Diatribe Triplex, Text 1 – Title page 1
OF SVPERSTITION.
Section 1.
IN a juſt and Methodicall order of Tranſlation, the Diſcourſe of Superſtition ſhould precede that of Will-worſhip; that being more generall, this laſt a Special under it. Which that we may diſcover, we ſhall (before we debate it with the Doctor) enquire, and (as well as we can) reſolve, what Superſtition is; And this cannot ſo well be found, by ſearching into the Monuments of Heathen Authors, Latine or Greeke, (which is the Doctors way) from the Names and ſenſes by them given; (they being apt to miſleade themſelves and us, in this ſearch,) as by the judgement of Divines, the matter belonging to Religion, the chiefe and laſt of all Arts: They that never knew what true Religion meant, are all judges of Superſtition, which is the worke and worker thereof, in the exceſſive part.
§. 2. Superſtition, in the generall notion of it, is not unfitly defined, by the learned Schooleman, A vice contrary to Religion, Aquin. 22. q. 92. a. 1.2.in the exceſſe, (as profaneſſe is the other contrary, in the Defect.) Not that a man can be too Religions indeed, in the commanded worſhip of God, Dr. Ameſ. in medul. on ſecond Commandment: Aquin. ibid.with reſpect, or in order to the formall vertue of Religion; but (as one explaines himſelfe) in order to the Acts, or externall meanes of worſhip, ſuperadded by the wiſdome, or will of man; when a man tenders worſhip, either to whom it is not due, or not in that manner, which he ought. Now, in Religion, or worſhip of God in generall (as diſtinct from Juſtice, or Charity in the ſecond Table,) foure things are conſiderable, according to the foure Commandments of the Table. 1 A right Object, God alone; 2 a right Matter, commanded worſhip; 3 a right manner, with all due Reverence; 4 a right Time, his owne appointed Day: and anſwerable Superſtition may extend to the whole firſt Table, Superſtition is that which adds humane indeavours to divine precepts. Vrſin. in 2 precept. More then is appointed by the law of God. D. Fulk in Act. 17. ſ. 4. Worſhip without Gods commandement. M. …erk. on the ſecond Command.when there is a Nimiety, or exceſſe in any of theſe. For the Diſcoverie whereof, we muſt obſerve, that the Commandements of God, having every one of them, a Negative, and an Affirmative part, (expreſſed or underſtood) the Duties of Religion doe ſtand in the midſt, as vertues, between two extremes: As e. g. there is a double errour againſt the firſt Commandement, one in the Defect, that's Atheiſm, having no God at all; the other in exceſſe, that is Polytheiſm, having too many. 2 In the ſecond Commandement, there is, firſt a Defect, not obſerving Gods preſcribed worſhip, than an exceſſe, in adding and obſerving deviſed worſhip. 3 So alſo in the third Commandement, there is a Defect, in want of Reverence due to the Divine Majeſty (which is ſometimes partly called profaneſſe) and an exceſſe in additions of Ridiculous rites and ceremonies or geſtures, and the like. 4. In the fourth Commandement, there is a Defect, in obſerving no Time, when Gods deſigned Sabbath is neglected, and an exceſſe, when men inſtitute other Holy Dayes and Times, as Jeroboam did, 1 King. 12.32. He ordained a Feaſt, — like unto the Feaſt that was in Judea. Thence it is apparent, that in this generall ſenſe, there may be Superſtition, in, or againſt all the Commandements of the firſt Table, in the exceſſive part; and it were eaſie to obſerve, that many (Divines eſpecially) doe call the exceſſes of any Commandement, by the name of Superſtition.
§. 3. And hence it may appeare, that ſome are too ſhort, in deſigning the Species or kinds of Superſtition; As firſt the learned Schooleman; who makes but three kinds of it, Idolatry, Illegitimate worſhip, and Divination. The firſt and laſt whereof, Ibid a. 2. in corp.are referred by Divines to the firſt Commandement; and the other, illegitimate or uncommanded worſhip, to the ſecond: For Idolatry, properly ſo called, is either the worſhip of a falſe God, inſtead of the true; or of many, or other Gods with him: And Divination, being a conſulting with the Devill, is a giving of that honour to him, which is due onelyonly to God, and ſo the worſt kind of Idolatry; So he limits Superſtition, D. Ameſ. Medul. on the ſecond Commandement.only to two Commandements. But I find another Reverend Doctor, reſtraining it to one Commandement, viz. the ſecond, when he deſignes it thus. Superſtition is (a vice) whereby undue worſhip is tendered unto God. Hee means that worſhip to be undue (which the Schoolman called illegitimate) which is not commanded by God, but inſtituted and appointed by men: But this limits it onelyonly to the ſecond Commandement, which is more properly called, VVillworſhip, foreign.and is but one Species of Superſtition: Whereas there may be Superſtition againſt any of the four firſt Commandements. For inſtance: The worſhiping of many Gods, by the Athenians, and other Nations againſt what Commandement was it? Surely againſt the firſt; yet this by the Apoſtles is called Superſtition, Act. 17.22. I perceive you are foreign, too Superſtitious: He means (ſaies our Doctor) they worſhiped more Gods than other people. Sect. 11.And the Worſhiping of Angells, Col. 2.18. with the true God, is an Exceſſe againſt the firſt Commandement, Will worſhip. ſect. 20.yet by the Doctor himſelf, is called, that crime of Superſtition. Again, when Baals Prieſts uſed thoſe barbarous Ceremonies in their worſhip, leaping and cutting themſelves; and when Papiſts uſe as many and more ridiculous Rites and geſtures in their worſhip; this is an Exceſſe againſt the third Commandement, yet who would not call theſe Superſtition? as taking Gods Name in vain. And laſtly, when Ieroboam made a Feaſt day of his own head, and Papiſts dedicate Holy daies to Saints; So called by Plutarch. ſect. 19.yea when the Iewes were ſo ſcrupulous in obſerving their Sabbath, that they would not ſtand up to defend themſelves, were not theſe Exceſſes of Religion, againſt the fourth Commandement? yet juſtly called their Superſtition.
