul, as hath already clearly appeared out of the difference betwixt Victor and Polycrates; And other Feſtivals by the paſſages of the Martyrdome of Ignatius and Polycarp, i. e. by evidence of ſtory being demonſtrated to be
Chriſtmaſſe this do not ſo expreſſely appear to me as to be any where affirmed by me.
not uſual to touch cards or dice on Chriſtmas day, and this muſt adde either to our ſuperſtition or hypocriſie, our ſuperſtition, if they be lawful, in that they forbid them on that day, that God hath not forbidden them; Hypocriſie, if they be unlawful, in abſtaining then, and yet uſing them on ther days. But we ſhall ſoon be extricated from the power of this Dilemma, by affirming, 1. that thoſe ſports uſed moderately, as diverſions, and no way abuſed by our inordinacy, are not by any argument that ever I met with, proved to be toto genere, or abſolutely unlawful, and ſo that they may be uſed for divertiſement on other days, and particularly on the following days of that Feſtivity, and yet 2dly that they are no way neceſſary, and ſo that no man offends, that abſtains from them on all other days, and employs himſelf better conſtantly.
conſequent alſo, that he that hath fed on the body and blood of Chriſt, and conſecrated himſelf in an extraordinary manner to commemorate the myſterie of our redemption on Chriſtmas day, and agreeably thereto, deſires to ſpend it ſo much more ſtrictly then other dayes, as not to admit thoſe ſports (which are lawful on other days) to divide any part of that, can never be criminous in ſo doing.
riot (but ſuch is not all lawful divertiſement) on the following days, he knowes they are no way pleaded for by me, and if any be guilty of them, as the ſhame thereof is due to the offenders, not to the feſtival, which is innocent and laudable; ſo tis too well known that the Lords day it ſelf hath not been ſecured from the ſame unhappy adherences.
heathens worSun on that day, and that revelling upon it are fitter for ſuch heathen feaſts then for Chriſtians, as the Diatribiſt could ſugthe Saturnalia were celebrated about the ſame time that Chriſtmas was, and that the exceſſes of the following dayes are ſervices fitter for the revels of Bacchus and Saor the birth day of Herod, then for the feſtivity of a ſpiritual Saviour. All this is true, and equally granted by both parties,
propriety or pertinency to the diſpute be
th §. was introductory to a diſcourſe more general, to ſhew by what authority, feſtivals in general, and particularly this of Chriſtmas, pretends to ſtand in the Catholike Church, which I acknowledged not to be by any inſtitution of Chriſts, but to have had the beginning from the Apoſtles or the ſucceeding Church.
originals, beginning firſt with that of the Apoſtles. And of this he thinks he need ſay no more, then to appeal to the ſame arguments which he had uſed againſt the Apoſtles inſtitution of Eaſter §. 6. viz. 1. the no mention of ſuch inſtitution in the Scripture; 2. the expreſſe words of Socrates, that neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles commanded the feaſt of Eato be obſerved.
return having now paid it ſo punctually in the 4h §. where beſide clear anſwers to the Diatribiſts arguments, I added evidences undeniable that the feaſt of Eaſter was obſerved by the Apoſtles, And I cannot doubt but they will be of force with him, when he ſhall take leiweigh them; And then if the caſe ſhall be acknowledged the ſame betwixt Eaſter & Chriſtmaſſe, that of the reſurrection & this of the birth of Chriſt (as the Diatribiſt ſeems to acknowledge in tendring no one argument more againſt the Apoſtolicalneſs of Chriſtmaſs, then he had before produced againſt the inſtitution of Eaſter by them) then it is evident my affirmation muſt aſcend higher then it ever meant to have done, and not proceed disjunctively,
feaſt of the nativity is derived either from the Apoſtles or the ſucceeding Church, but leaving out the latter part of the partition, fix upon the former, that, being yielded to have the ſame original with Eaſter, it is certainly derived from the Apoſtles, from whence it appears that of Eaſter is derived.
evidences which may juſtly pretend to ſome force, at leaſt ad hominem, to him that hath no more againſt this, then againſt all other Chriſtian feſtivals, viz. thoſe from the martyrdomes of Ignatius and Polycarp, written by thoſe that were preſent at them, and ſo lived ſoon after the Apoſtles.
Polycarps recorded in that famous Epiſtle of the Church of Smyrna, I have ſet down at large, and made my inferences from it § §. 33. and 34. of that treatiſe of Feſtivals, To which I have here formerly added that other parallel teſtimony from the acts of Ignatius.
affirmation, without all diffidence, that other Feſtivals beſide that of the weekly Lords day, were derived to us, ſome certainly from the Apoſtles, oChurch immediately ſucceeding the Apoſtles; In one of which ranks though I have no reaſon to doubt but this of the Nativity of Chriſt is to be placed, yet becauſe we have not thoſe evidences of the fact which we have for Eaſter and others, I ſhall not build upon any degree of uncertainties, nor affirm more then what that treatiſe hath ſhewed out of the ancient Fathers, that this feaſt is deduced to us early from the firſt antiquity.
