Diatribe Triplex, Text 2 – Title page 2

Diatribe Triplex · Text 2 – Title page 2

p. 44OF WILL-WORSHIP.

Section 1.

HAD the Reverend and learned Doctor (as it became him) diſtinguiſhed the words; either foreign in Greek, or Willworſhip in Engliſh, before he began his Defence of them; wee ſhould better have been able, to judge of his Diſcourſe about them. For the words, in both languages, may be taken in a double ſenſe. 1. For Voluntary, Spontaneous, or willing worſhip, that is willingneſſe and freeneſſe, in worſhip commanded by God; and then they were too blame, that put an ill notion upon them. Or 2. For worſhip deviſed by the wit, and appointed by the will of man, as contradiſtinguiſhed, to the wiſdome, and will of God; and then it was not ſo much the ill-Fortune (as he calls it) as the juſt puniſhment of them, to paſſe under an ill notion, and to be taken for ſomewhat reproveable, as well in a Chriſtian, as in an Heathen. For the ſumme and ſcope of the ſecond Commandement, Auguſt. de conſenſ. Evang. l. 1. c. 18.in the Affirmative part, being this. God muſt be worſhiped with his owne preſcribed worſhip, and in the Negative p. 45part, to forbid all deviſed worſhip of God, This is acknowledged by the Doctor: God is to be worſhipt in a manner peculiar to him, & appointed by him. Apend. on 2^d. Commandement.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 onelyonly Rule of worſhip, is as a brand in the forehead of it, to characterize it, as condemnable in all.

§. 2. How oft, or ſeldome the Greek word is uſed in other Authors, or the Tranſlators of the old Teſtament, wee ſhall not trouble our ſelves to enquire; when the thing ſignified by it, (in the ſecond ſenſe above, in which ſenſe the Reverend Doctor doth and muſt take it, or he hath no Adverſarie,) that is, deviſed and impoſed worſhip, by the will of man, is ſo much decryed, and declaimed againſt, in Scripture, as an high Indignity and affront, to the Divine Majeſty. This is ſomething, little to the credit of it; That the ſimple word foreign, and the verb foreign, are but twice a pe…ce, uſed in the booke of wiſdom, and alwaies in an ill notion: 2. That foreign it ſelf, being but once uſed in the New Teſtament: it is, (by the judgement of moſt Interpreters, Proteſtant and Popiſh) taken in an ill notion, as ſhall appeare hereafter.

§. 3. What the word foreign, in the place, Col. 2.23. ſignifieth, may indeed be gathered from the Contents: But the Reverend p. 46Doctor, ſeemes too ſhort, in laying of it out: The Apoſtles diſcourſe in that place, is (ſaies he) of foreign, Doctrines of men, teaching ſome things to be forbidden by God, that he forbiddeth not. This is in part true; ſome falſe teachers might impoſe ſome Doctrines upon their brethren, as Gods Commands, when they were not, as being now outdated by Chriſt; but the ſcop of the Apoſtle is, Bez. in locus.to diſpute, in this Chapter, againſt the corruptions that were creeping in, in their Chriſtian worſhip; which was the uſe and end of thoſe Doctrines; and to ſtabliſh the Coloſſians againſt them: Which that it may appear, let us review the context, from the 4. verſe downwards. Thus he begins: This I ſay, that no man ſhould beguile you, with enticing words. In the Greek, they are more ſignificant; foreign: Put upon you Sophiſticall Paralogiſmes; In locum. The word Philoſophy ſeems to me to be all one, with worſhiping of Angels, v. 18. ſaies the Doctor; Superſtition. Sect. 7.probabilitate ſermonis, by probable arguments, as Beza; by Rhetoricall inſinuations, or ſophiſticall ſubtleties, as D. Davenant, explaines it, to lead you away from Chriſt. Now the Apoſtle goes on, to diſcover ſome of thoſe toiles, and waies, whereby Seducers did beguile their followers. 1. Philoſophicall ſpeculations, having a ſhew of much wiſdome; ver. 8. Beware leaſt any man ſpoil you through Philoſophie; an inſtance whereof is given in the 18. ver. in voluntary p. 47humilitie, and worſhiping of Angells. 2. Traditions and Inventions of men, ſuperadded, or continued in the worſhip of God; an inſtance wherof is in the 20.22. ver. Why are yee ſubject to Ordinances, after the Commandements, & Doctrines of men. 3. Moſaical Ceremonies, revived, after they were abrogated by Chriſt: of which he ſpeakes, ver. 16.17, His ſcope in all, is to diſpute againſt all rites and Ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church, as parts of Divine worſhip, D. Daven in locum.as neceſſary duties of holineſs, and righteouſneſs and as binding Conſcience. As that learned and judicious Profeſſor, expreſſes it. And the Apoſtle oppoſes this onelyonly againſt them, ver. 8. "They are not after Chriſt, but invented and impoſed by men; Not after Chriſt, i. e. not after the Doctrine, or Commandement of Chriſt, in the Goſpell; which he expreſſ…s in another phraſe, ver. 19. Not holding the head, but after the Commandements, and Doctrines of men, ver. 22. Whence it appeares, that the Reverend Doctor ſeemes miſtaken, when hee ſaies; Where yet you must obſerve, he doth not ſpeake of Commands, but Doctrines, i. e. not of the prohibition of the Magiſtrate, &c. but of falſe teachers, impoſing them as the commands of God. For the Apoſtle ſpeakes expreſly, theſe impoſitions, Touch not, taſt not, &c. were after the Commandements, p. 48and Doctrines of men, ver. 22. and ver. 8. "after the Traditions of men, to worſhip God, by the obſervation of them: The worſhip of God, did once conſiſt in theſe obſervations, and Abſtinencies; and the falſe Teachers put them upon their followers, as ſtill uſefull to this end: Having done this, hee ſets an ill Character upon thoſe Doctrines of worſhip; which things have indeed a ſhew of wiſdom, in Willworſhip, &c. But are after the Commandements and Doctrines of men, not any Doctrines or Commands of Chriſt: and ſo no better, than Willworſhip, &c, The Doctor ſeemes to place the illneſſe of this practice in this; That they urging ſome aboliſht ceremonies as ſtill in force by divine precept, ſhould thereby deny Chriſt to be come in the fleſh. Which though it bee true in part, yet is not all that the Apoſtle here intended: but this he alſo addes, that they, placing the worſhip of God, in thoſe obſervances, not after Chriſt, but after the Commandements and traditions of men, did fall into Willworſhip; which had a ſhew of wiſdome, but no more. For it is not onelyonly (ſinfull) Willworship, to teach and obſerve the Old Ceremonies as parts of Gods worſhip, when they are aboliſhed; but alſo to inuent a new way of worſhip (as that of worshiping Angells was for certain ver. 18.) and to put it upon God, as an acceptable worſhip.

p. 39§. 4. That wee have not miſtaken the Doctors meaning, will appear by that which he addes, about the difference betwixt making of poſitive humane Lawes, in indifferent things, and urging or teaching things for Divine commands, which either never were commanded by God, or elſe are now outdated by Chriſt: The Apoſtles diſcourſe proceeds of the latter, &c. This is true, the Apoſtle hath here no reflection on the Magiſtrates making lawes, in indifferent things: but yet, if the Magiſtrate, or Church ſhould invent and impoſe any new way of worſhiping God (as the Church of Rome, hath done many) would not the Apoſtles arguing conclude them to be Will-worship, as well as if they had urged and taught ſome antiquated ceremonies to be obſerved, as a part of the worſhip of God The Doctor grants and aſſerts, Sect. 3.That if the Magiſtrate should teach or impoſe Doctrines of men, upon others, as the Commands of God when they are not, he should thereby incurre the cenſure of a falſe teacher alſo; And if he ſhould teach or impoſe ſome antiquated worship, upon his people, though not as the command of God, would he not be a Teacher of falſe worſhip alſo? As for his inſtance of David, who appointed the Levites to ſerve from the age of 20. years, whereas God by Moſes had appointed it, but from 25. p. 40years old &c. It is firſt Impertinent, for hee brings it as an inſtance of a 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; wherein, what he did, is not imitable by any Magiſtrate now: who hath no power to order any thing in Religion, againſt a former Order of God, as in the caſe in hand, there was. What then may be ſaid, for Davids altering the appointment of God (as in ſome other things beſides? Divines do anſwer, that David was a Prophet, inſpired by God, or directed by ſome other Prophet, how to Order the affaires of the Temple, and worſhip of God. And this to mee is evident, by texts of Scripture. 1 Chron. 28.19. All this (ſaid David) the Lord made me to underſtand in writing, by his good hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern, which hee aſcribes to the Spirit of God, ver. 12, 13. & cap. 23.27. by the laſt words of David, the Levites were numbred from 20 years old, of which he ſaies, the ſpirit of the Lord ſpake by me, 2 Sam. 23.2, 3. But this by the way.

§. 5. The full importance of the words, ver. 22. (hee ſaies) is this; That when thoſe abſtinencies are impoſed and taught, as divine obliging precepts, this is an abuſe of them (which were otherwiſe innocent things) and that abuſe of them dangerous p. 41or deſtructive. But 1. why doth he refuſe our Tranſlation of thoſe word, which all are to periſh with the uſing? For the verb, from whence foreign, is derived, ſignifies ſometimes, ſimply, to uſe. Eſtius in locum.And the Civill Lawyers take Abuſus, for the conſuming uſe, ordinarily: 2. Whither the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the meats, or of thoſe ordinances of abſtaining, both may be ſaid to periſh in the uſing: The meates apparently, and the Ordinances themſelves, in this ſenſe, that whereas whilſt they were under Gods command, they were profitable to the obſervers; now being outdated, they periſh with the uſing, without any ſpirituall advantage. 3. There is little or nothing in the text, to import, that they were impoſed and taught by the Falſe Treachers, as Divine obliging precepts (though if ſo, that had beene an abuſe of them) but rather that they were the Commandements and Doctrines of men; as the next words following are: and herein the Doctor places the danger, Sect. 6. as we ſhall ſee. Juſt as that Doctrine, ver. 18. concerning worſhiping of Angels, in a voluntary humility, &c. was the Doctrine, or command of a man "vainly puft up in his fleſhly mind, but could not be pretended, much leſſe impoſed as a Divine command. So the Doctrines and Traditions of the Phariſees, were not pleaded to be the Commandements of God, but p. 42expreſly called the Commandements of men, Math. 15.9. and oppoſed to the Commandements of God, ver. 3.6. And in this Chapter, ver. 8. Thoſe Doctrines are called the Traditions of men, and rudiments of the World. 4. I would ask the Doctor, whither the placing of the worſhip of God, in obſervation of thoſe Ordinances of Abſtinence, though not taught nor impoſed as Gods Commands, upon a mans ſelfe, or others, were not an abuſe of them, and being a ſelf-deviſed Willworſhip, were not foreign. as deſtructive, as the urging them ſtill as Gods Commands? His great miſtake is, that this was the onelyonly abuſe of them, and that otherwiſe they were innocent things, for ſo he ſayes: which now he may ſee, they were not. And laſtly the following words ver. 23. ſeem to imply, the abuſe to have beene, not that they impoſed them, as Divine Commands, but as parts of Divine worſhip (which the word foreign imports) in a pretended humility, and not ſparing of the body, &c. For he ſaies, they have a ſhew of wiſdome, not as the Commands of God, but in Willworſhip, &c.

§. 6. Yet let us hear, wherein the Doctor, places the danger and deſtructiveneſſe of them. That they were after the Commandements, and Doctrines of men; which words point out that, wherin the danger doth conſiſt, p. 43to wit, impoſing on men humane Ordinances or Doctrines. Stay there a while: Then (ſay I) they did not impoſe them as Commands of God; nor did the danger lye in that; But I deſire to know, what it was that they impoſed, by thoſe Ordinances and Doctrines? was it not, a way of worſhiping God by thoſe Abſtinencies, touch not, &c. The abſtinences they teach Sect. 7.I think the Doctor will not deny it: For it is not to be meant of impoſing of Humane Ordinances, about indifferent things, by the Magiſtrate; he hath cautioned againſt that, Sect. 3. & 4. but of Teachers, impoſing them as Ordinances of worship, in Religion: and therein the danger did conſiſt; becauſe they impoſed on men, humane Ordinances and Doctrines, to worship God by. The Doctors gloſſe of his own former words will now prove his own, that is, ſingular, when he addes i. e. thoſe things which though they were not commanded by God, are yet by men affirmed, pretended and taught, (though without proof) to be ſo commanded. The danger and deſtructiveneſſe rather conſiſted in this, that they were but the Commandements and Doctrines of men, placing the worship of God, in thoſe obſervances, which either he never Commanded, or were now outdated.