§. 4. Superſtition then, in this generall notion, as an Exceſſe of Religion, hath as many ſpecies, or kinds, as there are Commandements of the firſt Table; But it is no eaſie matter, to diſcover all the kinds and waies, whereby it is committed in particular; or when we have found them, punctually to determine to what Commandement they doe belong. And therefore the courteous Reader will eaſily pardon us, if we be not ſo logically accurate, as we would be in ſetting down the particular kinds. We ſhall labour to expreſſe ſome of them, as we find them held out by Divines and others, upon ſeverall occaſions. There may be therefore 2. Heads of Superſtition.
§. 5.1. Negative, when men abſtain from ſomethings, under a notion of Religion, or worſhip of God, which are not forbidden by God, but left free, and indifferent: either not forbidden, or, if once they were, now antiquated, or outdated, as our Doctor ſaies: And of this ſort was that, Col. 2.21. Touch not, taſt not, handle not; which was Superſtitious Negative willworſhip.
§. 6.2. Poſitive, when men of their owne hearts and Heads, ſet up waies of Religion, to worſhip God by, which he never commanded; And this, (as was ſaid) may be committed, againſt any of the four firſt Commandements. This diſtinction, the Doctor ownes, (of Negative, and Poſitive Superſtition,) and makes uſe of it againſt others hereafter, Sect. 29.thus: In things indifferent, it is as criminous and ſuperſtitious, to place piety in the Negative, as in the affirmative; in not kneeling as in kneeling, in abſtaining ſcrupulouſly from ceremonies, as in uſing them as ſcrupulouſly. Thus farre then we have his conſent, for more waies than one, for men, at leſt Proteſtants to be ſuperſtitious; which hereafter he does almoſt deny: Sect. 47, 48. of which in its place. Now this Poſitive Superſtition, may be exemplified, in many particulars.
§. 7.1. In that which is properly called foreign, rendred by our Tranſlators, by Superſtition: Act. 25.19. and elſewhere; The worſhiping of theſe (as amongſt Papiſts) is moſt properly called Superſtition: Sect. 3.And this may be, either when men worſhip many Gods, or onelyonly one (with the true) and for this the Athenians are called too ſuperſtitious, Act. 17.22. or elſe, when they have an exceſſe of fear, or being afraid of God, when they need not, as thinking themſelves bound, as from God, when God neither commands, nor forbids; Of this kind, is the doing or abſtaining Religiouſly (i. e. upon pretence of Divine precept, or prohibition) from thoſe things, which the word doth neither command, nor interdict. They are the Doctors own words, Sect. 46. below. OnelyOnly he is ſhort, in ſhort expreſſing, Religiouſly, by pretence of Divine precept, or prohibition, for it ſignifies alſo, a pretence of worſhiping God thereby: When men have a ſlaviſh fear, or hard opinions of God, then they are juſtly called Superſtitious.
§. 8.2. That which is more ſtrictly called foreign, Willworſhip, which is, the placing the VVorſhip of God, in thoſe things which are the meer inventions, and inſtitutions of men; never commanded by God: The Papiſts can give us inſtances enough; In the Sacrifice of the Maſſe, in habits, Eremiticall and Monaſticall life, Pennances, Pilgrimages, &c. which they eſteem, and practice, as ſpeciall worſhips of God, and are by the reformed Churches, ſtiled juſtly Superſtitious.
§. 9. 3. When men inſtitute any rites or ceremonies, Ridiculous ceremonies turn it into evill: willworſhip, ſect. 25.for the ſervice of God, which are ridiculous (as the Baalites did) or unbeſeeming the ſimplicity of Goſpell-worſhip; This is no better, than Superſtition, and a taking of Gods Name in vain. The Church of Rome can afford us good ſtore of theſe. Theſe, though they be not VVorſhips invented by men, yet are Additions to the worſhip commanded by God, and ſo an Exceſſe in Religion, and juſtly branded as Superſtition.
§. 10.4. When men put Holineſſe upon things, which God hath not ſanctified by their own conſecration; as in Daies, Churches, Veſtments, &c. Jeroboam was deeply guilty of this Superſtition. Firſt in conſecrating Chappells and Prieſts, for his Golden Calves, in Dan, and Bethel, and then in conſecrating an Holy Day, and Annuall Feaſt, unto his Gods, like unto the Feaſt in Judah (of Gods appointment) the month which he had deviſed of his own heart: 2 King. 12.9.32, 33. or as the word is, created, foreign An ordinary miſdevotion, in the Church of Rome, and in ſome of late amongſt our ſelves: Though the Doctor grudge to grant it the name of Superſtition, as we ſhall hear at Sect. 50.
§. 11.5. The placing of perfection in an high degree, in ſome ſtates and conditions of life which God never placed in them. As in that ſtore houſe of ſuperſtition, the Church of Rome, in voluntary Poverty, Virginity, Celibate and voluntary Martyrdome, when God doth not command, or call unto them. And this laſt of Martyrdome, the Doctor ſeemes to make the higheſt degree of perfection, in his Tract of VVillworſhip. Sect. 44. For either he muſt mean it of voluntary Martyrdome, when a man ambitious of it, ſhall ruſh into it, (as many in the primitive times did) without a call from God, and then it is ſo farre from an higher degree of perfection, that, in the judgements of the beſt Divines, it deſerves not the name of Martyrdome: Or elſe he muſt intend it of Martyrdome, when God calls a man to ſuffer, and then it is a duty, (or at moſt, but a priviledge) rather than any ſtate of perfection.
§. 12.6. When men think by their owne, uncommanded worſhip, and ſervices of God, either to merit pardon of their ſinnes, againſt other Commandements; as ſhee Pro. 7.14. &c. I have peace offerings with me, this day have I paid my vowes, which were free willing offerings, as not commanded; Come let us take our fill of love, &c. q. d. though I have runne into debt, by my former whoredomes, I have now ſatisfied God with freewill-offerings, and have quit the ſcore. Or to purchaſe Glory, at leaſt a greater degree of Glory for themſelves, and to ſupererogate for others, by doing ſomething not commanded, as Papiſts plainly do. How near the Doctor comes to this kind of Superſtition, we ſhall ſhew anon, VVillworſhip, Sect. 50. &c.