Socrates nor my L. of Falkland (who is joyned next to him) hath ſuggeſted any thing; & then what was thus done by them, muſt not in equity fare the worſe for my adding the mention of a motive or incitement that might rearecommend it to them, which is therefore preſently ſtyled a ſhew of wiſdom, as if all reaſonable motives were to be blaſted under that title, as all uncommanded performances here are ſaid to be by the expreſs words of the 2d
Commandment, & Col. 2. 23. But ſure we have formerly ſpoken enough of this arguing.
th §. proceeds to conſider what I had ſaid of the Encaenia among the Jewes, the feaſt of dedication not inſtituted by God in the Law, but in commemoration of the purging of the altar by Judas Maccabeus, and yet this obſerved by the Jewes, and approved by Chriſts preſence at it, Joh: 10. 23.
Diatribiſt anſwers, that there may be many miſtakes in this, And truly it matters not how many there may be, as long as there appears not to be any one.
there were three feaſts of dedication, and I cannot but know that learned men are divided of which it's here meant. But how can this firſt anſwer be of any avail, when I that took notice, as he confeſſes, of the three, made it evithird, that inſtituted in the Maccabees, and the Diatribiſt cannot deny but it's probable ſo it was, and offers not to anſwer the proofs, or to pretend ought for either of the two former againſt this.
d anſwer is, that granting it to be the laſt, yet there are reaſons to think it was not a religious Feſtival but a civil, as the feaſt of Purim ſeems to be, Eſth: 9. 21, 22. But it is not imaginable the Diatribiſt ſhould thus think, or be perſwaded by theſe reaſons.
reaſon is from the words 1 Mac. 4. 59. They ordered it ſhould be kept yearly with mirth and gladneſſe, adding that though it be ſaid v. 56. they offered burnt-offerings, yet that was v. 53. according to the law, and ſo was worſhip commanded.
proof, that this was a religious feaſt, and it was great ſurprize to me to ſee it brought to inferre the contrary: For what greater evidence can there be brought of a religious feaſt, then this, of which out of the Story he
portion, but lies in the Maccabees more completely thus.
Now on the 25th
day of the Ninth moneth (which is called the Moneth Caſleu) in the 148th
year they roſe up betimes in the morning and offered ſacrifice according to the law upon the now altar of burnt-offering which they had made; look at what time and what day the heathen had profaned it, even upon that was it dedicated with ſongs & citherns, harps & cymbals; Then all the people fell upon their faces worſhipping & praiſing the God of heaven who had given them good ſucceſſe, and ſo they kept the dedication of the altar 8 days, and offered burnt-offerings with gladneſſe; and ſacrificed the ſacrifice of deliverance and praiſe &c. and then v. 59. Moreover Judas and his brethren with the whole congregation of Iſrael ordained that the days of the dedication of the altar ſhould be kept in their ſeaſon from year to year by the ſpace of eight days from the 25 day of the moneth Caſleu with mirth and gladneſſe.
Diatribiſt, Is there any reaſon to think this was not a religious feſtival, nay is it poſſible for him to give any account, why in ſetting down the paſſages of it, he ſhould omit the peoples falling upon their faces, worſhipping and praiſing the God of heavens and ſacrificing the ſacrifices of deliverance and praiſe, together with Judas and his brethren and the congregation (which is not God, as hath hitherto been pretended it ought to be from the 2d and 4th
Commandment) ordaining that it ſhould be ſo kept for the future from year to year?
religiouſneſſe of the Feſtival, or the inſtitution by man and not by God? And is there now againſt all this any force in the words v. 53. [according to the law] which the Diatribiſt confronts to the mention of burnt-offerings, as an anſwer, or reaſon, why that which was kept with burnt-offerings, was yet no religious feaſt? May not burnt-offerings according to the law, ſuch as the Moſaical law approves of, yea and commands to be uſed for burnt-offerings, be uſed in a religious feaſt? what was ever ſuggeſted by any diſputer with leſſe appearance of truth or probability? He knowes that in the free will offerings there were yet laws given by Moſes according to which they were to offer,
feaſt ordained by Judas? would he imagine that illegal offerings ſhould have been ſought out for it, to conſtitute it a religious feaſt?
conviction to the Diatribiſt, I ſhall not inquire why it did not prevail with him. Only of this I am ſure, that if this one inſtance had been permitted to appear, what indeed it is, and now is viſibly demonſtrated to be a religious feaſt inſtituted by the Church of the Jewes, and not by God, and yet approved by him, there can never need any farther evidence to confute and demonſtrate the vanity of all his three Diatribae of Superſtitition, Will-worſhip, Feſtivals, his ſuggeſtions from ſuperſtatutum, from additions to the word, from the 2d and 4th
Commandments, from Col. 2. whether as it mentions Will-worſhip or the Commands of men.