§. 7. And now we are come to the 23. Verſe; which the Doctor makes to be, A deſcription p. 44of the doctrines themſelves, or the abſtinences they teach, abſtracted from all ſuch accidental abuſe. But this may prove a miſtake; for the words rather contain a deſcription of the reaſon of that danger and deſtructiveneſſe, in them: viz. becauſe they were no other, no better than Willworſhip, w…th a fair pretence of Wiſdome, becauſe the Worſhip of God, was lately placed in them: and they carry a great pretenſion of Humility, and Selfdeniall, in abſtaining from things pleaſing to the body, which they thought no doubt, would be pleaſing unto God, and an acceptable ſervice. The words indeed may be variouſly rendered by Interpreters, but without any great difficulty or difference. For the moſt part, they agree in the ſenſe, though they differ in words. And I beleeve the Doctors Interpretation of it, is ſingular, without any precedent, either Antient, or Modern, Proteſtant, or Papiſt. Thus he paraphraſeth the words. Which things have ſome true, at leaſt appearing notion of wiſdom in them (wiſdom in Scripture ſignifying piety) i. e. have either ſome reall matter of piety in them (for ſo foreign ſignifies) and this would be more clear, if we ſhould read, foreign in two words, thus, which things have ſomewhat of piety in them, or being conſidered in ſome reſpect, have piety in them, or as the Fathers rather underſtood it, p. 45ſome colour, ſome appearance of piety, to wit, in voluntary worſhip and humility, &c. But this is a ſtrange Liberty, in Interpreting ſcripture, not onelyonly that it waves the Interpretation of all our own Tranſlators, of all the Antients, and even of Papiſts themſelves for the moſt part (whom this gloſſe would much pleaſe) but alſo that he doth not bring his mind to the Scripture, but ſtraines the Scripture to ſpeak his ſenſe and meaning. To examine it a little. 1. That foreign here ſignifies, ſome reall matter (what ever it doth elſewhere) is gratis dictum, and againſt the ſtream of Interpreters: Some render it Imaginem, as Jerome; ſome ſpeciem, ſome pretextum: And the Greek Fathers, oppoſe againſt it, truth and power: what is it then, but a ſhew or appearance? 2. That hee renders foreign, by piety, is as ſtrange, in this place, (however in theſe Proverbs, and elſewhere, D. Davent in locum.it may ſignifie ſo) when moſt interpret it 1. by Wiſdome: that is, a ſhew of ſome excellent doctrine, rather brought from Heaven, than found out by men. Which to be the ſenſe here, is moſt probable upon theſe grounds. Firſt from the context, ver. 8. the Apoſtle calls it Philoſophy, and ver. 18. hee ſaies) the Worſhiper of Angels, was puffed up in his fleſhly mind, that is, in a carnall conceit of his own wiſdom, in finding out that way of worſhip: For Superſtition and p. 46Willworſhip ever pretends to Wiſdom, Vid. Irenaeum lib. 3. c. 2.to bee wiſer than God, in preſcribing his worſhip: and this makes it ſo dangerous and deſtructive, that men ſet their wiſdom againſt, and above Gods; Secondly it may very well be parallell, to that place, 1 Cor. 2.4, 5, 6. where the Wiſdom of God, and men are ſo flatly oppoſed, in preaching of the Goſpell. Not with entiſing words of mans wiſdom; but in the demonſtration of the ſpirit and power: the wiſdom of God, &c. And this pretext of wiſdom in Willworſhip ariſes from a double ground, 1. From the fraud of Impoſtors, who alwaies boaſt, that their Traditions proceed from the Spirit of wiſdom; as the Phariſees, and Montanus did: 2. From the carnall minds of Superſtitious men, who are much pleaſed to ſeek for righteouſneſſe and ſalvation, and to put holineſſe in externall rites and exerciſes; as that learned profeſſor, on the place, hath well obſerved. 3. To aſſert that thoſe things (thoſe Abſtinences, as a worſhip of God) have ſomewhat of true and reall wiſdome or piety in them, is a plain begging of the queſtion, now between us. For we ſay, (as allmoſt all Interpreters doe) they have onelyonly a ſhew of wiſdome, but no truth, nor reality, and that the Apoſtle condemnes them as Willworship, which yet the Doctor onelyonly denies, by aſſerting the contrary, but proves not. 4. what p. 47preſum ption is this, to read the words aſunder, foreign, for foreign, contrary to all Greeke copies, and Latine Interpreters, onelyonly to make out his own gloſſe? And yet let him take his choice, and read as he pleaſe; it will not advantage him at all; for ſtill it comes but to this, which things have foreign, ſome ſhew of wiſdom, or piety, not ſomewhat of wiſdome, much leſſe ſome true reall matter of wiſdome in them. The Apoſtles ſcope being (as we think, and hee muſt not begge the contrary) not to hold out ſomewhat of wiſdome or piety in them, but rather of folly and impiety, as we ſhall ſhew hereafter. Laſtly, (as to this Section) he leaves out the particle foreign, quidem, Eſtius inlocum.which is …n extenuating particle: They have indeed a ſhew of wiſdome, but not the truth: Or they have indeed a shew of wiſdome, but in Willworſhip and Willhumility, &c. It's true, Interpreters differ about the placing of the Adverſative foreign. Some underſtand it to be underſtood before Willworſhip, as afore; ſome at thoſe words foreign: they have a shew of wiſdom, but are yet of no price or worth. Beza.Herome thinkes the particle foreign is redundant, others think ſomething is wanting; thus (after the manner of the Hebrewes) which things have a shew of wiſdome, but not the truth. Much like that place 2 Tim. 3.5. Having a form of Godlineſs, but denying p. 48the power of it. However, the Doctor did not well to conceal this particle; and to render foreign by voluntary worſhip, having not yet told us, what he meanes by it: of which anon.

§. 8. That the laſt part of the verſe, not ſparing of the bodie, not in any honour, to the ſatisfying of the fleſh, is added to ſhew, that there is ſomewhat of true or pretended piety, in thoſe former Doctrines, by the contrariety, to that tending and filling of the fleſh, which is ſo unlike piety, is another gloſs like the former, an aſſertion without proof. For the neglecting, or puniſhing of the body (as the Doctor phraſes it) by Abſtinence from things allowed by God, they placing the worſhip of God in it, hath indeed a ſhew of pretended wiſdome or piety, as preferring the worſhip of God, before the belly, or body; but no truth, and is equally condemned, as a Will worſhip, by the Apoſtle; At leaſt, this is the queſtion, and muſt not be begged.

§. 9. Yet this the Doctor doth: For hee takes it as granted, with not a little confidence; That this interpretation which he hath given, is the moſt prompt, proper, and genuine rendring of the verſe, that will be met with, and thereupon inferres, and reſolves, "that there is no ill character ſet upon foreign or Willworſhip, by p. 49the Apoſtle in this place, which wee ſhall examine, when we have heard, what in his judgement is noted by it, which is this; That voluntary Worſhip, or acts of Religion, which the Hebrewes call foreign Nedabah, the Freewill-offering, which was not required of them, by any obligation of particular law, and yet was not wont to be condemned, or ſuſpected, but accounted as acceptable to God: under which head, the Abſtinences here ſpoken of, may not unfitly be comprehended. But there is a great miſtake, in comprehending theſe Abſtinences under the Freewill offerings. For both, the Freewill offerings were ſomething Poſitive, and theſe Abſtinences were Negative, rather not-offering, than offering, Touch not, taſt not, &c. and alſo theſe Abſtinences were commanded by ſpeciall Lawes, but Freewill-offerings (he ſaies) were not required of them, by obligation of particular Law: This difference is enough at preſent, wee ſhall ſay more hereafter. And now wee attend his diſcourſe, conſiſting in three things.

§. 10. Firſt (hee ſaies) he will give his reaſons, for his firſt Aſſertion, That foreign is here uſed in a good creditable ſenſe, which he endeavours by 6. Arguments, Sect. 11. Becauſe Willworſhip, is here joyned with two, not onelyonly lawfull, p. 50but laudable Chriſtian virtues. Before I come to the particulars, I cannot but note in generall, that taking the word here, in a good ſenſe, the Doctor complies too much with Papiſts (moſt of them taking it in an ill ſenſe) who uſe to take off the force of the Objection by proteſtants, from this place, (againſt their Willworship, in their many Traditions of worſhip) by anſwering that it is taken here in a good ſenſe, and that (as the Doctor does) for voluntary Religion, Panstrat. l. 1. c. 6. ſect. 5.or worſhip. Which good ſenſe, the very learned and acute Chamier profeſſes, he never ſaw, in any Interpreter of the place. OnelyOnly he ſaies, he found Juſtinian the Jeſuite, diſtinguiſhing the word, to ſignifie (as the ſimple word, foreign does) ſometimes Superſtition and Impiety, and ſometimes pious and religious worſhip, voluntarily undertaken; but yet, in this text, aſſerting it to ſignifie Superſtition, or as Ambroſe ſaith, counterfeit Religion. But hee ſhakes this diſtinction as groundleſſe, as we ſhall hear anon. And now to the Doctors Arguments, to prove it taken in a good ſenſe. Firſt, becauſe it is joyned with Humility, which being by Calvin, (a man not much regarded by the Doctor in other things) interpreted in this place, the Reverence both of God and men, is no doubt a Chriſtian virtue, and cannot defame the Willworship, to which it is aſſociated, p. 51&c. But by his favour, In affectâtaque humilitate, quae affectatae Religioni conjuncta eſt. Eſtius in locum.Humility here, is not that true and laudable Chriſtian virtue, but a meer counterfeit, a pretended Humility, fit for a pretended Willworship: For the firſt words, ſignifying onelyonly a shew, not any reality of wiſdome, exemplifies it, firſt by Willworship (which is affected Religion, having a shew of piety, but not the ſubſtance) and then in an affected and counterfeit Humility. And the Doctor may remember, the ſame word is uſed in the 18. ver. Sect. 23.of which he ſaies hereafter, it was an impious kind of Miſtaken Humility, and why may not this be ſo too? being both alike pretended, in a Will-worship, not commanded by God, but invented and impoſed by men; And ſure ſuch impious miſtaken Humility, is no Chriſtian, or laudable virtue: But of that place more anon.

2. The next Pretence for his good ſenſe, is, Becauſe it is joyned with punishing or not ſparing, or (as Calvin) mortifying the body; which as an act of ſelfdenyall, cannot be acceptable to Chriſt, and as a ſpecies of of Revenge, 2 Cor. 11.7. In praepoſtera & in ſolita quadam obſtinenti… & afflicticne corporis. ibid.Will deſerve to be numbred among the effects of godly ſorrow. But to this we ſay again, there may be ſuch a punishing, not ſparing, or mortifying of the body, and ſelfdenyall, which hath a shew of wiſdom or piety, but is not onelyonly a counterfeit, but an impious miſtaken mortification, p. 52or ſelfdenyall, viz. when this punishing of the body, is made a part of the worſhip of God. What thinks the Doctor of the Baalites launcing and cutting themſelves? What of all the Romiſh ridiculous pennances, pilgrimages, fastings, &c. Does he not juſtifie them, in all their Wilworships, and that from this text? have they not a great ſhew of Wiſdom, Piety, Devotion? of ſelfdenyall, and mortyfication of the body? are theſe acceptable to Chriſt: Are their ſelfpunishments, worthy to be numbred with that Revenge, or accounted among the effects of godly ſorrow? If he ſay, not, I ask, what is it that makes them impious miſtaken mortification, &c. Hee cannot ſay, becauſe they held thoſe forth as Commands of God, for that they deny: then it muſt be, becauſe they make them worships of God; Voluntary worship, yet that the Doctor, endeavours to juſtifie, by this text. I ſhut up this thus; Theſe two virtues (as hee calls them) are there ſo far from juſtifying Willworship, to which they are aſſociated, that they fare the worſe for it, and are made unchriſtian, and impious by its company. For though Humility and ſelfdenyall, in the commanded worſhip of God, be excellent virtues; yet when they precede, or accompany the conſtitution of falſe, that is deviſed Willworſhip, nothing is more impious and abhominable to God.