§. 13.7. When men place more pleaſing of God, and expect more Acceptation from God, for ſervices or worſhip uncommanded, than for thoſe cōmanded by God. The Apoſtle intimates ſome ſuch conceit in men, 1 Cor. 8.8. when he ſaies, meats commend us not to God; for neither if we eat, are we the better (in our ſelves, or better accepted with God) neither if we eate not, are we the worſe (or are leſſe, and leſſe accepted with God) yet ſuch as abſtained from ſome meats, had ſuch thoughts of themſelves. And this ſhall be manifeſted to be the opinion and expectation of the Doctor, for his voluntary worſhip (worſhip not commanded by God) to be better pleaſing, and to find better Acceptance from God: Tract of Willworſhip. Sect. 16.19. and here Sect. 52.
§. 14.8. Laſtly (to adde no more) the placing of more virtue and efficacie, in things, than either Nature, or the Inſtitution of God hath placed in them: This is acknowledged to be an Exceſſe, and ſo Superſtition by the Doctor, ſect. 45. The placing of more virtue in ſome things, than either Naturally, or by the rule of Gods word, or in the eſtimation of purer ages of the Church may be thought to belong to them, is guilty of a Nimiety. His inſtances given, are very pertinent and conſiderable. 1. Placing virtue or force in the ſigne of the Croſſe, which is done, not onelyonly by Papiſts in croſſing themſelves to ſcare away the Divell, but alſo by many ignorant, and ill-taught Proteſtants, who require croſſing of their Children in Baptiſm, as thinking them not well baptized, without. 2. The womens parvula evangelia. 3. opus operatum, the common Superſtition of all naturall men, and Hypocrites. Concerning which, his judgement is good. The doing of which, is either groundleſſe, and then it is folly: or elſe it faſtens ſome promiſe on Chriſt, which he hath not made in the Goſpell, &c. But why he ſhould add, See infra. ſect. 34.In the eſtimation of the purer ages of the Church, I do not well underſtand, but ſhall conſider in its place.
§. 15. Having thus made way for our debate with the Doctor, by ſhewing the Nature of Superſtitiion; we ſhall now enter the liſts, Sect. 1.and conſider what he ſaies about it. And to his firſt Section, wee ſay: It may be true, that ſome may unjuſtly be charged with the crime of Superſtition, by ignorant or malicious defamers of others beſt actions. But it is as true, that ſome that think themſelves aſſured in conſcience that they are farre enough from the guilt of it, may juſtly be charged with it. Commonly thoſe that are moſt Superſtitious, are moſt confident of their Innocency, and piety; Many of the Romiſh Proſelytes, doe think they are farre enough from this crime, in their higheſt willworſhips, and rather to deſerve Commendation from men, and more Acceptation from God, than blame from any. And no marvaile, if they underſtand Superſtition, in the ſame ſenſe, that the Doctor does, in this diſcourſe. That is,
§. 16. Superſtition in latine, is moſt clearly, Sect. 2.ſuperſtitum cultus, the worſhip of ſome, departed from this world, ſuppoſed to have life in another. Sect. 2. That the Heathens ſo defined it, is true, and that the worſhiping of ſuch then, and by Papiſts now, is one kind of Superſtition, So the Dr: in ſect. 3.we have already granted; as being the Worſhiping of Creatures, with, and beſides the Creator, which is Idolatry againſt the firſt Commandement. But the Doctor will not ſay, (I think) that this is the onelyonly ſuperſtition to be found in the World, either then, or now. For he grants foreign, an Exceſſive fear of the Deity, to have been another kind of Superſtition amongſt the Heathens; and other kinds alſo among Chriſtians, as wee ſhall heare anon. Some there are (and they no mean ones) that derive it from ſuper, and ſto, or ſtatuo, as ſupra ſtatutum, ſome worſhip inſtituted by men, above the ſtatute law of God; But wee rather reſt in the definitiion of the Schoolman; Superſtition is a vice contrary to Religion, in the exceſſe; which may extend to the other Commandements, whereas this limits it to the ſecond.
§. 17. The Greek word for Superſtition, foreign; though it ſeems to come nearer the Doctors ſenſe, of ſuperſtitum cultus, yet the Etymology of the word, does not import ſo much; but rather a ſlaviſh fear of a Deity, by imagining it, Cruell, Tyrannicall, &c. as the Doctors words, dreading the Gods, as ſo many Tyrants, ſect. 13. a cowardly trembling fear; a care & fear of evill ſpirits, ſect. 9. For though the latter part of the word ſignifies daemons, or Spirits departed, yet the former part does not ſignifie worſhip, but fear: not that fear, which in Scripture, is often put for the whole worſhip of God, but a ſlaviſh fear of that God whom they worſhip; whereupon they (not knowing, or not contented with preſcribed worſhip) deviſe ſome way of worſhip of their owne heads, For fear of vengeance: as ſect. 24.to pleaſe and propitiate their God; which may well be called Superſtition, or willworſhip; the one againſt the firſt, the other againſt the ſecond Commandement.
§. 18. The Doctor from the 4. Sect. to the 10. having delivered the many ſenſes of the word foreign; he ſaies, foreign referres to the three firſt, Poeticall Gods, Angells, or Dead-men, or indeed any thing, but the one Supreme God. This clears what I ſaid before, that this word and worſhip is rather Idolatry againſt the firſt Commandement, which forbids the worſhip of any God but the one true God, or any others with him, which is Polytheiſm, than that kind of Superſtition, which is the giving of falſe, that is uncommanded worſhip, to the true God, againſt the ſecond Commandement.
§. 19. But he adds, Sect. 11. VVhen Paul tells the Athenians, Act. 17.22. they were foreign, hee meanes they worſhiped more Gods or Daemons than the Romans, &c. or were more devout, more pious, in their worſhips than any others. If (ſay I) they were ſo called, becauſe they worſhiped more Gods, then they were Polytheiſts againſt the firſt Commandement; If, becauſe they were more devout or pious (impious rather) in worſhiping the true God ignorantly, in a falſe manner, then their ſinne was againſt the ſecond Commandement; and in both it was Superſtition, in ſeverall kinds.