Chriſtmas feſtivity, ſuppoſing the utmoſt that he can wiſh, that it was not obſerved by the Apoſtles, but inſtituted by the Church, be two or three hundred years after Chriſt, being perfectly anſwerable to this of the dedication, and ſo demonſtrated, by analogie with that, to be approved by Chriſt.
evidence ſhould by all convenient means be rendred uneffectual, All the unhappineſſe of it was, that the matter would not yield any ſuch, and ſo the Diatribiſt was to content himſelf with ſuch as we have now diſcovered.
diſcovered, and that yet it will be (more then) ſaid that it was a religious feaſt and ſo obſerved, he therefore hath a 3d
anſwer in reſerve, Then ſaith he, it may be fairly ſuggeſted that they went beyond their commiſſion in making this feaſt annual and perpetual, which neither Solomon nor Zorobabel did theirs, for ought we read.
ſymptomes of a deſperate cauſe, that fain would catch at ſome ſupports, but is forſaken of all. Tis evident Judas and his brethren and the whole congregation ordainkept thus from year to year, 1 Mac. 4. 59. and as evident that it was obſerved by the Jews even in Chriſts time, and as evident ſtill that Chriſt was preſent at that feaſt (and ſo approved of and confirmed it) Ioh. 10. 23. And yet ſaith he, it may
be fairly ſuggeſted that they went beyond their commiſſion in making this feaſt annual, what again could have been ſaid more unluckily then this, more contrary to expreſſe evidence in every de
feaſts of dedication, at the erecting the Temple in Solomons, and reedifying it in Zorobabels time, if they were annual, were fully parallel with this, and that they were ſo, was by this Diatribiſt affirmed to be the opinion of learned men, in this very page, who, ſaith he, interpreted the place of John 10. ſome of the one, ſome of the other of theſe, which twere ridiculous for them to doe, if it were not annual.
once a peece, I ſhall now demand, why might they not as lawfully be celebrated often, or annually and ordinarily, as for one turn and extraordinarily? If the firſt offended not by being ſuper ſtatutum, how could the ſecond or hundredth or thouſandth repetition render it criminous? Tis not imaginable what reaſon can be given for this, that what was lawful laſt year, ſhall be impious this year; what ground of ſo great difference, that one ſhould be approved, the other condemned, one not only innocent but commendable, and the other (i. e. the ſame received into conſtant annual practice) repudiated and rejected.
difference lies all this while, extraordinary days of thanksgiving for one turn ſaith he, he accounts lawfull to be done by the higher powers, and ſo extraordinary days of humiliation; From whence I conclude, that if King Lucius 1400 years agoe kept Chriſtmas day for one turn and no more, and ſo Good Friday alſo, he had the Diatribiſts leave to do it very freely and lawfully; But if when he had done ſo once, he ſhall offer to do it again, the next year, then Mr. C. muſt needs write Triplicem Diatriben againſt him.
laſt miſtake in me, will be ſoon found of the ſame rank with the former. Another miſtake, ſaith he, is this, that that feaſt was approved and confirmed by Chriſts preſence at it, whereas, ſaith he, the text produced ſayes no ſuch thing, but only thus, It was at Jeruſalem (mark that, not at the Temple) not elſewhere, the feaſt of the dedication, and v. 22.
Jeſus walked in the Temple, ſo he did other days, any day when no feaſt was &c.
arguing, for it will not eaſily be paralleld in any Diatribiſt, All that is by me affirmed from the text, is that Chriſt was preſent at it, the reſt is my deduction from thence, and I hope I have not offended therein, For is not that an evidence of Chriſts approbation, and ſo confirmation of it? would Chriſt have been preſent at an unlawful, nay (as this muſt be by the Diatribiſts divinity) ſuperſtitious deteſtable feaſt, wherein the 2d and 4th
Commandments were directly violated by the very keeping of it, and never have repreſcourged it and diſpatcht it out of the Temple, as he did that huckstring cuſtome of buying and ſelling there, and expreſt as great impatience againſt ſuch ſuperſtitious violations, as thoſe other profanations of his Fathers houſe? would not his preſence at the Feaſt have had the ſcandal of ſuperſtition, if the Feaſt it ſelf had had that crime in it?
markt, that this Feaſt was at Jenot at the Temple, is very ſtrange. For if it were a religious Feaſt (as hath already appeared it was from the ſtory of the inſtitution in the Maccabees) then ſure it was in the Temple, and ſo at Jeruſalem, where the Temple was. And what if Jeſus walkt in the Temple on other days, when no feaſt was, doth it thereFeaſt, when he walked there, and when the text ſaith expreſſely that it was the Feaſt? This is a new ſort of arguing ſtill, and this may be reiterated more turnes then one, and yet nothing amiſſe in it.
Encaenia, is apinſtance among the Jewes, the feſtivities of marriage, For marriage it ſelf, ſaith he, is a civil thing and not religious. But I ſhall not engage farther in new contromariage might be approved to be religious) I ſhall only need to demand on this head of diſcourſe, what the difference is between a civil, and a religious feſtivity? I ſhall ſuppoſe onely this, that in the one the publike ſervices of the Church, among Chriſtians, prayers, Pſalmes, Sermon, Euchariſt, (ſome or all of them) are uſed, as among the Jewes, ſacrifices, &c. adding to theſe
feſtival diet alſo, whereas the other is made up only of the latter.