p. 53§. 12. The ſecond reaſon of his good ſenſe, is this, Becauſe theſe Doctrines are here ſaid, in reſpect of the VVillworship, to have foreign, ſomewhat of wiſdom or piety in them: which ſomevvhat, if reall, then it is paralel to that of 1 Tim. 4.8. bodily exerciſe is a little profitable ſtill, or profitable for a little. Before I adde the reſt, I ſay to this: 1. This ſomewhat reall matter of wiſdome, in willworſhip, in the judgement of moſt Interpreters, is nothing but a meere shew and appearance, and indeed reall folly and impiety, as was manifeſted on Sect. 7. And for the parallel place, the gloſs corrupts the text; when he thus expounds it, Bodily exerciſe profiteth a little, or for a little. For the Apoſtle oppoſing bodily exerciſe, to Godlineſſe, which is profitable to all things, he means, that ſuch bodily exerciſe, (abſtinence from marriage, and meats) made a ſervice or worship of God, is profitable for nothing, or rather (by a foreign) is hurtfull and abhominable; and ſo is the VVillvvorship in this place. The Doctor ſeemes to place the illneſs of thoſe bodily exerciſes, in this; when they are taught as neceſſary, to the defaming of marriage and meats, he means, I ſuppoſe, neceſſary, as commanded by God: But (ſay I) if they taught them (as they did, ſome of them) onelyonly as Commands of men, not neceſſary, no defaming marriage, p. 44&c. but as an acceptable worſhip of God; would the Doctor ſay, they were not hurtfull, and abhominable, but profitable a little? I think not; or if he doe, he juſtifies ſome Papiſts, who make them a ſpeciall worſhip of God, not neceſſary, &c. But we ſaid afore, the words here ſignifie onelyonly a shew of wiſdome or piety. Then ſaies hee, the argument will be ſtill of validity, For can any thing be ſaid to have ſo much as a shew of Wiſdom, in reſpect of VVillworſhip in it, if that Wilworſhip paſſe confeſſedly, either for fooliſh, or impious? Let him aske all Interpreters, who render the words, a shew of VViſdome in Superſtition or affected Religion, how this can be: But I cannot but wonder at the Doctors queſtion: For cannot a thing have a shew of wiſdome or piety, which is confeſſedly foolish or impious? and if ſo, may it not be ſo in reſpect of the VVillworship in it? The Baalites launcing and cuttiug themſelves in their devotions, had it not (to them at leaſt) a shew of piety, and yet that worſhip was confeſſedly impious? ſay the like of the Papiſts whipping themſelves, and other ridiculous and heatheniſh pennances; have they not to them and others of their ſuperſtition, a great shew of wiſdome, and piety, and yet to us, are confeſſedly foolish and impious? Cannot, doth not the doctrine of Falſe teachers hold out a shew of wiſdome p. 65and piety, in their worſhip, and yet to all orthodox known to be fooliſh and impious. Does not on the one ſide, the Wiſdome of God in the Goſpell, hold out a ſhew of fooliſhneſſe to naturall wiſe men, and yet is the wiſdome and power of God, to ſalvation? on the other, does not, is not the wiſdom and piety of Hypocrites and Idolaters, folly and impiety to God. But (ſaies the Dr.) Can any thing be repreſented to me, as having ſo much as a ſhew of piety, in reſpect of rage or luſt diſcernible in it? This compariſon is ill laid; For rage and luſt are for kind confeſſedly wicked things. But worſhip may be true or falſe; and ſo as true worſhip may have a ſhew of folly to natural men; ſo may falſe (and the refore impious) worſhip have a ſhew of wiſdome and piety in it, to the ſame men: And the one, though it have a ſhew of folly, yet may have none in it, but is the very wiſdome of God: So the other, though it have a ſhew of wiſdome or piety in it, yet hath none, but is both folly and impiety. Let me put it a little more home to him: May there not be zeale (which may be nothing but rage, foreign in Saint James) which may have a ſhew of true zeale, and yet be nothing but rage and madneſſe? muſt I needs ſuppoſe ſomewhat really of wiſdom or piety, in that paſſion, or elſe it cannot have ſo much as a ſhew of wiſdome, p. 66or piety? To conclude may not the Divell himſelfe transferre himſelf into (and ſo have a ſhew of) an Angell of light? Vid. Append.and muſt I ſuppoſe neceſſarily, that there is ſomewhat really of light or piety in him, or elſe cannot hee have ſo much, as a ſhew of them?

To conclude this argument, let the Doctor note it once for all, that the words are not; Which things have a ſhew of wiſdom and of Willworſhip, and of Humility and of not ſparing the body. For then, as wiſdome was good, and taken in a good ſenſe, ſo might the reſt be taken; and the fault be, that they had onelyonly an appearance, not the truth or power; but the words are, They have a shew of wiſdome, in Willworſhip, and in Humility, &c. And if they were faulty, becauſe they had onelyonly a shew of wiſdome, they wil bee more faulty, that they had but a shew of piety, or worſhip, or Humility. So that, the words, foreign, &c. doe no more enforce us to take it in a good ſenſe, than, when we ſay, Judas made a shew of love to his Maſter, in his traiterous kiſſe; and the Papiſts devotion, in bowing to ſtocks and Images. In both which ſayings, love in the one, and devotion in the others, are taken in a good ſenſe; but the ones traiterous kiſſe, and others bowing to Images, are not at all taken in any better ſenſe for that ſhew, or appearance p. 66of love and devotion; but are rather ſo much the worſe. And this ſhall ſuffice for his ſecond reaſon.

§. 13. A third reaſon is, becauſe the Greek fathers, though they interpret foreign onelyonly of appearance, as contrary to power and truth, yet they paraphraſe Willworſhip, &c, by words, of Good Savour: foreign, &c. Firſt this is well that the Greeke Fathers agree with us (or we with them) in expoſition of the firſt words. a ſhew (not as he, ſomewhat reall) of wiſdome, or piety: Nay they expreſly oppoſe againſt it, power and truth: and can that which hath neither power nor truth, in the worſhip of God, be taken in a good ſenſe? And do not the Fathers imply as much: Chryſoſt. foreign: Hee ſeemes to be Religious, but is not ſo: Oecumenious; foreign, pretending (as Hypocrites) Religion in worſhip, and is there any goodueſſe in Hypocrifie? But the interpreter of Clemens Alex. renders the word, in Religion: Why? is not Religion it ſelf of various ſenſes? The ſimple word foreign, often ſignifies falſe Religion, and ſuperſtition, as well as true. But the compoſition, makes it worſe, and alters the ſenſe, becauſe it addes the worke of mans Will to Worſhip, which is abominable to God: Doe not all Idolaters pretend wiſdom, in their Inventions, p. 68Piety in their Devotions? Pſ. 106.39 Went a whor…ng with itheir own inventions.Ps 106:39and does not this pretence make it more odions to God, as taking upon them to be wiſer than he, and more Devout than he requires? But why did not the Doctor tell us, how the Latine Fathers, and other later Interpreters render the word? Ambr. Simulatam Religionem, Hierom, Superſtitionem, Theodoret, (a Greek Father) foreign, pro…eo quodeſt proprium decretum introducunt, non legis ſcopum & inſtitutum ſequuntur. Vulgar latine (and all Popiſh Commentators take it thence) Superſtitionem, Salmeron, & Eſtius, omnem affectatam & voluntariam Religionem ſignificat, cum quis fingit ſibi cultum ex cerebro ſuo, volens videri Religioſus. It ſignifies all affected and voluntary Religion, which a man forges out of his own braine, willing to ſeem Religious. I ſpare our owne Divines. In locum.In a word, Eſtius gives this interpretation of the words, out of Auguſtine and Thomas: VVhichWhich have a shew of wiſdom, not true, but ſuch as is placed in Superſtition and humility, which is falſe wiſdome. I leave all to the Doctors conſideration.

§. 14. The fourth reaſon, becauſe by this way that very obſcure place, may be conveniently underſtood, which hath poſed ſo many: viz. That ſuch Doctrines are deſtructive of Chriſtian Religion in obtruding p. 69humane out daded judaicall conſtitutions, for Divine precepts; as ſtill obliging, and yet in ſome reſpects have piety in them, at leaſt a ſhew of it, to wit, in Willworſhip, &c. To which Interpretation of his, enough hath been ſpoken before, on Sect. 7. but we adde. Firſt, for my part, I have not obſerved amongſt Interpreters, any ſuch difficulty or obſcurity of this text: I dare ſay, the Doctors expoſition makes the greateſt obſcurity that ever I met with: They generally agree in the ſenſe of the words, taking them in an ill ſenſe; OnelyOnly himſelfe and ſome Papiſts, Bellarmin, and and ſome others, take them in a good ſenſe.

2. That ſuch Doctrines as he ſpeakes of, are deſtructive to Chriſtian Religion; is true, but not ſuch onelyonly; nor are ſuch onelyonly meant in his text, viz. outdated Iudaicall conſtitutions obtruded for Divine precepts, ſtill obliging; but all Humane Inſtitutions of worſhip though never known before, are equally deſtructive to Religion; though they pretend not to be Divine precepts or preſcriptions: The Apoſtle therefore brands them as deſtructive, becauſe they are but Willworſhip, not becauſe they are outdated, or Iudaicall: And thoſe as well as theſe, however they may have a ſhew of wiſdome and piety, to carnall hearts, yet to underſtanding Chriſtians, have not in any reſpect, p. 70piety in them, but are vaine and ſinfull Inventions of men, that is, Willworſhip.

§. Vide Append. ad ſect 15.15. A fift reaſon, becauſe Heſichius renders the word by foreign voluntary Worſhip, the very notion of foreign the foreign, voluntary gifts or offerings; as foreign, is foreign, &c. That he renders the word ſo, is no advantage to his cauſe, for the words may both ſignifie the ſame thing, viz. Will-deviſed worſhip, in an ill ſenſe. And though it be true, that in humane Authors, the derivatives, and compounds of this word, do expreſſe the Freewillingneſſe of the perſon; as foreign, &c. yet that will not help the Doctor, Any thing elſe beſide what God hath commanded. Sect. 16.who doth not underſtand foreign with reſpect to the willingneſſe of the perſon, in a commanded worſhip of God; but voluntary Worſhip, that is, Worſhip not Commanded by God, but offered to him by the Freewill of man, as wee ſhall ſee anon. And it is as true; that though the word bee taken in other Authors for voluntary worſhip, and be but once uſed in the Scripture: yet the ſpirit of God, the Maſter of all languages, does uſe words, (whither once or oftner) in a ſenſe clearly different from other Authors, (and I think the Doctor makes uſe ſomewhere of ſuch a Criticiſm) As for inſtance, the Greeke p. 71word foreign in Scripture is taken for a vice, Eph. 5.4. which in Ariſtotle is uſed for a virtue. And the word foreign, is ſo taken in the beſt judgements. Nor is this, the notion of the foreign, uſed by the 72. for Freewill-offerings, voluntary gifts, &c. as ſhall appeare in a place more convenient.