§. 20. What Feſtus meant by foreign, Act. 25.19. is not much materiall; its like he ſpake it with ſcorn enough, not of Pauls onelyonly (as the Doctor ſeems to limit it) but of the whole Jewiſh Religion; Sect. 12.(for ſo the words may import, and are ſo tranſlated by ours.) But to make the latter part of the verſe, to expound the former; of one Ieſus that was dead, putting him under the vulgar notion of a foreign, or dead Heros, and ſo meaning the worſhip of him by foreign, is, I doubt, a ſtrain of the Doctors Criticiſm; compounding things, which are in the Text diſtinct. For Feſtus ſaies, they had many queſtions, both concerning their own Religion (Superſtition) and alſo, concerning one Jeſus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive, but not a word there, of worſhip of him, as a foreign, or Heros: which may the better be beleeved, becauſe hee was accuſed of queſtions of their Law. cap 23.29. foreign, and chap. 24. where Tertullus laies in his charge againſt Paul, there is not one word of this, but other grievous crimes, Sedition, Seducement, profanation of the Temple, &c. v. 5.6. But the Doctor having taken liberty (as oft he delights to doe) to vary from the common Tranſlation of foreign, their, rendring it by (his) and of foreign, reading Religion; to qualifie, at leaſt, Superſtition; he goes on to make his Comment ſutable; that Pauls Religion was, in worſhiping of Ieſus as a foreign, or dead Heros: Whereas Paul affirmed him to be alive, not in part, as thoſe departed Daemons were ſuppoſed; but in the whole man, as raiſed from the dead.
§. 21. What Epicurus Doctrine was, or what Heathens thought of the word foreign, wee are not much Sollicitous; The Doctor having ſhewed a great deale of Reading and Learning, for many ſections together, from the 14. to the 27. to little purpoſe, except to cloud the buſineſſe now in hand, to lead us away, in a miſt of his owne making, from the true and proper ſenſe of the word, Sect. 17, 18, 19.amongſt Chriſtians. Yet it ſeemes the Heathens did often take the word in an ill ſenſe, & branded Religions which they did not like, by that name. Plutarch taxes the Jewes for their Superſtition, in two things remarkable: 1. That they were tyed by their Superſtition, as with a net; that when they were invaded, they would not riſe from their ſeates, on their Sabbath day, which was an Exceſſe againſt the fourth Commandement, and groſſe Superſtition. For neceſſity was priviledged to break the Sabbaths Reſt. 2. Their killing and ſacrificing their Children to Moloch, which being a horrid ſuperſtition, was (as the former) intended as a worſhip of the true God, and yet was interpreted no better, than ſacrificing to Divells, Pſal. 106.37. as all Idolatry was by the Apoſtle 1. Cor. 1….12. which though in other reſpects, it was againſt the firſt Commandement, groſſe Idolatry, ſo in making it a worſhip of the true God, (when hee commanded it not, neither came it into his heart, as ſomewhere he ſaies) it was a kind of Superſtition, againſt the ſecond Commandement. And in a word, the Etymologiſt ſpeakes fully our ſenſe. The word among the Heathens is taken for a good thing, but among Chriſtians for impiety. Sect. 23. cited by the Doctor.
§. 22. From that large diſcourſe about the word, at laſt, Sect. 27. the Doctor comes to apply it to his purpoſe, and to diſcover three inconſequences, in our cuſtomary uſe of the word, Superſtition. Sect. 27.Firſt that it is inconſequent, that Superſtition ſimply and abſtractly taken, ſhould be reſolved in all Authors, to ſignifie ſomewhat which is evill, that ſince particularly, which is falſe worſhip. But, (with his favour) this is not the queſtion between us; but, whither in the Scripture, and Orthodox Divines, commenting upon that word, it doe not alwaies ſignifie ſomething evill, and particularly, exceſſive and falſe worſhip. What the Etymologist thought of it, as the common opinion of Chriſtians, wee newly heard: And this is the more probable, becauſe even moſt of the Popiſh Commentators doe take the word in an ill ſenſe, Vulg. ſuperſtitiones Act. 17.22.and render foreign, by Superſtition; without any pretence of a good ſenſe of it; which, no doubt, they would be glad to hear, to colour, and cover their own Willworſhip, and Superſtition. The Doctors reaſons for his opinion, have been conſidered afore, but briefly now again; 1. Thoſe that uſe the word, to expreſſe their owne worſhip, conceive it to be a creditable word, or elſe would not call it by that name. No doubt, but Heathens did think well of their own worſhip: But it being a falſe worſhip, it was never the better for that. See Quaer. of divorce. ſect. 58. Blaming this in another.And it is obſervable, that in all the Doctors former large diſcourſe, hee brings onelyonly Heathens, to ſhew the meaning of the word (bad enough ſometimes) but not one Divine, Greek or Latine Father, or any Moderne writer, Papiſt, or other, who take it in a good ſenſe; which was not, I believe for want of good will, but ſomething elſe. 2. His next reaſon is when Saint Pauls Religion was called by that name, Act. 25.19. it appeares not that Feſtus did uſe that word as an accuſation, or in an ill ſenſe, but in generall to ſignifie Pauls Religion, &c. Something hath been ſaid to this above, Sect. 20. and now we adde; It appears rather to ſignifie ſomething ill, in his opinion; For Feſtus was not a man of ſo much Religion, or had any ſuch eſteem of the Jewiſh Religion, as to give it any credit; and therefore ſpake of it, Superſtition was made matter and reproach to the Romans. ſect. 22.as of a Superſtition, as men uſe to call all, not of their own Religion, by way of defamation, as the Doctor ſaies, Sect. 24.3. The third reaſon is, Saint Paul himſelf, Act. 17.23. ſaith of the Athenians, they did worſhip the true God though ignorantly taking him for a foreign. And is not worſhiping of the true God, ignorantly, with their own deviſed worſhip, a Superſtition juſtly to be condemned? was it not groſſe Idolatry, and ſinfull Superſtition in the Iſraelites, to worſhip the true God, in the Golden Calfe? 4. Than other men, is the Doctors gloſs; it may as well ſignifie, more than is meet, and thats too Religious in the exceſſe.He calls them foreign, more Religious than other men, not in relation to any vitious rite, but to their worſhiping the unknown God, which worſhiped others not. But this, as it begges the queſtion, ſo is it againſt the text it ſelfe. I perceive that in all things you are too Superſtitious, both in their worſhiping of ſo many falſe Gods, (foreign) and a God in their ignorant worſhip of the true God, and in their vitious rites of worſhip. And this ſenſe, the Doctor himſelfe gave, Sect. 11. I conſider and behold you in all things (or in all that I ſee in you) as men more ſuperſtitious than others, though the word imports, too Superſtitions, too Religious; which is a Nimiety or Exceſſe in Religion, and ſo juſtly called Superſtition, in an ill ſenſe, unleſſe the Doctor thinke, that to worſhip many falſe Gods, and to worſhip the true God ignorantly, be worthy the name of true Religion, which the Apoſtle there cenſures, by the name of Idolatry, ver. 16. Hee ſaw the City foreign, given to Idolatry, or full of Idolls. And the vulgar rendring the word, ver. 22. by Superſtitioſiores, too Superſtitious, cannot intend it in a good ſenſe; yea the Doctor Sect. 31. grants that Superſtitioſus in the Poſitive, ſignifies Exceſſe more then in the Comparative.