Diatribiſt grantlawfull among the Jewes, and ſo among Chriſtians at the celebration of mariages, I ſhall demand how it is poſſible, the other ſhould be unlawful? Can the ſervices of the Church being added make that criminous, which was innocent before? Tis poſſible indeed for a profane mixture (ſuch as riot, &c.) to defame and pollute that, which is moſt ſacred, but have the ſacred offices of the Church that ſame accurſed force in them, to make that which was but civil before, ſacrilegious and impious? This is another rarity, that I had not formerly been acquainted with.
affirmed of the feaſt of Purim among the Iewes, of which though having made mention in the Practical Catechiſme, I added no more in the Treatiſe of Feſtivals, yet there cannot be any thing more pertinent to our preſent debates, this being without any direction from God, voluntarily inſtituted by the Iews not only for one turn, but as an eſtabliſhment among them, on the 14th and 15th
day of the moneth Adar yearly, Heſt. 9. 21. Now of this he takes notice by the way §. 29. (treating of the Encaenia) and ſaith of it as of the other, that it ſeems to be a religious feſtival, but a civil; But this again without the leaſt ſhew of probability.
text to demonſtrate it, Heſt. 9. There v. 16. the Iewes had reſt from their enemies, and thereupon v. 17. on the 13th
day, and 14th
of the moneth Adar reſted they, & made it a day of feaſting and gladneſs and v. 18. The Jews that were at Shuſhan aſſembled together on the 13th
day, & the 14th
day thereof; & on the 15th
they reſted & made it a day of feaſting & gladneſſe, and v. 19. the Iewes of the villages made the 14th
day of the moneth Adar a day of gladneſſe and feaſting, and a good day, and of ſending portions one to another, Here I cannot but ſuppoſe that a day of reſt, of aſſembly, of feaſting, and gladneſſe, a good day (i. e. in their ſtyle a feſtival day) a day of hoſpitality and charity, ſending of portions (ſacrifical feaſt) will to any impartial readerpaſſe for an indication of a religious feaſt.
days were obſerved for the firſt turn, ſo they are eſtabliſht for a yearly obſervation, v. 21. 22. And the Iewes ordained,
and took upon them, and upon their ſeed, and upon all ſuch as joined themſelves to them, ſo as it ſhould not fail, that they would keep theſe two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time every year, v. 27.
religiouſneſs, and for the eſtabliſhment for continuance; and this ſtill a feaſt inſtituted by the Iewes, and not by God himſelf, and ſo as clear an inſtance, on our ſide of the matter conteſted, as is imaginable.
Lords day, not inſtituted by Chriſt, or God himſelf but by the Apoſtles, without any mention in the New Teſtament of any preſcription or law for the obſerving of it.
proceed, hoping for ſome great advantage from it; let us ſee what the ſucceſs will prove.
there want not learned men who think that Chriſt did deſigne the day. But I muſt demand whether he can imalearned men were in the right in this, or have herein expreſt any of their learning? If he cannot think they have, why doth he loſe time and gain nothing by the mention of them? If he can, why doth he not ſo much as offer their grounds of thus opining, when he knowes nor Scripture nor antiquity ſaith any thing of it, and when it were as tolerable in any oppoſer to offer his opinion alſo, that Chriſtmaſs day was by Chriſt himſelf deſigned alſo.
dly ſaith he, if the Apoſtles did inſtitute it, that's more then he dare ſay of Chriſtmaſs day. And what if it be? Doth that prejudge the obſerving of Chriſtmaſs, ſuppoſing it certain (as I do ſuppoſe) that it was either of the Apoſtles or the ſucceeding
Church? Suppoſe ſome feaſts of the Iewes inſtituted by God or Moſes, others by the Church of the Iewes, and not by Moſes, as the Purim and Encaenia, Are not theſe latter as lawfully to be kept to all poſterity of the Iews, as thoſe former?
dly the parallel that I ſet betwixt the Lords day and Chriſtmaſs day, was only this, that as neither of them was found preſcribed, or by law commanded in Scripture, ſo the want of ſuch law ſhould be no prejudice to the one, more then to the other, as long as by ſome other way it appeared of the one, that it was deApoſtles or the ſucceeding Church, as of the other, that it came immediatly from the Apoſtles; It being evident that if the Apoſtles uſage gave to one a divine authority, the uſage of the ſucceeding Church muſt be next to that, though not divine, and the latter lawful, yea and obligatory, as well, though not in ſo high a degree, as the former, as the Encaenia were as lawful, as the Paſsover, and were obligatory alſo, though not by the ſame authority. By this it appears that there is certain obligation for the obſerving of Chriſtmaſs, though there ſhould be no certainty of the Apoſtles inſtituting it.