§. 16.6. Reaſon it ſelf aſſures us, that things done in the ſervice of God, are not therefore ill, becauſe they are ſpontaneous, but on the other ſide, when a man ſhall out of a pious affection doe any thing elſe beſide what God hath commanded by any particular precept, this action of his, is to be accounted ſo much more commendable and acceptable to God, &c. Before wee go any further, we muſt remember the diſtinction of voluntary worſhip, which the Doctor confounds; voluntary may be applyed to worſhip in a double ſenſe; Firſt as it is a a modus, or manner of worſhip; that is, it is willingly performed, and ſo it is neceſſary, not arbitrary, attendant upon worſhip: or ſecondly, Voluntarium cultum, non m…ndatum a deo, ſed illi oblatum humama voluntate, &c. D. Davent in loc. Deus amat cultorem voluntarium, ſed odit cultum voluntarium. Ide. vide plura:as voluntary implyes the efficient cauſe conſtituting the worſhip, viz. the Will of man, as contradiſtinguiſhed to the Will of God. In ſhort, there is a vaſt difference, betweene p. 72voluntary worship, and Willworship; the one preſuppoſes the Worship commanded by God, the other conſtitutes the worſhip, out of his own brain. Now its true, Worship of God commanded, is not ill, becauſe it is ſpontaneous, that is willingly performed, but ill, if it be not ſpontaneous or voluntary; becauſe in all ſervice, God requires the Will or heart: But in worſhip deviſed by man, the Will beares all the blame, and the more voluntary, in that ſenſe, the more abhominable: and herein, (contrary to what the Dr. here aſſerts) the voluntarineſſe of it, defames the worship, it being the foreign, the irregularity of it, and imputable to the action it ſelfe; Math. 15.9. In vain do they worship me, &c. Again, when a man out of pious affection, ſhall doe any thing beſide what God hath commanded (in ſuch worship as is invented by himſelfe or other men) this action is to be accounted, ſo much more (not commandable or acceptable, as the Doctor, but) odious and abhominable to God. But the Doctor addes; there being no univerſall negative in Scripture, prohibiting all things and degrees of things, beſides what are in particular commanded. Yes, we ſay, there is an univerſall negative prohibition in the Scripture (beſide ſpeciall ones) in the ſecond Commandement, forbidding all things, that is, all worship, and p. 73all degrees of that worſhip, beſides what are particularly commanded. Hence it followes, that there is no generall command or doctrine of the Goſpell (which is another caution of the Doctors) to which ſuch Willworship can hold conformity. Nor will it ſalve the matter, which he brings from an Heathen, or the Apocrypha, that piety is one of thoſe virtues, which have ſuch a compaſs, that the larger they be, they are ſo much more commendable, and the more ſpontaneous, the more acceptable. For this muſt be meant onelyonly of commanded worship, and the degrees or intention, of the Will in thoſe ſervices: therein, you cannot exceed the generall command, to love the Lord (and ſo to ſerve him) with all thy heart and ſtrength; But in Willworship, that is, of mens owne deviſing, the firſt ſtep in it, and leaſt degree of it, is far from commendation, or acceptation; becauſe you are ſo farre from being obliged to to doe it, that you are ſtrictly obliged not to do it.

§. 17. We have done with the firſt undertaking; wee are coming to his next, to point at the cauſe of the miſtake of the ſenſe of the word; which hee ſuppoſes to be.

§. 18. 1. That the vulgar Latin renders it Superſtition; annd Calvin and Jerome follow them; whereas the truth is, foreign, p. 74is the word for Superſtition: and foreign ſignifies it no more than foreign, which is uſed in a good ſenſe. But might not a man ſay as much for foreign it ſelf, as the Doctor ſaies for foreign, and bring the Doctor himſelf for his voucher? Does not hee tell us, in his other Tract, that foreign ſometimes is taken in a good ſenſe. Of Superſtition. Sect. 22.For Religion or worſhip of God without any marke ſet upon it of true or falſe, and rendred by Superſtition, Religion, &c. It ſeemes then, foreign, and Superſtitio are both taken in a good ſenſe, ſometimes for Religion, and in a bad ſenſe other times, and ſo foreign, and they agree in an ill ſenſe ſometimes, and this helps not at all; to vindicate the word.

Secondly, foreign it ſelfe is taken ſometimes in an ill ſenſe, (as the Doctor knowes) as well as a good; why then may they not both equally ſignifie Superſtition? eſpecially when applyed to falſe or mendeviſed worſhip.

3. The worſhipers of Angells cannot be freed from the crime of Superſtition ſaies he.Superſtition or Will-worſhip, is more generall than foreign, thats but one ſpecies of Superſtition, if taken (as the word imports) for Daemonum cultus; But all falſe worſhip is Superſtition: and the rather, becauſe it is Spontaneous, voluntary, that is, Will-deviſed Worſhip. Lets try the next.

p. 75§. 19. Another reaſon is, that among the Jewes, all was to be done according to the pattern in the Mount: ſo ſome have reſolved, that no rite or circumſtance, no degree of worſhip may be uſed in the Christian Church, but what hath Chriſts example or particular precept to authorize it, &c. But the Doctor much miſtakes the queſtion himſelfe, while hee is labouring to ſhew others miſtakes.

For 1. it is not about a rite or circumſtance or degree of worſhip commanded, (as Time, Place, Geſture, not preſcribed) but of the Worſhip it ſelf; and herein we ſay we are equal with the Jewes, and all the people of the world; we may not vary from the preſcription on the mount, in the ſecond Commandement, to conſtitute any part of worſhip; but what wee have the authority of Chriſt for, in the new Teſtament. And we do ſay, and that truly, that what ever worſhip is not commanded by Chriſt, or juſtified by his example, is cenſurable under the title of Willworship, though otherwiſe in reſpect of the matter of it, it would not be cenſurable. And we have for our ground, both the ſecond Commandement in the old, and this text (beſide others) in the New Teſtament to juſtifie our aſſertion.

2. That ſaying of the Doctor, We may juſtly conclude thoſe actions juſtifiable, p. 76becauſe not prohibited, and not onelyonly ſo, but alſo acceptable and the more acceptable for the voluntarineſſe, &c. is moſt unſound; For in worship, it will not juſtifie a man, that it is not prohibited (in particular) but rather, it is condemned, becauſe it is not commanded; though all VVillworship (in our ſenſe) is prohibited, as wee often ſaid. As for his gloſs upon the words of Photius, I ſay little; I onelyonly note, that he ſeemes to make it a fault, to ſit at the readding of the Goſpell, which the Eccleſiaſtical Canons did not command; and yet makes it no fault, to adde a VVillworship of a mans own, which foreign, the Divine lawdoth forbid.

§. 20. A third ground of the abuſe of the word, is the affinity of the 18 verſe of this Chapter; and ſo the VVilworship here, is guilty of all the ſame charges, &c. The diſtance pretended between them, is ſo little, that they may eaſily be reconciled; That reſpecting a new deviſed worſhip onelyonly, and this the reviving of an old & outdated worſhip, as we ſhall ſee. I onelyonly obſerve what Maimonides obſerved, That the errour that brought the greateſt part of Idolatry into the world, was, that men conceived and taught, that vain worships and ſuperſtitions, were the will and pleaſure of God; that is, pleaſing and acceptable unto God. This is exemplified aboundantly in the Church of Rome, p. 77whoſe Superſtitions are grounded upon this, that they are very pleaſing to God; let the Dr. take heed, he do not juſtifie, or imitate them.

21. But he goes about to make good this diſtance between the verſes; onelyonly he forbears not, to weaken his following proofes by the Interpretation of Clem. Alex. who compounding theſe verſes, reads thus. Let no man beguile you of your reward in VVillworship of Humility, and in neglecting of the body, &c. and makes it very certaine, that he underſtood them both as one, and very ſuſpicious, that they are at no ſuch diſtance, as the Doctor pretends.

§. 22. You muſt (ſaies he) obſerve theſe two things. 1. That the words are not in the Originall foreign, but foreign, &c. Now the word foreign hath with the 70. a ſenſe, which antient writers have not taken notice of. viz. pleaſing himſelfe in worshiping of Angells, or proud of a feigned humility as Hierome, &c. But this comes to nothing; for 1. the ſenſe is the ſame, whither the words be joyned, or parted: a voluntary humility, as the ground of that worſhip of Angells: They (good men) were ſo modeſt and humble, they would not rush upon God immediately (though he Command it, and ſo it was groſſe pride, masked with humility) but they would go by Angells, as p. 78Media tours: Is not this the very plea of Papiſts at this day, for their, Invocation of Angells and Saints?

2. Take foreign aſunder, and for pleaſing or delighting, In iis quae non vidit foreign feſtuoſus incedens. Eraſ. in v. 18. Qui juſsa tantum facit nihil agit non vulgare qui tranſcendit praecepta, hic Angelus eſt &c. hic Deum ſibi obaeratum facit D. Davent in loc. Vid. Append. ſ. 23.or proud of a feigned Humility: Did not theſe falſe teachers do the ſame? were they not much pleaſed, delighted, proud of this new-old-revived worſhip, as applauding their own wiſdome in the Invention of this worſhip, and their Humility, and devotion, in their abſtinence from ſuch meats, &c. Did not Jeroboam (think you) much pleaſe himſelf, and pride himſelf, in his politick Religion of the Golden Calves? Are not all Superſtitious and Idolatrous worſhipers, delighted with their VVillworſhip, eſpecially the firſt Deviſers of it? inſulting not over others onelyonly, as more Religions then they. Lo, I thank thee, I am not as other men, &c. I faſt twice a weeke, &c. But alſo over God himſelf, as making him beholden to them, by going beyond what he commands?

3. Why may not foreign in Compoſition, ſignifie the ſame with foreign, aſunder? ſelf-pleaſing worſhip or Religion; His Clemens, joynes them together, foreign; will worſhip of Humility. That is obſervable, which Eſtius notes, on the place, the 18. verſe; that foreign is referred to foreign alſo; volens in humilitate, i. affectans humilitatem, & volens in Religione p. 79Angelorum, 1. affectans, &c. a voluntary humility, that is, affecting humility and a voluntary worſhiping of Angells, that is, affecting that worſhip: For this the Apoſtle ſignifies, in the 23. ver. by compoſition of the words, in foreign: And it is as if hee had ſaid, let no man beguile you, foreign: In Will-humility and willworſhip of Angells; which the Doctor allowes us to call, Willworſhip and an unlawfull thing, a miſtaken impious Humility, Sect. 23. and Sect. 20. That crime of Superſtition. And ſo in this ver. 23. wee may apply foreign, to all the 3. Willworſhip, Estius in loc.Wil-Humility and Wilpuniſhing of the body: And tis very reaſonable ro conceive, that though it was praeter uſum Greci ſermonis, ſo to place the word foreign, yet the Spirit of God ſo directed Saint Paul; to ſeperate the words in the 18. verſe, and to joyne them in the 23. on purpoſe, that hee might teach us, not onelyonly (what Eſtius obſerves) that foreign in the 18. ver. was to be referred to foreign alſo; but to teach us alſo, how to underſtand foreign in the 23. ver. viz. for Worſhip affected, and ſinfull; and humility affected, &c. as well as in the 18. verſe:: that is, in the Doctors own words, unlawfull, Superſtitions, impious, worſhip and Humility.

§. 23. But he addes the ſecond obſervation, p. 80The will or delight in the 18. ver. is faſtned on unlawfull things, viz. worſhiping of Angels, &c. including an impious miſtaken kind of Humility, (call this wil worſhip, or what you pleaſe) yet is it true ſtill, that voluntary worſhip, where the matter is perfectly lawfull, not forbidden, nay, approved by a generall command, is far enough from having any tincture of ill in it, But 1. its true, the matter of theſe two worſhips differ, conſidered in themſelves, but they differ not at all, in the unlawfullneſs, one being more expreſſely forbidden in the firſt Commandement, the other by conſequence, or more generally in the ſecond. It is no more lawful, to revive a Worſhip, which God hath laid aſide, than it is to begin a worſhip, which God never Commanded or forbad: 2. The matter of this worſhip in the 23. verſe, was about meats which God had given precepts of before, but now voided: the matter was in it ſelfe lawfull: they did but worſhip God in a lawfull matter, why doth the Apoſtle blame them for this? (as he doth) if the Doctors aſſertion be true, That voluntary worship, where the matter is lawfull, is far enough from any tincture of ill? It will not help him to ſay, if not forbidden, nay approved by a generall precept, for let the matter be never ſo lawfull, yet in Willworſhip it cannot have any generall precept to approve p. 81it, Being the willing of that, which God forbids: his own words in this ſect.but rather hath generall and particular precepts to forbid and condemn it. The Doctor ſtill deludes us, by the ſenſe of voluntary worſhip; which if he take for willingneſs in commanded worſhip, wee ſhall not contend with him; but if for worſhip invented and conſtituted by the will of man, (as he does) not onelyonly we, but God himſelf obſerves it.

§. 24. The 4. occaſion of the miſtake, he ſaies, is the uſe the word foreign, in Epiphanius, attributed to the Phariſes. This is generally taken in an ill notion, yet finds a patron of the Doctor, to defend, or palliate it: I ſhall not much labour about it; but truly, if foreign heare ſo ill, the addition of foreign ſuperfluous, to it, will make it here worſe. Lets hear what he ſaies for it.

§. 25.1. If it were a denotation of ſome ill, it would not prejudice foreign, for the addition in the middle, noting Superfluity, (perhaps, ſome unlawfull, or luxuriant matter, Supervacaneam religionem ſponte aſſumptum, ſive affectatam ſi… Eſtius in ver. 18taken into that worſhip either prohibited object, or noxious, at leaſt burthenous ceremonies in number or quality) might turn that into evill, which the voluntarineſs, or uncommandedneſſe of them, were not able to do. To this I ſay; The ſuperfluity of them conſiſted not onelyonly, in the number, burthen, quality, of them; but even p. 82in the voluntary conſtitution of them, as worſhip of God; For ſo our Saviour charges them, "In vain do they worſhip me, &c. and thats Superfluous worſhip: And the uncommandedneſſe (if there were nothing elſe) in a matter of worſhip, turnes them into ill, and abhominable. For this is the ſumme of the ſecond Commandement, God muſt be worſhiped, with his own preſcribed worſhip; and conſequently, all uncommanded worſhip is ſuperfluous, vain and ſinfull; as hath oft been ſaid.