§. 23. The ſecond Inconſequence (hee ſaies) is this: Sect. 28.That the uſe of Ceremonies, or rites in the worſhip of God, if not diſtinctly preſcribed, either by the example or precept of Chriſt, ſhould be called Superſtition, and for that condemned. But I beleeve, this is a miſtake; None that I know, make ſuch a conſequence; but rather thus: That what rite or ceremony ſoever, is made a part of worſhip, without ſuch example or precept of Scripture, is Superſtitious, and therefore condemned.
§. 24. The third inconſequence, Sect. 29.is a worſe miſtake; That men on pretence, and in the name of Piety, ſhould abſtain from ſome obſervances (indifferent) as Superſtitions, either becauſe commanded by lawfull authority, or abuſed by Papiſts. For the firſt charge, I beleeve hee cannot give an inſtance of any one underſtanding Chriſtian, that ever did abſtaine from obſervance indifferent, becauſe commanded by lawfull authority? but rather becauſe they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of worſhip. For the other, that they have been uſed by Papiſts, is not all, but that by them they have been abuſed, and accounted parts of worſhip, and may eaſily return to be ſo accounted by others.
§. 25. We acknowledge this aſſertion, Sect. 30. 31.that Superſtition may, and doth in ſome authentick writers, ſacred especially, ſignifie a Nimiety, or Exceſs in Religion. What ſaies he to it? Firſt he confeſſes Superſtitioſus may denote ſuch exceſs, but ſo alſo doth Religioſus, but then Superſtition denotes it no more, than Religio. Agreed, for Religion it ſelfe is ſometimes taken for Superſtition, when it is applyed to a falſe Religion: And all ſuch Exceſſe in worſhip not preſcribed, is a Nimiety, and culpable, what ever A. A. Gellins. Sect. 32Gellius dreamed, as an ill Judge of Superſtition.
§. 26. If ſo uſed by ſome Authors, yet hee can ſay much againſt it, Sect. 32.as 1. That ſome, not of the meaneſt antient Heathens did it, on the ground of Epicurean Divinity. Wee profeſſe we regard not, what the beſt of Heathens ſay in matter of worſhip, who never knew, what true worſhip of God meant. 2. For Chriſtian writers, the uſe of a word in that ſenſe, is ſo ſlight and caſuall, that not ſufficient to faſten an ill character upon it, &c. It is no ſlight or caſuall thing, as hee makes it; for all Divines that ſpeake of this matter, do generally condemn it, as a thing of ill name and fame, even Papiſts themſelves: and its proved by this Topick, by moſt of them, becauſe it is an Exceſs in Religion, and illegitimate worſhip. 3. That thoſe that come home to the point, are ſo few and modern, and of ſo ſmall authority, that ſcarce worth producing, with ſlighting and skorne enough ſpoken; But why then doth not the Doctor in all this diſcourſe give us the names of thoſe many, Antient, Authentick Fathers, &c. that take it in a good ſenſe? Hee uſes not to be ſo sparing, where he hath ſuch plenty of Authorities. 4. The laſt is ſomething nearer the queſtion; which ſuppoſing it to be taken in an ill ſenſe, for exceſſe, &c. ſaies, Then it muſt be reduced to theſe two ſorts, as conſiſting either in the degree, or in the number of Actions, in quality or quantity, wee conſider what hee ſaies to both.