If the Lords day was inſtituted by the Apoſtles of Chriſt, do not their inſtitutions carry in them divine preſcription or Law? I anſwer, that if by inſtitution be meant giving Law for the obſervation of it, then there is no doubt of his propoſition, the predication being identical, inſtitution in this ſenſe, is preſcribing, or giving Law.
inſtitution of the Lords day by the Apoſtles] may ſignifie another thing, viz. that the Apoſtles practice, aſſembling weekly on the Lords day, ſhould have the force of an inſtitution, or a Law with the ſucceeding Church, though indeed the Apoſtles gave no Law for it, or if they did, no ſuch Law appears from them.
examples of the Apoſtles are the onely way of conveying ſome uſages to us without any their preſcript Law; And accordingly in this ſenſe alſo I conſent to the Diatribiſt, that their inſtitutions carry in them divine preſcription or Law, and ſo I ſhall no way contend with him in this matter.
grounds, I ſhall demand, that whatſoever elſe ſhall be in the ſame manner derived to us, through all ages
Church, from the times of the Apoſtles themſelves, may be acknowledged alſo to carry a divine impreſſion upon it. And then, to omit Epiſcopacy (which he cannot but know hath perLords day) I ſhall inſiſt onely on the feaſt of Eaſter, which hath been dederived from the Apoſtles, and ſo is an inſtance of all that I pretend in the point of Feſtivals, leaving Chriſtmaſs day to the equity of proportion, and the other evidences that are produced for the antiquity of it.
no Law, that appears in Scripture for the Lord's day. In order to which I ſaid, that if any thing of that nature be ſought there, it will rather appear to belong to the annual, then weekly feaſt of the reſurrection, naming 1 Cor. 5. 8. let us keep the feaſt, and the mention of the Lords day, Rev. 1. 10. by ſome thought to belong to the annual day alſo.
authorities of ſome ancient and modern writers, which, ſaith he, do not ſeem to underſtand theſe places thus. And though twere no impoſſible thing to anſwer thoſe teſtimonies, yet I ſhall never diſcourage him in that very reaſonable courſe of appeal to the judgement of the Fathers, and other ſuch Learned men, but yielding him all he deſires of both theſe places, I muſt only deſire him to remember, that this will no whit advantage him or prejudice me, unleſſe he can bring out of the Scripture ſome other places, which are more apodicticall evidences of Apoſtolicall Law for the weekly Lords day, then theſe are for the annual; For the matter is clear, all that I was there to prove, was no more but this, that there was no Law in Scripture for either of them.
th §. to Epiphanius's cenſure of Aërius as of an heretick, for affirming feſtivals unlawfull, his anſwer is, that all is not hereſie that Epiphanius calls ſo, nor all Aërius's opinions juſtly cenſured as heretical.
Diatribiſt is concerned to think, both in reintereſts, that eſpecially of Epiſcopacy. But for the averting of ſo great a crime, it would well become the accuſed to offer ſome reaſon for the clearing himſelf, and not onely to have mentioned the name of Oſiander the Epitomizer of the Centuriators, woſe words are not affirmed to belong to this particular of Feſtivals, and if they did, whoſe authority is ſure ſo Incompetent to weigh with Epiphanius in ſetting down the ſenſe of the ancient Church, that in all reaſon ſome evidences ſhould have been annexed to adde weight to him.
ſtrange, that they which tranſcribe that affirmation from Aërius, will not allow it to be hereſie in him; I will onely demand whether St
Auguſtine be of any better account with him, Haer. 53. he knew what hereſie was, and what Aërius was guilty of, and whether elſewhere he may deEpiphanius, he ſaith, Rectè feſta Eccleſiae colunt, qui ſe Eccleſiae filios
Sam. 253. De Temp. Domin. 1. Adv.
recognoſcunt, they that profeſs themſelves ſons of the Church do duely obſerve the feaſts of the Church, ſetting this of the nativity in the front of ſuch, where ſurely thoſe that do not obſerve them, muſt diſclaim their ſonſhip, and that is but a paraphraſe to expreſs thoſe, whom Epiphanius ſtyles hereticks.
evidences, that they that obſerve
feaſts are ſuperſtitious, I ſhall think my ſelf obliged to do more then deny the accuſation.
feſtivities of martyrs mentioned by me in the ſame §. he acknowledges they began betimes, as ſuperſtition, ſaith he, ever attends religion and devotion, adding that though they were intended for good ends, yet they produced in time much ſuperſtition.
anſwer is very unſufficient, and inconſtant; Ʋnſufficient, for what if it were granted that in a proceſſe of time theſe feſtivities did occaſionally produce ſome evil, ſo Chriſtianity it ſelf, ſo all things that ſhould have been moſt for our wealth, may through the vices of men be perverted into occaſions of falling; But what is that to the antiquity of Feſtivals, which is the only thing that theſe inſtances were required to teſtifie.
dly
inconſtant, for at firſt theſe feſtivities are lookt on as ſuperſtition attending religion and devotion (and by the way, if that be applicable to theſe feſtivities, that will be a competent character of their antiquity, for religion and devotion, were brought in with Chriſtianity, and if the Feſtivities were the ſuperſtition that attended that, they will be pretty ancient) and yet in the latter part tis ſaid of them, that they produced in time much ſuperſtition, which latter if it be true, then the former which was contrary, is not true, and that is ſufficient to be replied to that anſwer.