§. 26. "But ſecondly he ſaies, I cannot acknowledge that word is taken by Epiphan: in an ill ſenſe: though that was the Interpretation of their name; they might be ill men, yet the name might not ſignifie any ill thing. &c. who would think the Phariſees ſhould find an advocate, being ſuch notorious Hypocrites? The very name of their Religion, argues them proud, vain, ſuperfluous worſhipers, both for number, and burthen of their ridiculous ceremonies, and all of their own deviſing, as parts of worſhip; and yet the word cannot be yeelded to be taken in an ill notion: Epiphan: is deſcribing the Hereſie of the Phariſees (awing others) and calls it foreign, as offending, both in Willworſhip of their owne deviſing, and alſo in the abundance and ſuperfluity of them; and yet the word hath no p. 83ill notion: let him enjoy his own ſenſe of it: Sure, our Saviour would not have condemned them ſo oft, ſo ſharply, for both theſe, if the words might have had a good ſenſe or notion.

§. 27. The truth is, the main crime of the Phariſees, was their cenſorious proud deſpiſing of other men, whom they thought not ſo godly as themſelves. This is another of the Doctors miſtakes. Their main crime was that, which was the occaſion of that deſpiſing of other men, Math. 23.Matt 23which was their Hypocriſie, which was cloaked with their mancle of Devotion, in the Superfluity and Supererogation of their Traditions, and Willworſhip, which making them proud (as all Willworſhipers are, with a ſhew of wiſdom) they deſpiſed others, whom they thought leſſe godly than themſelves: Luke 18. 1. truſted in themſelves, that they were righteous, and deſpiſed others. Their ſtrictneſſe in ſome particulars, neglected by others, was not ſo much in moralls, as in ceremonialls of their own deviſing, in waſhings and Faſtings, and placing the worſhip of God in them: as Papiſts do, and therefore the Doctor miſtakes, when he applies that Scripture to theſe, "theſe things ought you to have done, for there it meant of things commanded by God; but then their fault was, that they were exact in the leaſt commands, and looſe p. 84in far greater matters: Or if they ought to have done their own Traditions, why does our Saviour ſo bewoe them, ſo often, for doing of them? And yet the Doctor ſaies, Their ſtrictneſſe in Religion, is far from being it ſelf any ill character or blemiſh upon their voluntary religious performances, wherein their ſuperlative ſtrictneſſe did conſiſt: Their Superlative ſtrictneſſe conſiſted chiefly in the obſervation of their own Traditions, even to the avoiding of the Commandements of God by them, Mat. 15, 6.Matt 15:6and does this leave no blemiſh upon them? I ſay no more, let him conſider it.

§. 28. His third anſwer for the Phariſees is; That the Originall of them, was from the Haſidaei, ſo called for their exceſs of charity, foreignand voluntary performances above what the Law required of them, and ſo differed from the Karraim, who did that onelyonly which was commanded by the Law, &c. Its likely to be ſo: But when he ſaies, theſe were called foreign, which he renders, ſuch as in their obedience performed voluntarily ſome things, which the Law required not, and ſo differed from the Karaei. I know not what he means: for the word ſignifies onelyonly, ſuch as were devoted voluntarily, or (as our Engliſh Tranſlation reads it) wellminded to the Law that is the Law of God: But I think his intention is, to p. 85fetch hence a colour for the Phariſees and his own voluntary worſhip: whereas the word foreign ſignifies onelyonly the freeneſſe or willingneſſe of the Soul, in the preſcribed worſhip of God: For all was to be voluntary, and willing ſervice; and Gods people, a willing people. Pſ. 110, Populus volunta tum.Now in this ſenſe the Karaej, were alſo foreign wellminded, or voluntarily devoted to the Law: But this word, differs much from foreign, a will-worſhiper, which ſignifies rather (as wee have proved) a Deviſer of worſhip, than one voluntary in gods preſcribed worſhip: Or if he take foreign, for thoſe Freewill offerings allowed in the Law, as the 70. render the word: yet in this ſenſe, the Karaej, I doubt not; were as well devoted, and as wellminded to the Law, as the Haſidaej: The difference then between them, was rather in this, that the one, in their worship, kept cloſe to the Rules of the Law; the others would Supererogate and deviſe worship, above or beſide the Law: and ſo the Doctor, I think, intends it; Now I beleeve, our Saviour would not have blamed the Phariſees for their Freewill offerings, or voluntary performances in that ſenſe, becauſe the Law allowed and approved them: but he blames them, for their Traditions, their voluntary worship deviſed by themſelves; which the Doctor calls, their voluntary performances above the Law. And p. 86therefore, however Scaliger may juſtifie the Karaei for doing onelyonly what was commanded of them. He can never juſtifie the Haſidaei for doing more (in the worship of God) than was commanded them, unleſſe he will condemn our Saviour for condemning them: For the reſt of the diſcourſe in this Section, I ſhall onelyonly note the progreſſe of Willworship. At firſt the Haſidaei, (afterwards Phariſees) were onelyonly men devoted, or well minded to the Law, it ſeemes, in words of Charity; Afterwards, they (finding applanſe from men) they began to perform ſome voluntary worship, which the Law required not. Then at laſt, their foreign (as Scaliger ſaies) came to be foreign, their voluntary worſhip came to be neceſſary, and formed into precepts; Then from pious men (The ſidem) they became Dogmatizers, laying obligations upon all to do as they did; and not being obeyed, diſcriminated themſelves from all others, as the onelyonly obedient ſervants of God; and ſo called themſelves Phariſees, &c. The application is very eaſie, and very obſervable in the new Phariſees of Rome, Teſtivalls of the Church, ſect. 16. ad fin.and all Superstitious Willworſhipers, as ſhall be exemplified in Hypotheſi, in another place. Yet the Doctor thinks by this meanes to vindicate the word foreign, from any ill ſenſe; as they that offended not in the Wilworſhip, but in Dogmatizing; which yet is p. 87not imported in the word; and he does indeed condemn it; we may juſtifie the foreign, but not the foreign: But I deſire to know whether Willworſhip, I mean, deviſed worſhip, in any one man, be not ſinfull, though he never come to Dogmatize, or lay obligations upon others, to do as he does? But the miſchiefe is, that Willworſhip, if not ever, yet commonly, ends in Dogmatizing: eſpecially in men, of place, and piety, and learning, as is evident in the Hiſtories of the Church, in all ages and places.

§. 29, And now wee are come to the third part of his undertaking, concerning thoſe voluntary oblations under the Law, to which he hath often paralelled his voluntary Worſhip, by him underſtood in this text, ſect. 9. &c. wherein he propounds three obſervations.

But before we deale with thoſe obſervations in particular, we ſhall lay down the Nature of a Freewill-offering, and ſhew wherein the Formality of it did conſiſt, which the Doctor hath neglected to doe. A Freewill-offering may be ſo called, two waies.

1. In regard of the Freewillingneſſe of the mind of the offerer; Exod. 35.29. every man and woman brought a willing offering, whom their heart made willing to bring it, p. 88&c. But this Willingneſſe of the perſon, was required, in the moſt neceſſary commanded worſhip, yea every act of obedience to God, in both Tables, is to be done moſt willingly, by that generall Law, Thou ſhalt love the Lord with all thy Heart, &c. And in this ſenſe, the Offering or worſhip is preſuppoſed to be commanded by God: This not here meant.

2. With reſpect to ſome Liberty or free choice, De Repub. Habr. l. 4. c. 17:left to the Will of the offerer, as ſtanding in contradiction to ſuch offerings or worſhip, as they were bound to, either by Law, or vow, as Sigonius well obſerves. (Though there was not ſo great a difference between a vow, and a Freewilloffering, but that, an offering by vow, might be called a Freewilloffering, in this ſenſe, that it was free to vow, See Ainſw. in Levit. 7.16.Lev 7:16or not to vow; though it was not free to pay, or not to pay it; And the ſame may be ſaid of a Freewilloffering that it was not free t… offer it or not, when once it was promiſed, though it was free to promiſe or not to promiſe it: The difference ſeemes onelyonly graduall, a vow being a more ſolemne promiſe, and a Freewilloffering, voluntarily promiſed, (as the Hebrewes expreſſe it) being a leſſe ſolemn vow. But this by the way) The Libertie left to the offerer, was of 2, ſorts.

p. 891. Libertas ſpecificationis (as they call it) when it was left to his choice, what he would offer of ſeverall things allowed by the Law: Not an unlimited liberty, to offer what kind of things he would, a Bear, or a Lyon, of beaſts, or a Vulture or Eagle of Fowles; But onelyonly ſome one or other of thoſe three kinds of beaſts. Beeves, Goates, Sheep, Ainſw. on Levit. 1.2.Lev 1:2or of thoſe two kinde of fowles preſcribed by the Law, Pigeons, or Turtles: (which choice, was allowed in other ſorts of offerings, as well as, in thoſe that were properly called Freewillofferings, which is obſervable.) And this Liberty was not (I ſay) unbounded, but much limited, as in theſe particulars.

1. It was not left free to any man, in the leaſt kind, to appoint the kind of his own offering, not appointed by God; but to chuſe amongſt things inſtituted by God, that which did beſt agree, with his own condition, and ability: So that God, it ſeemes, had reſpect to the ſeverall abilities of men; ſome were rich, and able to offer a greater ſacrifice; a Sheep, or a Goat, or a Bullock: others were poor, and had not any of thoſe, and then allowed to offer a pair of Pidgeons, &c. which is the expreſſe reaſon, of that Law, Levit. 12.6.8. A lamb was required for an offering for a womans Purification, with one Pigeon, or a Turtle dove: But if not able to bring a Lamb, then two Turtles, p. 90or two Pigeons: To teach us, that if there be a willing mind, it is accepted according to what he hath, not what he hath not. The widowes two mites accepted, &c.

2. There was a generall Law, that the Freeſt offerings, were to be, according to the meaſure of Gods bleſſing, Deut, 16.10. whence it had been a ſinne for any Iſraelite, whom God had plentifully bleſſed, to offer a pair of Pigeons inſtead of a Bullock, upon his own meer pleaſure. And this law, is renewed in the Goſpell, Act. 11: 19. See ſect. 32.Acts 11:191 Cor. 16.2. Let every man lay by him in ſtore, as God hath proſpered him, viz. for the poor.

3. Where the choice was allowed, and taken, as of a Goat, or a Sheep, &c. that choice was no formall worſhip; but a circumſtance in a commanded worſhip.

4. It had not been lawfull in that choice, for the Prieſts to require, or them to offer neceſſarily one of them, as a more ſpeciall worſhip, than the other: e. g. when liberty was left, to offer a Sheep or a Goat; a Pigeon or a Turtle dove, &c. to make it neceſſary to offer a Sheep, and unlawfull to offer a Goat, &c. had been plain Willworſhip; So that here is little liberty left to man, to appoint a worſhip of Ged, which he commanded not; and the Formality of a Freewill offering, did not conſiſt in that.

5. In that liberty of choice, yet God gave p. 91rules and directions, how they ſhould be ordered, Levit. 22.20. not maimed or blemished, &c. And that of the firſt kind of liberty; there is another.

2. Libertas exercitij; when it was left free, in ſome caſes, for a man to offer, or not to offer; beyond what was poſitively required by the Law: If thou wilt offer a Nedabah, a Freewilloffering, &c. And herein onelyonly, or chiefly ſtands the Formality of a Freewilloffering, as contradiſtinguiſhed to thoſe offerings which were commanded by the Law: and the Leviticallneſſe or Ceremoniality of them, ſeems to lie here, whereby they are now aboliſhed: God did than by ſpeciall allowance, give liberty for Freewilofferings, not onelyonly in regard of the Specification of the offering, of this or that kind, but alſo the Liberty of exerciſe, to offer or not to offer, excepting in caſes commanded: If they offered not, they did not ſin, and if they offered, it was the more accepted. And of this kind of Freewillofferings the Doctor intends his diſcourſe; when he paralells his voluntary oblations with thoſe of the Law, and calls them voluntary worſhip, not commanded by God, and yet accepted by him; as ſhall appear in conſidering his three obſervations, beginning at ſect. 29.