§. 27. Firſt, in the firſt kind, Sest. 33.hee denies there is any ſuch exceſs; There is no poſſibility of being Religious in too high a degree, praying too fervently, too often, &c. But what ſaies hee to the arguments of the great Schoolman, Aquin. 22.9.92. a. 1.who proves Superſtition to be an exceſs in Religion? and withall ſhewes how he meanes it. Not becauſe Superſtition does yeeld more to divine worſhip, than true Religion; but becauſe it exhibites Divine worſhip, either to whom it ought not, or in that manner it ought not. We ſay (as afore) in preſcribed worſhip, there can be no Exceſs of degree: The want of the higheſt degree there is a Defect; A man cannot pray too earneſtly (what ever he may doe too often) for that is naturall and preſcribed worſhip: But if a man ſhall tender to God, deviſed worſhip, the leaſt degree here is too much: As for too often praying, the Euchitae were unjuſtly condemned, if this was not a fault: Yes (ſaies he) their fault was not their exceſſive practice, but the laying that obligation upon themſelves and others. And why not both theſe? For God having preſcribed all men Callings to be waited on; hee that ſhall pray continually to the Interruption thereof, ſinnes as well, as he that prayes not at all. But (ſaies hee) the fault is the neglect of the duties of our calling, not the exceſſe of devotion. We ſay the neglect of their Duties, is cauſed by the Exceſs of this conſtant, uncommanded Devotion: and ſo one ſin is the cauſe of another. As for their laying it on themſelves or others as an obligation, its true, thats a fault; but ſuppoſe they had layd no ſuch obligation, but onelyonly thought it a matter of greater perfection, more pleaſing, and acceptable to God; had not this been Superſtition alſo? His ſuppoſition of ſeparating that Exceſs, from theſe neglects or omiſſions, and then it would not be criminous, to pray continually, is not feiſable in this life; unleſſe hee could find a man, that had no Calling to labour in. If any man might have been allowed to pray or ſerve God continually, Adam in innocencie might have been the man; and yet he was ſet to a calling, to dreſs the Garden. That the frequency of prayer could not be Superſtitious, unleſs the worſhip and inſtitution it ſelf were Superſtitious, which he collects from Sa…nt Auſtin, ſhall give us a double inference; Firſt that an inſtitution of worſhip (by men) may be Superſtitious: 2. That hee ſeemes to contradict himſelf; For in worſhip commanded, as prayer is, a man may be Superſtitious, if he pray conſtantly, and neglect his calling; which latter he cannot but doe, if he doe the former.
§. 28. If the Exceſs be in the extenſion, as taking in too many rites and ceremonies, Sect. 34.into the ſervice of God, when he ſaies, 1. By this it is granted, the rites and ceremonies themſelves are not ſuperſtitious, but onelyonly the multitude. But firſt, we ſhall ſay, that multitudes of rites and ceremonies, are prejudiciall to the ſimplicity of Goſpell worſhip, and therefore either are, or will be quickly Superſtitious. 2. Wee ſay further, that rites and ceremonies, be they never ſo few, if introduced as parts of worſhip, are Superſtitious, and will worſhip: as certainly in the old Law, the leaſt rite and ceremony preſcribed by God, was a part of worſhip, whither they were ſignificant or not: and ſo they would be now, if any ſuch be found preſcribed: but if made parts of worſhip by men, they were Superſtitious; as will not be denyed of many rites in the Church of Rome. 3. Though ſome rites and ceremonies muſt neceſſarily be in Religion, yet they are ſuch as pertain to Order and Decencie, 1 Cor. 14.40. which yet are not left to the wit and will of man, to appoint what, and as many as ſhall ſeeme decent or orderly to them; but are determined partly by the generall precepts of God; partly by the nature of the things themſelves, & partly by circumſtances which occaſionally offer themſelves; and are rather called circumſtances of worſhip, as time, place, geſture, which are mon adjuncts of Religious and civill affaires, (inſtanced by himſelfe) than properly Religious, in eccleſiaſticall rites and ceremonies; much leſſe to be accounted parts of worſhip,
§. 29. Our Divines, though they doe allow ſome rites or ceremonies, (or rather circumſtances) in worſhip, Sest. 35.ſuch as before; yet they do condemn ſignificant Ceremonies, in the Church of Rome; unleſſe they be ſuch, as either Chriſt hath appointed, as in the Sacraments, or ſuch as naturally ſignifie ſuch a thing; or ſuch as the Scripture gives inſtances of; as lifting up the hand in taking an Oath; or the Eyes to Heaven in prayer, &c.
§. 30. Of this kind, are thoſe three ſorts of ſignificant ceremonies ſpecified by him; 1. Sect. 36.When it naturally ſignifies the thing, or floweth from it, as lifting up the eyes to Heaven, ſignifies zeale. 2. When cuſtome hath made it ſignificative, as kneeling ſignifies humility. 3. When it is ſet to ſignifie ſomething elſe, either matter of doctrine, as ſtanding between Eaſter and Whitſuntide to ſignifie the Reſurrection, or matter of fact, &c. Theſe and ſuch like, as they have degenerated into Superſtition, ſo in themſelves, they are not any parts of worſhip; which they would be, if taught or practiſed as neceſſary, or making the obſervers more Religious than others, or more acceptable to God, &c. But their ſignificant ceremonies are Superſtitious, when neither in their nature, nor by any inſtituted of God, they are inſtituted by men to ſignifie ſome grace to be procured from God, in the uſe of ſuch ceremonies: of which ſort the Church of Rome hath many.
§. 31. But herein the Doctor is again miſtaken, that he ſaies, The ſole reaſon why the old Jewiſh ceremonies are interdicted us Chriſtians, is, Sect. 36:becauſe the obſerving of thoſe who foreſhewed Chriſt, and teaching the neceſſity of them, would be the denying of Chriſt to be come. This indeed, was our reaſon, but not the ſole one; juſt ſuch an anſwer Bellarmine gives to an argument from Chriſtian liberty againſt impoſition of new Ceremonies by men: Chriſt (ſaies he) would have us free from old ceremonies of Moſes, Cham. Tom. 3. l. 15. c. 16. ſect. 8, 9.becauſe they were figures of the new Teſtament, and ſo to ceaſe when the thing is come: But it followes not, we muſt have no eccleſiaſticall Ceremonies or lawes, becauſe we have not thoſe. To which the learned Chamier replyes: There was another cauſe of abrogation of thoſe ceremonies (though Bellarmine conceald it) viz. becauſe they did load the Conſcience, with a yoake of multitude of Ceremonies: and this is common to thoſe, and to the Traditions of men. But we ſay further, 1. The falſe Apoſtles did acknowledge Chriſt come in the fleſh, joyning Circumciſion, &c. with him; and yet are blamed for obſerving of them: 2. Or was it the teaching of them onelyonly as neceſſary, that procured their blame? Nor that onelyonly, but for putting the yoke of them, upon the Diſciples necks, when Chriſt had taken it off, Act. 15. Gal. 5. 1 &c. 3. Unleſſe obſerving of them, and teaching them as neceſſary, be one and the ſame thing, here are two cauſes of their interdiction to Chriſtians: And if ſo, then I ask, whether, if he had obſerved ſome Jewiſh Ceremonie which did not foreſhew Chriſt to come, (ſome ſuch there were) but ſignificant onelyonly of ſome things paſt, (though they had not taught it neceſſarie) the Apoſtle would not have blamed them for that, as Superſtitious? or had they deviſed any new rites and ceremonies, &c. would not the Apoſtle have blamed them for that alſo, as too Superſtitious?