preſume too much upon my own reaſon in concluding from the teſtimony of the Church of Smyrna, that the days of the death of the Apoſtles themſelves were ſolemnized thus early, i. e. before Polydeath] Sure his cenſure is not over reaſonable; For when by thoſe expreſſe words of that Churches Epiſtle it is firſt appaPolycarps death was thus celebrated, 2. That this Polycarp was immediate ſucceſſor to the Apoſtles, and lived in the ſame time with them, 3 That this commemoration of Martyrs was before this time uſed in the Church, and no new thing now to be done to Polycarp; what reaſon of doubting can there be, but that at this time the Apoſtles having received (many of them) this crown of martyrdome ſhould be thus commemorated
in joy and exultation, i. e. with a feſtivity, when this
Polycarp, and that in accord to former practice, eſpecially when to that is added the inſtance perfectly paralIgnatius, yet more ancient then Polycarp, and the day of his death preciſely obſerved by thoſe that were preſent, on this very purut ſecundum tempus martyrii ejus congregati communicemus athletae, that they might aſſemble at the day of his martyrdome, and communicate with this champion.
more or more expreſs teſtimonies for the feſtivals of the Apoſtles, need not ſeem ſtrange, the records being ſo few which remain of thoſe times, and my reading being ſo ſmall; For the preſent, theſe two may be conſidered, being teſtimonies of competent antiquity, and force to prove what I pretend to prove, that Feſtivities were obſerved by the Church next ſucceeding the Apoſtles, and why Polycarp and Ignatius ſhould have that honour, when Peter and Paul were not allowed it, I ſtill profeſſe not to diſcern reaſon, nor conſequently to make any doubt of it.
Diatribiſt is willing to form an argument from my not bringing of teſtimonies §. 33. it is remarkeable that §. 34. is wholly paſt over in ſilence by him, which yet produceth the authorities of Gregorius Thaumaturgus, of Cyprian, of Tertullian, ex majorum traditione (and ſo of thoſe that were much more ancient then he) and ſo intirely made up of teſtimonies of the firſt antiquity concerning the memories of the Martyrs (which muſt ſure include the Apoſtles, as many of them as were thus crowned) before any Churches were built, wherein to aſſemble and celebrate their Feſtivals.
Diatribiſt had little reaſon to complain of want, at that very time when he was thus overcharged with plenty of teſtimonies, and hath not a word to return to any one of them, any more then he doth §. 35. to the mentions of Origen, Cyprian, and Chryſoſtome, deducing the Chriſtmaſs feſtivity from the firſt antiquity.
weight in it, that I muſt not allot any ſolemn anſwers to it, the lighteſt ſtrictures will be more proportionable.
Author of the Conſtitutions he ſaith, this will weaken my cauſe the more, becauſe they are generally accounted ſpurious, This ſure muſt be very unjuſt, that what was confirmed ſo newly from Origen, Cyprian, and Chryſoſtome, ſhould not only not gain, but loſe ſtrength by the addition of the Conſtitutions, which beſides that they are acknowledged ancient by all which leaſt believe them Apoſtolical, are known to be deſigned to imitate that antiquity they pretend to, and are never juſtly rejected, but when that which they affirm is found diſcordant to the affirmations of other writings of undoubted antiquity, which having no place here, there is as little room for the Diatribiſts cenſure.
Juſtinus's edict (which I mentioa proof that the Apoſtles did not inſtitute it, is alApoſtles practice being all that is pretended for the inſtitution, the edict of the Emperour for the
Ʋniverſal obſervation of it is very reconcileable with that, (and ſo alſo with the uſage of the firſt ages after the Apoſtles in caſe it be divolved no higher then theſe, as the ſeveral decrees of Magiſtrates Civil and Eccleſiaſtical for an univerſal obſervation of the Lords day are ſure perfectly reconcileable with the Apoſtolical original thereof.
Chriſtians that
burnt by Diocletian on this day (ſure long before that edict of Iuſtinus (at which time ſaith the Niceph: l. 7. c. 6.Hiſtorian,
all that were called Chriſtians of all ages aſſembled in the Church to celebrate the nativity, And to that, it ſeems he hath no other return, but his advertiſement that Nicephorus ſaith it was Maximinus, that was thus bloody, Maximianus, I ſuppoſe he would have ſaid, who reigned with Diocletian, and then it comes to the ſame paſſe, and the truth is acknowledged, which ſoever the name were.
day of this feſtival to be Decemb. 25. his proofs are extraordinary; 1. from the Doctor himſelf, that it was called Midwinter day, which is a fortnight before. But that hath already been anſwered, the variation being evidenced to be from the want of exactneſſe in our Calendars, not from any doubt of the day.
dly From the opinion of many Divines, that our Lord died when he was 33 and halfyears of age, or neer unto 34, as ſaith he, the Doctor ſaith, Qu. 1. §. 10. What Divines theſe are that thus calculate, I am not told, nor how competent they are to be confronted to the cenſual Tables, from whence S. Chryſoſtome fetches the day of his birth: But the luck of it is, that citation from the Doctor was eaſily conſulted, and on view of the place, there is no more but this, that Chriſt preacht the will of his Father three years or foure together, which I thought had ſignified no more then for ſome uncertain ſpace betwixt 3 or 4 yeears; And if he were born in December and died in April, what difficulty is there in this calculation? or what needed the Diatribiſt to have cited from the Doctor the words [neer 34.] when he knowes there is nothing to that ſenſe ſaid by him?
d thing (without which his undertaking to mention many, will be a faileur) which may make us doubt of the truth of the calculation, is the yonger date of the Arabick Codex of the Councels; But when that Codex was dated, he hath not told us, And if it were later then I thought, it may yet poſſibly ſpeak truth, and ſo that will give us no reaſon of doubting.