1. That they were a part of the worship and ſervice of God, when they were performed, p. 92and therefore avowed by thoſe generall precepts, which reſpect that worſhip of his. To which we ſay, 1. That they were parts of the worſhip of God, in thoſe times, is true, not (or not onelyonly) becauſe they were avowed by the generall precepts, which reſpected that worſhip; but rather, becauſe they were allowed by ſpeciall Proviſo's of God himſelf. For, I aske; If God had not declared his allowance (befides his directions and regulations) of them, whither it had beene lawfull for the Jewes, to have offered them or no? I believe not, as ſhall be ſhewed anon: 2. I deſire it may be obſerved, that thoſe voluntary oblations, were a part of Gods worſhip: ſo, by proportion, muſt his volunluntary oblations in the Goſpell, be accounted a part of worſhip, not rites, or degrees, or circumſtances of worſhip: Let it be remembred againſt anon.

2. That they were not particularly commanded, by any particular command of Gods Law, but were left to every mans liberty (except in caſe of a vow, which yet it was free for him not to make) and ſo were ſpontaneous, not neceſſary. This is alſo true in part, they had no particular command, but they had a ſpeciall allowance of God, which was as good, and aequivalent to a command, though not to neceſſitate the doing, yet to authorize them being done: otherwiſe p. 93men were at libertie; But why doth, he except a vow? I conceive, becauſe if a man had vowed, it was now neceſſary for him to perform it; but ſo, if he had devoted a freewill offering, it was not free for him, to withold it: There is a Law, Levit. 27.13. that if hee would offer to change his oblation, hee muſt adde a ſift part more to it.

3. There is a Law, Levit. 22.20. not to offer them mained, or blemiſhed, whence appeares they were voluntary, and yet allowed and accepted. They were to be offered, becauſe allowed, and becauſe allowed, therefore accepted, not becauſe they were voluntary onelyonly. Bur what will the Doctor inferre from all this? That he cannot ſee, why there may not be ſomewhat in Chriſtianity, of the ſame conſtitution alſo, voluntary, and not particularly impoſed, and yet allowed by, and acceptable to God. This inference, I fear, hath toomuch of the foreign ſpoken of in the text, a ſhew of Wiſdom, but neither ſubſtance, power, nor truth, in it: For this plauſible argument hath deceived Papiſts, into an foreign, an abundant ſuperfluity of willworſhip, it was ſo in the old Teſtt: therfore it may be ſo in the New: There was an High Prieſt over all, ergo there muſt be an univerſal B. now: They had their ſacrifices then, ſo muſt the Church now; In a word, thus Bellarm argues, in a caſe near ours, if p. 94not the ſame; vowes and freewiliofferings were part of the worſhip of God then, therefore they are ſo now: And this ſeemes reaſonable to the Doctor in the preſent caſe: He cannot ſee, but there may be ſomewhat of the ſame conſtitution now, Chamier T. 3. l. 20.7. c. 5. ſ. 25.754. Chemint. Exod. A. 3. p. 50.&c. When as Divines reſolve againſt them, that the worſhip of God then, was far different from the Worſhip of the Goſpell; 1. And conclude the contrary, it rather followes, they are not parts of worſhip now; becauſe that Levitical worſhip is aboliſhed, therefore we muſt have a certain and ſpecial word in the new Teſtament, to make any thing a part of worſhip, whence his ſecond inference is like the former; He cannot ſee, why he that doth any ſuch thing, may not be called foreign, and the oblation or action it ſelfe, foreign. He may, we grant, be ſo called, a Will-worſhiper, not a God-worſhiper; and the oblation, Willworſhip (in an ill ſenſe) not a worship of God; as wanting Truth, command, or allowance of the New Teſtament, which thoſe had in the Old: Yet, wee ſhall not ſtick to grant, that whatſoever may, by the Doctrine of the Goſpell, appeare to be acceptable to Chriſt, and yet is not commanded, by any particular command; or which is commanded for the act, but not for the ſpecification of it, to time, or place, or degree. For this firſt is certain, that no worship p. 95(marke that, wee ſpeake of Worship) is acceptable to Chriſt, which he hath not commanded; either in particular, or by general allowance. 2. Our queſtion is, not about circumſtances, of time, place, or degree, of worſhip commanded; but about voluntary worship (as he calls it Willworship, (as wee) deviſed by men themſelves. Now his Inſtances will be eaſily anſwered.

§. 30. God commanded not David to build him a Temple, nor to make tender of that ſervice, 2 Sam. 7.5. Yet Davids intention in that deſign, though exceeding Gods Command, is very acceptable to God; 1 King. 8.18. This is one of Bellarmines arguments, for their Religious vowes; and its fully anſwered by learned Chamier thus: 1. Vbi ſuper.This was in the time of the Law or before Chriſt; but the times of the Goſpell give no ſuch allowance; Freewill-offerings were then allowed, it appeares not, they are ſo now: 2. God doth not abſolutely deny, that he had Commanded, but ſayes, 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 build it. 3. The houſe that David would build, was not to be a part of worſhip properly, but by accident, as it ſerves for the Commodity and convenience of the worſhipers: no more than the Houſe of Obededom, p. 96or the place where David ſetled the Arke and Tabernacle before, was a part of worſhip, or our Churches now; God had ſaid by Moſes, that hee would chuſe a place for himſelfe to dwell in; and then, when he had choſen and ſanctified it, it was a part of that legall worſhip: David had read this, and thought, that time was now at hand, he therefore prepares materialls for the Houſe; but could not make it a part of worſhip, without Gods command: and then it is nothing to our preſent queſtion. It was onelyonly a circumſtance of worſhip, not any part of worſhip.

2. The inſtance of Saint Paul, not taking hire of the Corinthians, when hee might, and calling it matter of boaſting, &c. is as little to the purpoſe, if not leſſe; for it is not in a matter of Worſhip, but an action of common life (as himſelf ſpeakes) yet it is alſo a miſtake, to call it a foreign a free will offering, when it was a due debt: For ſo Chamier anſwers Bellarm. objecting this place for works of counſails, as they call them: And he proves it by a diſtinſtion, that he did that which was above or beſide the generall command, or allowance, That they that preacht the Goſpell should live of the Goſpell, but not above what he was bound to doe, by a ſpeciall call, from the circumſtance of time and place: for he was bound, not onelyonly to Preach the Goſpell, but p. 97alſo to take heed that he did nothing to hinder the ſucceſſe: which he confirms from the words of the Apoſtle there, 1 Cor. 9.18. That I make the Goſpell of Chriſt without charge, that I abuſe not my power in the Goſpell. But to abuſe his power, is to ſin: which he had done, if he had received his hire to the hindering of the Goſpell. His glorying and boaſting therefore, was, in reſpect to the generall command, not to the ſpeciall occaſion: It was therefore no Freewill offering.

§. 31. The like may be anſwered for the other inſtance: He might (ſaies he) have abſtained from going up to Jeruſalem, Act. 21. a Prophet told him, that bonds expected him there, ver. 11. and in that caſe to flye was juſtifiable, by Math 10.23. yet Paul would needs go up, ver. 13. that was his foreign again. Some anſwer, this was an Inſtinct or Heroicall motion of the Spirit, (which the Doctor diſcourſes againſt, Sect. 35. &c.) but we need not that help, It is enough to anſwer as before; By the generall allowance; Paul might have fled, (for there is no command, whereby Preachers are bound, to be bound, beaten, ſtoned) but yet, if he ſhould have refuſed to ſuffer with the retarding of the Goſpell, he had ſurely ſinned, and ſo, this was no Freewilloffering, neither.

p. 98§. 32. The next of works of mercy, that though they be commanded in generall, yet the quantum, how much every rich man ſhould ſet apart, is not defined, &c. May be anſwered by what is ſaid afore in part, viz. that it is not the queſtion, which is, of worſhip, not of actions of civill life: But wee adde;

1. It may be ſaid, that the queſtion is not of the degree of an Act of obedience, commanded, as Almſegiving is, but of the Act it ſelf, if not commanded now allowed in ſpeciall, or in generall.

2. Sect. 42. ſee pract. catech. p. 141. 2. Edit.The Doctor himſelf confeſſes its poſſible for a man to offend (in charity) either in too prodigall a giving, againſt prudence, or in too parſimonious ſparing, againſt pietie. But then, may it not be ſaid, there is ſome midle rule, that binds men, from both the exceſs and the defect? which if it be reſolved on, there is a debt, and no foreign no Freewill offering: Beſides, in his ſection, the Doctor ſaies, that there was a proportion, among the Jewes, which they were obliged to, which was called their Righteouſneſſe, which performed, ſatisfied the obligation of the Law, and that which exceeded, was abundance or excellency of goodneſs, or mercy. True, there was a proportion ſet, by a ſpeciall Law, (leaſt men ſhould give nothing) but there was alſo a generall Law, to p. 99give according to Gods proſpering of them, See practic. Catech. 2. Edit. Deut. 16.10.17.Deut 16:10Deut 16:17and their ability; as 1 Cor. 16.2. cited by the Doctor, as an apointment of Saint Paul, and ſo obliging, to which, if we adde, the circumſtance of time and place, and perſons, in regard of Neceſſities of the poore; there will be little cauſe to think or boaſt of a foreign, a Freewill offering, but it may prove a due debt, and, and ſin, if it be not done.

§. 33, 34. As for his Inſtance of prayer, for the manner, Orall, or mentall, publick or private; the frequencie, &c. we anſwer very briefly; Prayer is no doubt a part of worſhip, commanded by God, and therefore is ſo far, to the queſtion; but as for the manner, Orall, or Mentall, with ſuch and ſuch geſtures of body; for time when, how oft, &c. (except any of theſe be by God himſelf commanded in ſpeciall;) they are not to be accounted properly worſhip, but circumſtances, Rites, &c. and Worſhip, left to the liberty of every perſon; and ſo againe, though they be Free, yet are not parts of worſhip: For theſe being helps unto worſhip, or teſtifications of inward or outward worſhip, if a man ſhould make any one way neceſſary, or any one of them, more holy and Religious, in themſelves, or more efficacious, to himſelf, or more acceptable to God; no doubt it would be in him, Willworſhip; becauſe God hath left them free and p. 100indifferent; and nothing makes them worſhip but Gods Command: Now the Doctor muſt again be remembred, that he defends voluntary worſhip; not voluntarineſs in preſcribed worſhip (which is neceſſary as we have again ſaid) but worſhip deviſed by the wit, or conſtituted by the Wil of man; and not commanded by God. Which if we will maintain to be lawfull, and place the worſhip of God in them, or pleaſing of God by them; I know not, how he will avoide compliance with Papiſts; who have made many worſhips of God, which he never commanded, as caelibate or ſingle life; pennances, pilgrimages, ſet houres of prayer, and innumerable ſuch things, and are condemned by our Divines, as the greateſt Willworſhipers, and Idolaters, in the world.

And whereas the Doctor ſaies, Sect. 34. concerning frequent prayer (as 7. times a day, &c.) The matter of it is commanded, to wit, prayer, but not the frequent reiterating of it daily. If he mean it, of the particular number, of ſeaven times a day, its true: but if in generall, of frequent prayer, and that every day, it is againſt the very ſcope of the text, pray continually: and ſo will prove a debt, and not a foreign Freewill offering. Himſelfe ſeemes to expound it, by twice a day, morning and evening, at leaſt, and ſaies that a Chriſtian now may do well to p. 101improve it in publick and private to ſix or ſeaven times a day. But I think, the ſenſe of the precept, pray continually, hath reſpect to the frequent neceſſities and occaſions of men, every day, and binds men to pray ſo oft as need ſhall be, with ejaculatory prayer at leaſt; and then again, it is a debt, and no foreign, Nedabah, no voluntary oblation.

§. 39. We wave the 4. following Sections, after the 34. becauſe wee wave that anſwer, which in them, the Doctor diſputes againſt, But we cannot let paſſe, what he addes about the difference, between a Precept, and grace, which he makes to be very great.