§. 32. But the Doctor gives his vote, to the old Rule; Ceremonies muſt be few and wholeſome. Few, for many reaſons, which we approve as good. Sect. 38.39.But then at laſt, in a manner grants, they may be many, if they be wholſome, not onelyonly negatively, as harmleſſe, but poſitively as tending to edification, and then little reaſon to accuſe them of exceſſe: for then more probably help devotion, then encumber it. But this is to unvote the old Rule in part: For if they be Salubrious, wholſome, no matter how many they be: yea, "if but negatively as harmeleſſe, which is a dore wide enough to let in moſt of the Romiſh Superſtitions; what harme is there in many of them? good innocent Ceremonies, as ſome have called them: But if poſitively for edification (as all willworſhipers thinke of their own inventions) is that a plea to beare men out, in the multitude of Ceremonies, added to the worſhip of God? And ſuppoſe them few and wholſome, in the judgement of men; if they be impoſed as parts of worſhip, or efficacious to procure grace, or Acceptance from God; are they not too many, be they never ſo few, and thought never ſo wholſome? Laſtly, who ſhall be the Phyſitian to judge of their number and ſalubrity? not every private man, to be ſure, Sect. 55, 56. he is not allowed to be a competent judge, of indecency in them, much leſſe of the number or wholeſomeneſſe of them. Who then? the higher powers, Sect. 55. whether Eccleſiaſticall or Civil, he expreſſes not; But if men, or any number of men, may be competent Judges in the worſhip of God, will not the Wiſdome and wit of man expatiate here, and grow wanton? One man or Church, thinks, this is very wholſome, for edification and devotion; another as wiſe as he, will adde another, till the Church have a yoake put upon her neck, as heavie, or heavier than the Iewes. Who knowes not the multitude of wholſome Ceremonies of Rome, came in at this door.
§. 33. This queſtion of a competent Iudge in ſuch matters, is the matter to be reſolved, becauſe the Doctor makes ſo many diſtinctions about theſe wholſome Ceremonies, Sect. 42.that vulgar wits are not capable of them: You diſtinguiſh of ſuch Acts, wherein that exceſs is ſuppoſed to be: that they are either ordinable, fit, or proper to that end, the ſervice of God, or inordinable, unfit, &c. What ordinary man (who yet hath a Conſcience to be ſatisfied in the worſhip of God) is capable of theſe diſtinctions? Hee confeſſes there are great ſtore inordinable, unfit, unproper, of theſe in the Church of Rome? Yet they are not of the Doctors opinion; but think them all, both fit and neceſſary. But yet he hath a ſalve for ſuch. In this caſe, though any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault, yet ſtill this not the fault of Superſtition; but rather of folly and vanity, &c. And I pray what is Superſtition, but folly and vanity, in the worſhip of God? Are not Idols and all falſe worſhip called vanities, and folly? many ſuch like things ye doe; Mar. 7, 8, 9. full well ye reject the Commandement of God that ye may keep your own Tradition: In vain do they worſhip me. Let the Doctor ſhew his diſlike of ſuch, as he will, yet if men may be Iudges, what are fit for number and wholeſomneſs, every after-comer will thinke himſelfe as wiſe, as he that went before, till they have loaded the Chriſtian above the Jew. Beſides, as the learned Chamier well obſerves; there may be many miſchiefes in a few, if the Authority to inſtitute them be in the Church, or any man, or men: For ſuppoſe they be but few now, yet we muſt conſider, how many they may be hereafter; ſeeing the Authority is given to every ſucceeding Church or Pope, to conſtitute ceremonies or eccleſiaſticall lawes, as they ſhall think fit; and ſo the yoake never certain, but alwaies growing; as experience tells us: To paſſe this: if Superſtition be ſo named, becauſe it is Super ſtatutum, above the Statute Law of worſhip; or becauſe it is an Exceſs of ſervices added to the worſhip of God; certainly theſe unfit, improper Ceremonies may well be deemed ſuch, Sect. 43.and the Doctor need not grudge the child the name of Superſtition. As for thoſe that charge ſuch trifles, (they are to the Doctor, belike, but trifles) with the title of Superſtition, and then extend it to thoſe things which have no ſuch fault, and ſo run the circle. Let them for me, ſee how to get out. I onelyonly ſtill ſay, what ever deſerves the name of Superſtition, is a Nimiety and Exceſs in Religion; and what ever is an Exceſs in Religion, is Superſtition: Let's hear wherein the Doctor is pleaſed to place it.
§. Sect. 45.34. The placing of more virtue in ſome things, than either naturally, or by the rule of the word, or in the eſtimation of purer ages of the Church, may be thought to belong to them: as in the croſſe, &c. We ſpake ſomething in generall to this, Sect. …4.but now wee ſhall aſſume, of all thoſe Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, unfit, improper, &c. and of all ſuperadded parts of worſhip what ever; They do place more virtue in them, than either naturally, or by the rule of the word belongs to them; ergo they are Superſtitious. The Aſſumption I prove thus: They place in them virtue to pleaſe God by them, to procure more acceptance from God, and his bleſſing upon them; which neither naturally, nor by the rule of the word, the inſtitution of God, they have in them: ergo. more might be added, but I forbear.
But what meanes the Doctor to adde, to his diſjunction, or in the eſtimation of purer ages of the Church? Had the purer ages of the Church (after the Apoſtles) any power to put virtue into things, which they had not, either naturally, or by the Rule of Gods word? If he denies this, the addition was ſuperfluous: If he affirm it, hee begges the queſtion; For we ſay, the pureſt Church hath no Authority in matters of Religion, to put virtue or efficacie into them, but God onelyonly, in Nature, or by his inſtitution, in the word: Or if any, the Pureſt Church, ſhall take upon her to doe it, I ſhall make bold to adde the Doctors words, in part. The doing of ſuch, is either groundleſſe, and then it is folly; or elſe it faſtens ſome promiſe on Chriſt, which he hath not made in the Goſpell. And what is that but a lye, and an Addition to the word: a Nimiety, or exceſſe of Religion, as he calls it, that is, ſinfull Superſtition, and that would impure the pureſt Church.