Doctor is upon Ifs, and Tis probable, And I heartily wiſh the Diatribiſt would but ſpeak probably, and
averſions to the Doctors Ifs, I mean, that he would uſe diffidence, when he pretends not to demonſtrate.
returns about the Epiphany, but leave them to be judged by the §§. to which they are oppoſed.
Chryſoſtome, and his diſpute againſt that Father, my anſwer is very brief, that all that I attempted to prove from Chryſoſtome, was the due timing of the feaſt on the 25th of December, and that being done beyond controverſie, I pretend not to derive other deciſions from that teſtimonie, but leave them to ſtand on their own baſis.
Chryſoſtome, he at length conauthority of the Church in conſtituting, and celebrating this feſtival in all ages much ſhaken, I muſt reminde him that that Fathers words which affirm it a queſtion at that time, belong not to the Feſtivity it ſelf, but only to the particularity of the day, whether it were to be kept on the 25th of December or on ſome other day, and accordingly his proofs proceed, that this is the very time; And though ſome doubted whether this were a new, or the ancient day of the feſtivity, yet ſaith he, others defended it, that it was old & antient (or original, ſo contr. Marc. c. 5.Tertullians quod ab initio, as that with quod ab Apoſtolis) and from theſe ancient, if not theſe firſt timas (as Tertullian, ordo ad originem recenſus) it hath been manifeſt and illuſtrious to all that dwell from Thrace to Gadeira, from Eaſt to Weſt, that ſure with him ſignifies, all the world over.
diſpute, which ſide ſoever was in the right, is founded in a ſuppoſition of the feaſt it ſelf being original and from the beginning, And indeed if the firſt proof which he offers for it be conſidered, tis not imaginable how he ſhould ſay more to the aſſerting of the Apoſtolicalneſſe both of the Feſtivity and the day alſo.
That this is the ſeaſon, ſaith he, on which Chriſt was born, the firſt demonſtration is
that the feaſt was
ſo ſpeedily promulgate every where, & aſcended to ſo great an height, & flouriſht, adding that as Gamaliel ſaid of the preaching of the Goſpel, that if it were of men it would come to nought, but if of God, ye cannot diſſolve it, leſt ye be found fighters againſt God, the ſame he might ſay confidently
of this day (not of the Goſpel, as the Diatribiſt afterward ſaith, he thinks he means, but cannot realſeeing, or becauſe it is from God, therefore tis not only not diſſolved, but every year advances, and becomes more ſplendid, and yet farther adding (in the words recited by the Diatribiſt, and by omitting the former, rendred capable of being miſunderſtood)
ſeeing the preaching (of it cerday, or elſe it can have no coherence with the feaſt or antecedents and whole contexture) in a few years took poſſeſſion of the whole world, though tentmakers and fiſhermen, unlearned and idiots brought it amongſt them.
prejudice to the
Ʋniverſal obſervation of this day in the Apoſtles times, I leave the Reader (and, if he pleaſe, the Diatribiſt alſo) to conſider.
reply to my concluſion, that the faſtidious rejecting or not obſerving the Feſtivals of the univerſal Church muſt be lookt on as an act of affected departure from the univerſal Church of Chriſt in all ages, and not only from the reformed Church of England.
This, ſaith he, is an heavy charge, if it can be proved. And for that I muſt now referre my ſelf to the premiſſes in that treatiſe
probation or vindication, till this which I have uſed be invalidated; For a concluſion being (as this is) deduced from the premiſses, what more can be required to eſtabliſh the concluſion, then the confirmation of the premiſſes?
laws of Diſcourſe for the Diatribiſt to confute or deny, or make anſwer to the concluſion, any otherwiſe then by refuting the media, which have inferred it; ſo muſt it be in me, to reply to ſuch offers of anſwer, which can nepremiſſes ſtand in force, eſpedenying thoſe things, which this vindication hath undertaken to prove, without offering anſwer (as without the ſpirit of divination it could not) to thoſe proofs.
example, The Diatribiſt here begins with this affirmation, that I have not proved that the univerſal Church of the firſt age hath obſerved any of the Feſtivals, And I have here evidently proved that Eaſter was obſerved by Philip and Iohn the Apoſtle, and from them received by the Aſiaticks, or Eaſtern Chriſtians and ſo likewiſe by the Weſtern from S. Peter and S. Paul, and ſo ſure there is no farther need of refuting this affirmation.
appear in each inſuing ſtep of his anſwer, and the rule by which he is content to be judged applied exactly to the condemning him in this very buſineſs of the Eaſter Feſtivity, which is of as much force, as if it equally appeared of every other of the great Feſtivals: But ſtill this were to repeat what hath here been already ſaid, and vindicated from all his exceptions.