1. In that the precept belongs to all, the grace to none but him that hath it (and not obliging him neither, unleſs the matter of it, be ſub praecepto all ready, and he obliged to it, by ſome other command. ) The difference between a Precept, and a Grace, is granted; but that a Grace ſhould not oblige, unleſſe the matter be commanded him, by ſome other command, is not true. For Grace given, being a Talent, is given on purpoſe to improve, as well as a precept; This is clear as in 1 Cor. 12.7. The manifeſtation of the Spirit, is given to every one, to profit withall, and in 1 Pet. 5.10. So in the Parable of the Talents, the ſcope whereof is, That whatever Talent any man is be-truſted p. 102with, the intention of the Doner is, that he ſhould improve it, to his advantage, though he lay no command particularly upon him: And the not uſing of it, is puniſhed ſeverely: Take him, and caſt him, &c. for hee acknowledgeth his Lord did expect the improvement; I knew, &c. whats the ſecond difference?

2. Becauſe it is the deſign of a precept, to lay an obligation, and that ſub periculo animae, if not obeyed; but of grace not ſo, but onelyonly to ſtrengthen and incline, which he that makes uſe of, as he ſhould, is promiſed a reward, &c. This is ſtrange Divinity: Does God give Grace onelyonly to ſtrengthen and incline, and leave men free to uſe it, or not uſe it? ſo grace might be given in vaine: But does not Saint Math. ſay, Take him and caſt him into utter darkneſſe, for not uſing his Talent? and is he not threatned with loſs of his Talent, for not uſing it? and is not that a puniſhment for ſome ſin? yes, but its clear by Saint Luke, 19.13. that there was a precept of occupying; to which the puniſhment was apportioned, True, but had here been no ſuch particular precept, yet the Gift it ſelf implyed that duty of imployment, and therefore Mathew leaves that out; And there he acknowledges preſently, I acknowledge, that the bringing God no rereturn of all his grace, is a great and a p. 103damning ſin. Thats true, ſay I, when he gives any grace, (though he ſay nothing) even by the Law of Creation, whereby the rationall Creature is bound to be ſubſervient to the glory of his Creator: But this laſt grant, hee in a manner, takes away againe in the next words; But then, that comes not home, to to prove it a ſinne, to omit the doing of any one particular, in that degree, which Gods grace enables me to doe; there being no obligation ad ſemper, or ad gradum; to doe it alwaies, or in ſuch a degree. But ſurely, as grace it ſelf, ſo any meaſure or degree of grace (being a Talent alſo) requires a proportionable return, to that degree.

The Lord, in the parable expected an increaſe of of one Talent, for his one Talent, as well as two, for two, and five for five; and he was puniſhed as well for not improving his one, to two, as for bringing in no increaſe; And if he that had received five Talents, had brought in the increaſe but of two, I believe he had heard of it from his Lord, and beene Chidden, if not puniſhed for it. Though it be true alſo, that there is no Obligation ad ſemper, yet ſemper, as opportunity is offered; Gal. 6.10. As, as long, as much, while wee have opportunity, lets do good, &c. and ſo the degree of the grace, binds to a graduall improvement: To whom more is given, of him more is required, is expreſſe Scripture; p. 104And this expreſſion of the Doctor, that there is onelyonly an obligation ad ſpeciem, not ad gradum, that is, that the thing be done, for kind, not to the degree of Grace received Savours too much of the Romiſh gloſs, to ſay no more.

§. 40.41. Object. Prudence will require us to do that which is fitteſt to be done, and ſo nothing is free, &c. He anſwers, That every man is not bound under pain of ſin, to be prudent, or pious, or mercifull, in ſuch a degree, &c. Truely every man is bound to be prudent, to that degree of prudence; which he loſt by ſin; and every man is bound to be pious, in the higheſt degree; the Law requires perfection of holineſſe, (ſay we) and the Goſpell requires yet Greater perfection, (ſaies he; pract. catech. 2^d. Edit. p. 94, 95.) and every man is bound to be mercifull to his ability, as our Heavenly Father is mercifull, (which ſure is the higheſt degree) though every man be not bound to the ſame degree, of mercy, with other men; becauſe every man hath not, either the ſame meaſure, of abilities, or the ſame opportunities. But theſe ſuppoſed, as a man in extream need, and my abilities conſidered, I am bound to give ſo much as will ſupply his neede; and to give leſſe, were neither, prudent, nor pious, what ever it were to give more

p. 105§. 42. And here he confeſſes, Its poſſible to offend againſt prudence in too prodigall a giving, and in too parſimonious, againſt piety; but yet would evade the deciſion of the juſt proportion, two wayes.

1. The poſſibilitie and danger of ſuch faults in the extreames, proves not the unlawfulneſs or neceſsitie of any other degree within thoſe extreams, but allows a latitude, within which a man may be more or leſſe mercifull ſtill, and yet prudent too. To which I ſay, Virtue (and Charity is ſuch a virtue) conſiſts in a middle point between two extreames; therefore, if it ſwerve from that point to either extreame, it is more or leſſe a fault, though not obſerved, perhaps not obſervable by men, yet juſtly puniſhable, by a righteous God. And in ſtrict and rigorous Juſtice, in ſuch deviations, a man will bee found neither mercifull, nor prudent, but hee ſayes,

2. Though prudential conſiderations doe direct, yet do they not alwaies command, or lay obligations upon us, and therefore ſtill compatible with voluntary oblations. Yes, Prudence it ſelf being a virtue, in our created nature; then certainly it commanded, and obliged to do what was fitteſt; and ſo it doth ſtill; that what is ſhort of the Rule, by our imprudence, is a fault, though pardonable by Grace.

p. 106Sect. 43.44. Another objection he ſtarts, from hence. That prudence, knowing the greateſt perfection, to be moſt gloriouſly rewarded, would adviſe and bind a man to aſpire to perfection, and not to content himſelf with any thing but the beſt. This ſeems at firſt ſight, to touch upon the mercenarie, or meritorious way of Romaniſts; and we ſhould not have framed ſuch an objection: For there being a two-fold perfection, the one of Grace, or holineſſe, the other of Glory; true Prudence looks firſt at the perfection of Holineſſe, and by the by, or ſecondarily at the perfection of Glory: leaving that to God; though God is pleaſed to give us this help to provoke us to perfection of holineſs. Now when prudence looks firſt and primarily at perfection of Glory, it ſeems miſplaced. For true Prudence ſhould firſt look at the command of God, and the beauty of Holineſſe, and ſhould adviſe us, to ſeek that firſt, and for it ſelfe: Not to look at Glory, to make us Holy, but at Holineſs to make us glorious: And this is true prudence indeed, which adviſes a man to doe the beſt to arrive at the perfection of Grace, upon the command of God, &c. But let us conſider his anſwers.

1. Though prudence do adviſe one to this, yet doth it not lay any command, which hath power of obliging, ſo as not to obey it, will be preſently ſinfull, &c. What Prudence p. 107doth he meane? If it be a carnal Prudence (for it is no better) adviſing onelyonly, or firſt, to look at the perfection of Glory, that indeed does not lay any obligation upon us. But if it be true divine Prudence, looking at the perfection of Virtue, required by the commands of God, it doth lay ſtrong obligations upon us; ſo as if wee obey it not it is ſinfull. Nor does it thereby ceaſe to bee prudentiall, becauſe of that command, which makes it neceſſary, but is prudentially neceſſarie.

2. He ſaies, Though it is prudent to uſe thoſe means which may advance us higheſt in glory, and perfection will doe that, yet 'twill not alwaies be prudence to undertake the way of perfection, becauſe that being an high ſteep, may be alſo a dangerous way; every man cannot receive it, &c. What perfection does he mean will be dangerous to undertake as a ſteep way, &c.? The perfection of Virtue, or Holineſs required in the Commandments of Law, and Goſpel? Sure that, though it be ſteep and high, yet it is no dangerous way at all; but the moſt ſafe, peaceable, and eaſieſt way, if the Word may be beleeved. But I gueſſe by that phraſe, Every man cannot receive it, that he meanes it of the Romiſh caelibate, * or Virginity, or Martyrdome, the rather becauſe he adds, For him that cannot overcome the difficulties p. 108to reſolve upon the courſe, Which is not commanded, any but looked on as the greateſt degree of perfection.may perhaps be precipitious, &c. That is, every man hath not that gift, and for him to undertake that way (of perfection) may be dangerous, and precipitious indeed. Now to undertake the way of perfection in Holineſſe, cannot be dangerous to any, but is the duty of all, and every man may receive it, that in ſincerity looks after it, at leaſt to acceptation. And then that which he adds is as ſtrange: Quaer. of Divorſe ſect 36. It may be a duty ſometimes not to aſpire to ſome perfection. Sect. 45.That in the undertaking of the way of perfection, even the precept of God may interpoſe ſometimes, and traſe us, and make it unlawfull for us to aſpire to the most perfect ſtate. I pray does the precept of God interpoſe at any time, or (as he ſpeaks) traſe us in the way of perfection in Holineſſe? Doe Gods precepts croſs one another in that way of perfection? Or rather is not perfect obedience to the precepts of God holineſs and perfection it ſelf? Does Gods precept make it, unlawfull for us to aſpire to the moſt perfect ſtate, which calls us to it? What ſtrange Divinitie is this! But hear him ſpeak, and explain himſelf. As if the diſcharge of a duty of our calling ſhould await us on one ſide, and an opportunity of martyrdome, on t'other ſide, then in that caſe obedience is better then that richeſt Sacrifice, as in Cyprians caſe, &c. By this its evident, he means not the perfection of Holines according to the Commandements p. 109of God, but a conceited perfection of martyrdome as Papiſts do: But does God call all men, at all times to martyrdom? Is there any command for all men to be Martyrs? Yet there is a command for all men to obey God, to be perfectly holy; and no command of God interpoſes, or traſes us in this: Yea if a man, ambitious of Martyrdom (his higheſt perfection) ſhould with neglect of obedience to a command of God, in diſcharge, but of a duty of his calling, aspire to Martyrdome, he would ſcarce deſerve the name of a Martyr, but of ſomething elſe which I will not name. See pract. Cat. 2 Edit. pag. 98.The Providence of God indeed may interpoſe and traſe us, (by denying us abilities to do more good, or leaving corruptions to buffet us, that we cannot do the good we would (as Paul complaines) for reaſons beſt known to himſelfe. But then, who knows not, That if there be a willing mind, it is accepted, according to what a man hath, not according to what he hath not. And his reward (for ought we know) may be accordingly; equall with thoſe that have more abilities and opportunities of doing good, or ſuffering ill for Chriſt. Any man, all men, are alwayes bound to aspire to the perfection of Holineſſe, not to the perfecto n of Martyrdome. And now wee goe on.

§. 46. But then thirdly, the perfection p. 110we are commanded by Chriſt to aſpire to, is capable of degrees; as in charitie or mercifulneſſe, Mat. 5.48. for ſo expounded Luke 6.36. Wee ſhall grant him this, and yet deny his voluntary oblations ſtill: For wee 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 the higheſt degree, is ſo farre culpable; and then it will follow, that there can be no foreign, no voluntary oblation. Epiſt. 62.Let him hear St. Hierom ſpeak our ſenſe in this, Charitas quae non poteſt augeri, &c. Charitie which cannot be increaſed as long as man lives here, is in no man; but as long as it may be increaſed; truly what is leſs then it ought to be, **In vitio eſt.is faulty; by which faultineſs there is no juſt man on earth, who doth good, and ſinneth not. It is ſpoken in generall of the Love of God and man, but eaſily applyed to Charity ſtrictly ſo called. But the Doctor goes on. If there be any perfection attainable in this life, 'twill be capable of degrees, and growth alſo. 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; but rather degrees and growth in Grace (which are oft commanded) argue there is no perfection in this life. The Doctor p. 111goes on ſtill. If it be not acquirable in this life, 'tis certainly not under Evangelicall precept now; that light and ſupportable burthen, that rod of not grievous, i. e. poſſible commands, which Christ, & his grace brought into the world. This is ſtrong and ſtrange confidence. For firſt, doth not the Law it ſelf (ſtill in force under the Goſpel) require perfect obedience of Chriſtians? Did it not ever do ſo, as the eternall Rule of righteouſneſſe, and ever will? All Orthodox Divines have ever thought ſo, and maintained it againſt the Church of Rome. OnelyOnly, the Doctor, I finde, is of the ſame judgement with them of Rome, and ſticks not to charge the Law, before Chriſt, with Imperfection. Hear his words, Pract. Catech. pag. 94. 2 Edit. The Law & Commandements of God had before ſome mixture of Imperfection, but now have none; had before ſome vacuities in them, which now are filled up by Chriſt. Viderit ipſe.

But ſecondly, doth not the Goſpel alſo call for the perfection of the Law? Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, are the words of Chriſt himſelfe. But leaſt hee ſhould ſay, as here ſect. 46. by perfection there, is meant mercifulneſſe (though that will little advantage him) what ſayes he to that place of the Goſpel, Be ye holy, as he is holy? 1 Pet. 1.15, 16. Which is taken out of p. 112the Law, Levi. 11.44. &c. Did God then or the Goſpell now, call men to an Imperfect Holineſſe and ſet God for their patterne? But doth not the Doctor himſelf ſay, Chriſt came to perfect the Law? in his Catech: ſupra pag. 93. and to ſet it higher, than before? And yet is he certain and confident, perfection is not under evangelicall precept now? And is not that perfection, the perfection of the Law ſtill, though it be required by the Goſpell? Doth not the Goſpell call for the perfection of the Law, upon new motives, of the Covenant of Grace, of the merits and death of Chriſt? upon indeed better termes; as mediating, that if we doe (as we do) fall ſhort of that perfection, yet we ſhall be pardoned all our failings.

And thirdly, I aske, what it is, that makes the burthen of Chriſt, (requiring the ſame, (the Doctor ſaies, greater) perfection of the Law) ſo light and ſupportable, the rod of command, ſo not grievous, i. e. poſſible? let the Doctor anſwer the queſtion himſelfe, in his Catech. p. 95. It is made lighter by Chriſt, 1. in taking off that unprofitable burthen of ceremonies, that had nothing good in them (durius dictum.) 2. in reſpect of the damning power of every leaſt ſin or breach under the firſt covenant, to the beleever taken away in the ſecond. 3. in regard of greater ſtrength given. &c. It was p. 113was not then the lightneſſe of the burthen, that hee required not perfect Holineſſe under the Goſpell (for that he does 2 Cor. 7.1.) but that, if by repentance, faith and love, we ſincerely endeavour after perfection, firſt our failings ſhall be pardond, 2. and our weake works accepted, through Chriſt our mediator. But ſtill perfection, (though not acquirable here) is under Evangelicall precept.

§. 47. Whence it is apparent, that that ſo plauſible aſſertion (as the Doctor calls i…) that every one is bound to doe that which is beſt, is not (as he) diſernibly falſe; but viſibly true; For if the Law (and Goſpell alſo) require perfection of obedience, in every Commandement, then it bends every man to doe that which is beſt: And his arguments againſt it, are little worth: 1. For the Teſtimonie of the Apoſtle, 1. Cor. 7.28. He that giveth in marriage doth well, and he that giveth not, doth better. For 1. well and better there, do not referre to morall goodneſſe but Worldly good, in regard of the prevention of troubles, in thoſe afflicted, and perſecuting times: Marriage is, in it ſelfe, a thing indifferent, and ſo it may be good for ſome to marry, and better for others not to marry.

2. The matter is, how the parties are diſpoſed; If a man have not the gift of continence, p. 114it is not onelyonly good, but neceſſary for him to marry, rather than to burn: and here it cannot be ſaid, he that giveth not in marriage doth better, but doth very ill. If a man had the gift of continency, is was better, (in thoſe times, for the preſent diſtreſſe, ver. 26.) not to marry, but ſtill with reſpect to Worldly, not morall good. 2. His other argument is as weak; That the beſt, being a ſuperlative, ſuppoſes the poſitive to be good; whereas if all were bound to do that which is beſt, that which were onelyonly good, were evill; for ſo is whatever comes ſhort of what we are bound to do. I hope the Doctor will not deny, but works done by faith are Good; and yet, that they are not perfect in this life, that is, come ſhort of what wee are bound to doe, if not by the Law, yet by the Goſpell; will he now ſay, Greg. moral. lib. 9. c. 1.they are evill? They are called good, by the indulgence, and acceptance of God, in Chriſt; but not ſtrictly or perfectly good: He knowes who ſaid it. Omnis humana juſtitia injuſtitia eſſe convincitur, ſi diſtrictè judicetur.

§. 48. The next Objection raiſed by him, helps to confirme the former anſwer; The Law is, Thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, ſoul, ſtrength, &c. which implyes the utmoſt endeavour, to perfection, in all our obedience, He anſwers, that that phraſe denoteth onelyonly two things. Sect. 49.1. ſincerity p. 115of his love of God, as oppoſed to partiall divided love or ſervice: 2. the loving him above all other things, not admitting any thing in competition with him, or in ſuch a degree of love. But we ſay, 1. That both theſe are noted & required, we grant but deny that onelyonly theſe are required, for the Law required perfect love. (John 4.18. perfect love, caſteth out fear) ſuch as was in Adam in innocency; but that is not acquirable in this life: 2. If he will but grant, that whatever comes ſhort of that perfection, needs (and by grace ſhall find) a pardon, and be accepted; we contend no farther. For let it be ſuppoſed, yea granted, that ſincere love, is capable of degrees, whither in the ſame man, at ſeverall times, or two men at the ſame time, and ſo both obey the precept; yet thoſe degrees, and growth of love, do argue love not to be perfect (and ſo not ſtrictly anſwerable to the Law) & ſo farre faulty, in vitio, as Hierome ſaid, above.

But what ſhall wee ſay to that Inſtance of Chriſt himſelfe; Who, we know, did never fail, in performing what was mans dutie in prayer, or any thing elſe; yet at that time, Luk. 22.24. prayed more earneſtly; which is a demonſtrative evidence, that the lower degree, is not neceſſarily ſinfull, when the higher is acceptable to God, which when it is granted, there will be no doubt but theſe freewill-offerings, will be reconcileable p. 116with that command; and ſo room left for a voluntary oblation. But wee ſay to this, This example of Chriſt, will not be applyable to men. For Chriſt was above the Law; and did more then the Law required, and did ſupererogate in many his actions, and paſsions; and ſo in the degree of affection in prayer, if not in the prayer it ſelf: But men are ſo farre from Supererogating by any ſervice, prayer, or the like; that they fall many degrees ſhort of what is required, and due from them, and ſo no room left for freewil-offerings, as his voluntary oblations. Yet thus much that example holds forth, that greater preſſures and neceſſities, call for enlargement of affections not as voluntary oblations, but as duties.

§. 50. &c. And this makes way for another, and the laſt objection; That if it be granted poſſible for a Chriſtian, to do more, than he is commanded, he may then ſupererogate, as the Romaniſts teach. The Doctor anſwers.

1. There is a great difference, between offering, that a man may do more than is commanded; and that, he may do ſomething which is not commanded; The former ſuppoſes him to have done all commanded, the ſecond may be true, though in moſt, or all other things, he have been wanting: Hee aſſerts the ſecond, not the first. But is not p. 117this new diſtinction, ſometimes coincident? For he that doth ſomewhat not commanded; does alſo ſomething more, than is commanded; though hee hath not in other things, done all that is commanded; and ſo to doe more than is commanded, does not ſuppoſe, he hath done all that is commanded, nor doe the Romaniſts ſuppoſe that, to their ſupererogation: ſo this is nothing.

2. He addes therefore; That to ſupererogate ſuppoſeth one of theſe two things, 1. either that the perſon ſpoken of, hath paid God all that is due to him, by way of perfect obedience, i. e. hath never ſinned; or 2. that having ſinned, and ſo become a debtor, he hath paid that debt, by ſatisfaction, by doing ſomething elſe, which may ſatisfie God, for his ſin, &c.

But the firſt of theſe, is juſt the ſame with the former, that by doing more than was commanded, was ſuppoſed, hee had done all that was commanded, i. e. had never ſinned; which himſelfe ſaies, the Romaniſts do not own. It muſt then lye all upon the ſecond, that though he have ſinned, yet he may ſatisfie God ſo for his ſinne, by ſome other work not commanded (for duties pay no Debts, much leſſe ſupererogate) not onelyonly for himſelf, but alſo for others, ex abundanti, &c. Now ſaies the Doctor; from both theſe, the preſent Doctrine is free: For the firſt, its true, the p. 118Doctor does not ſay, that the perſon never ſinned; or hath perfect obedience; but yet this he ſaies, (with the Romaniſts) that hee may doe ſomething not commanded, that is (ſay I) ſomething more than is commanded, which ſounds ill, in an Orthodox eare; and yet this is that, which the Doctor hath been labouring to prove for many ſections together. As for the ſecond, the Doctor diſclaimes the Doctrine of ſatisfaction, and ſo conſequently, (ſo farre) that of Supererogation: But yet cannot free his doctrine from ſome kind of Supererogation. For, works of Supererogation, have not their denomination, from ſatisfaction made by them; but they are therefore thought to be ſatisfactions, becauſe, they doe ſomething more than the Law required; Supererogare, is as much, as, ſuper quod erogavit lex: Yea in many reſpects ſuch works may be ſaid to Supererogate.

Firſt, with reſpect to the Law it ſelf, when men think they have done more than the Law required, which makes them not Supererogatorie, but Derogatory, from the perfection of the Law of God, and layes imperfection upon it, (as the Doctor hath plainly done above.) 2. With reſpect had to other men, men, who attain not to that perfection (as they call it) to do ſomething more than commanded; as that Phariſee, that ſaid (with ſcorne and pride enough) "I am not as other p. 119men, I faſt twice a week. And this was the note of diſcrimination, between the Haſidaej, and the Haraej, as we heard above. 3. With reſpect to the over-pleaſing and acceptance of God: They that think that they can doe ſomething not commanded, do think, and expect to find more, and greater acceptance from God, than they themſelves or others do, for doing onelyonly what is commanded: Papiſts do indeed, think they can merit wich God by ſuch works, for themſelves ond others: Ours are not come ſo far yet, but they do think to find (or procure) more acceptance for their voluntary oblations here, and if not glory it ſelf, yet a greater reward, and greater glory hereafter for ſuch works. For more acceptance the Doctor ſpeakes expreſly; Sect. 16. When in the ſervice of God, a man out of a pious affection ſhall do any thing elſe, beſide what God hath commanded, by any particular precept, this action of his, is accounted ſo much more commendable to God. And elſewhere, The more voluntary the ſervice, the more acceptable. What exceptions may be made to this, ſee above at Sect. 16. and adde, If the Doctor ſhould meane it of voluntarineſſe in a preſcribed worſhip of God, it is not to the purpoſe; for even the higheſt voluntarineſſe, is there required. If he mean it of a voluntary, wil deviſed worſhip, I have ſaid, and ſay again, The more voluntary, p. 120the more abhominable. As for the other, that by their voluntary oblations, they do thinke and expect to finde greater glory, and reward hereafter, the Doctor is not ſo expreſſe; Yet when he makes it a part of prudence, to aſpire to the moſt perfect ſtate, that is, (as he implyes) Martyrdome, for his reaſon, becauſe that is the way and means, to advance us higheſt in glory; Sect. 43, 44. Knowing the greateſt perfection, to be moſt gloriouſly rewarded; he comes very near to think, that voluntary oblations, ſuch as voluntary Martyrdome, may procure, greater reward, than commanded worſhip. To draw to a concluſion of all; when the Doctor ſaies, His Doctrine forbiddeth any the moſt juſtified man, to pretend toward ſatisfying for others, but to work out his own ſalvation, with fear and trembling, i. e. with all the Humility in the world. This may be true in the Doctrine; but in the Practiſe, I fear it tends to pride, and ſcorne, to teach men, That to do things not commanded, will make a man more acceptable to God, and purchaſe him a greater meaſure of glory hereafter, than to do things onelyonly commanded by God: Wee have too much experience of the ſucceſſe, of ſuch Doctrine, not onelyonly in the old Haſidaej, and later Phariſees, but palpably in the Church of Rome, at this day; and our own late Superſtititious p. 121Willworshipers, and Formaliſts, who did overlooke others (who like the Karaeans, kept cloſe to the Rule of the word, for their worſhip) with abundance of contempt and inſolence; as all that knew the times, can ſufficiently teſtifie.

FINIS.

EXERCITATION THE THIRD, OF The FESTIVALS of the CHURCH.

And particularly of CHRISTMAS.

By D. C.

Gal. 4.9, 10.

But now after you have known God, or rather, are known of God, how turn you again to the weak and beggerly elements whereunto yee deſire again to be in bondage?

You obſerve dayes, and months, and times, and years.

Cypr. Epiſt. 73. Fruſtra nobis, qui ratione vincimur, conſuetudinem opponunt.

LONDON, Printed for J. Wright at the ſign of the Kings-head in the Oldbayley, 1653.