newes in it. And 1. let me admire his candor, when he will not ſtick to grant this rule to be good, that whatever doctrine or practice hath the concordant atteſtation of the Churches of the Apoſtolical time, while they were yet alive, it was Apoſtolical] but withall addes as if he had been too liberal, that the negative is a ſurer rule to judge by, (as if indeed any predication could be ſurer then that which is identical.)
argument againſt the concordant atteſtation of the primitive ancients concerning Apoſtolical tradition drawn from Papias's affirmation of the Milennium, had not, I confeſſe, forQu. 1. §. 38. and in the Def. of L. Falklands Tract of Infall.
p. 197. from the Pract. Cat. p. 181. that Chriſtmas was not univerſally ſolemnized till about 400 years after Chriſt, and after (a little more to his advantage) till at leaſt the 400 years, p. 201.] is both as to the words and as to the ſenſe very much miſreported; The place is ready to be ſeen, and lies thus. The authority by which this feſtival ſtands in the Church, is that of the practice of the Primitive univerſal Church, and this made appear 1. from the immemorial obſervation of it, 2. from the ancient Fathers ſpeaking of it as an ancient uſage (in the notion of teſtimonies not only of the author of the Conſtitutions (ancient though not Apoſtolical) but of Origen, of Cyprian, of Ammianus Marcellinus, ſpeaking of Iulian 1300 years ſince, and mentioning the Epiphany as a known feſtival of the Church, and ſo both that, and Chriſtmaſſe of a far greater antiquity, then the time of Iulian. Laſtly, by the words of Chryſoſtome, that though the particular day December 25. was not fixt at Antioch till his time, yet from Rome over all the Weſt it had been ſo obſerved from the moſt ancient records of Chriſtianity, Upon which my concluſion is, that it appears at leaſt to be an Eccleſiaſtical conſtitution very early received over all the Weſt, the far greateſt part of Chriſtendome, and within 400 years univerſally ſolemnized, and this a very competent authority, when withall tis ſo probable, that it may be more, according to a
In cis quae ſcriptura nec jubet, nec prohibet, illud eſt ſequendum quod conſuetudo roboravit, quae ſine dubio de traditione manavit. Tertull. de coron. milit. & Quod univerſa tenet eccleſia, nec conciliis inſtitutum, ſed ſemper retentum eſt, non niſi poteſtate Apoſtolica traditum rectiſſimè creditur. Aug. de bapt. con. Donat. l. 4. c. 23.rule of the Fathers, That very ancient and general uſages, whoſe beginnings are unknown, may be reſolved to be of Apoſtolical inſtitution or practice &c.
tranſcribed from that place, to demonſtrate what fidelity there was in this citation, not only in applying that to the Feſtivall, which belonged peculiarly to that particular day Dec. 25. but alſo in affirming from me, that it was not univerſally ſolemnized till about 400. yeares and till at leaſt the 400. yeare (which leaves it free to be of a dote yet later) when I ſay tis ſo probable that it was of Apoſtolicall inſtitution or practice, that the feaſt of Epiphanie was ſpoken of, as a known feſtivall
long before that time, and the feaſt of Innocents, attending this of Chriſtmas affirmed by Origen to be by the holy Fathers according to the will of God commanded to be for ever celebrated in the Church, and onely added, that it appears to be at leaſt an Eccleſiaſticall inſtitution very early received over all the Weſt, and the farre greater part of Chriſtendome, and within 400. years univerſally ſolemnized.
unjuſt then this? or what heed can be given to teſtimonies thus transformed into ſhapes, which the writer never dream'd of, and yet from them concluſions deduced ſuch as here follow in this place of the Diatribiſt, that my raſh zeale hath carried me beyond the bounds of Reaſon and Religion.
expreſsion of his all that I have to ſay is, 1. That my concluſion was inferred out of premiſſes, not dictated by zeale, 2dy. That it affix'd no cenſure on any perſon, belonging onely to thoſe who ſhould be found guilty of it, and ſo was wholly decharity, to reforme, not to reproach any: 3. That if there had been any thing of raſh, or bitter in it, it might have admoniſht the Diatribiſt
guilty of greater ſharpneſs; As it is, I muſt onely inferre, that it ſeemes the guilty perſon hath the priviledge of accuſing and judging in any form of language, and ſo I ſhall not be ſo unſeaſonable as to admoniſh him of the injuſtice of it, at a time when it is ſo improbable he will reap profit by it.
faſtidious reflexions upon three Quaeſtions which I had return'd to the Author of the 16, Quaeres; But becauſe I ſee he likes not the Quaeſtions in my termes, and in his propoſing of foure others, inſerts particulars, wholly rejected by mee, as that of [parts of worſhip] adding [as it is propounded, §. 9.] (but I hope not by me ſo propounded) of abuſe to ſuperſtition and profaneneſs, &c. I ſhall be as little obliaccept them in his termes or tempted by the nature of the task or by the probability of the ſucceſs of it with this Diatribiſt) to begin new deſputes at this time; It is not amiſs that we ſhake hands for a while and commune each with his own heart in ſtillneſs: And ſo I heartily take my leave of him.
p. 10. in marg. read
p. 131. marg. li. penult. r.