§. 35. The Nimiety muſt be an exceſſe of fear, or being afraid of God, when wee need not; as thinking our ſelves bound, when God neither commands, nor forbids; abſteining religiouſly, &c. Wee take what hee grants, this is one kind of Superſtition, (as we noted above in ſtating of the queſtion, at Sect. 7.) but not the onelyonly; there are many more. And I like the Doctors reaſon well, here; becauſe ſuch a man addes to the Commands of Chriſt (as the former to the promiſes) annexed to the Chriſtian Religion, thoſe things which belong not to it, and ſo is an exceeder in the fear and ſervice of God, &c. And this is Superſtition. Sect 47. And this he confeſſes is a culpable and criminous exceſſe, not in doing what God commands not (for that may be innocent enough) but in affirming God to command or forbid, what he doth not, &c. True, in things left indifferent and free by God, hee is not guilty of this kind of Superſtition; if he doe them, or abſtain. But yet he may, of another kind: that is, if he place more virtue in them, (in doing or abſtaining) than either naturally or by the rule of the word, is due to them, (as he ſaid before.) But in matter of worſhip it is not ſo; For there, it is a Nimiety and exceſſe, to doe what God hath not commanded, as wee have often ſaid.
§. 36. When as he concludes, That this way of dogmatizing; Sect. 47: 48.or impoſing as neceſſary ſuch things as the Law of Chriſt hath not made neceſſary, is the ſpeciall and onelyonly kind of Superſtition, which he beleeves, any kind of Proteſtants to be guilty of; it is a great miſtake. For 1. he granted another kind. Sect. 45. In placing more virtue in things, than naturally, or by the rule of the word, belongs to them. 2. All Willworſhip deviſed by men, and added as parts of Gods worſhip, hath been proved to be an Exceſs in Religion, and ſo Superſtition; beſides the reſt, which we have noted above. As for his addition, of obſerving ominous, inauſpicious events, unluckie daies, &c. they fall under his firſt kind of Superſtition, Sect. 45. Placing anl putting more Virtue in them than God in Nature, or by his Inſtitution hath put into them. Which though they be not properly Exceſſes of the Chriſtian Religion, (being common to Heathens, and not properly worſhip) yet are they Exceſſes in Chriſtians, that uſe them, and a kind of Superſtition, call it Religious, or Civill, as he pleaſes.
§. 37. And now wee are come to another conſideration, of the laſt way, that he ſuppoſes, may be called Superſtition; and that is, Becauſe men place holineſſe in ſome obſervances, amongſt us, Sest. 49which (what ever may be ſaid of it in theſ…) in hypotheſi or application to the particular caſes, is generally very falſe, or impertinent. Wee ſhall conſider what he ſaies for it.
§. 38. 1. He askes, what is meant by holineſſe? reall inherent holineſs, or onelyonly ſeperation from common uſes? The latter onelyonly, we would anſwer: Separation to holy, from common uſes: that is, ſuch a ſeparation to holy uſes, that the things may no more be alienated to common uſes: this is proper holineſs.
§. 39. But then the onelyonly inquiry will be, By whom, and how farre any thing, is thus ſeparated; either by1 Chriſt, Sest. 51.or2 the Apoſtles, or the3 univerſall Church, in pureſt ages, or the4 particular Church (and rulers thereof) wherein we live, or 5 if free, by our own Act. He tells us here, by whom the ſeperation is made, but not a word, how far, or in what difference, a thing ſeperated, by the ſeverall Authors, is made holy, or whither it be equall in all. That a thing made holy, by a private perſon, is equally holy with that, done by a particular Church; and ſo upwards, that of the generall Church, equally with that of the Apoſtles, and that of the Apoſtles equall with that of Chriſt himſelf: this would firſt have been reſolved. Hee ſeemes to make the difference of the Holineſs, from their ſeverall Seperations, to be onelyonly graduall; but wee ſuppoſe it to be ſpecificall, at leaſt, betweene the Seperation of God or Chriſt, and that of the Church (to ſay nothing yet of the Apoſtles.) And withall, wee ſay, we deſire a proofe, that any but God, or Chriſt, or his Apoſtles guided by his Spirit, can make any thing properly Holy: Now to make a thing properly holy, is not, to ſeparate it onelyonly to holy uſes from common, (as the Doctor defines it. Sect. 50.) but to make it, 1. a part of worſhip, 2. to be efficatious to work and convey holineſs, to him that rightly uſes it: 3. to make the ſervice & perſon, more accepted. 4. To give a ground of expectation of a Bleſſing, upon ſome promiſe thereof in the word, &c. In this ſenſe none but God alone, can Sanctifie and Seperate any thing, to Holy, from common uſes. All which the Doctor either takes no notice of, or takes as granted, others may doe. For he ſaies, The way to diſcern, whither we exceed (that is, be Superſtitious) in any of thoſe afore, and place more holineſs than is due to them, is to account them holy, in a degree proportioned to the authority of him that ſeperated them. Wee ſhall ſpeake ſomething conſiderable to this. For 1. The difference between Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and the reſt is not well, or not diſtinctly laid out: For the Apoſtles authority was alſo Divine, by Chriſts commiſſion. 2. Then it followes, that the Authority of the Apoſtles, in their Seperation, differed much from that of the Univerſall Church, & the reſt, as much as Divine & humane. 3. The precept or example of the Univerſal Church (as it cannot be demonſtrated ever to have concurred, in making any thing holy, there never having been an Oecumenicall Councill, truly ſo called, ſo) cannot make any thing properly holy, with the reſpects afore ſaid; but onelyonly improperly, with reſpect to holy things or duties, ſo made by God: e. g. In times or places ſeperated, by God or men; there is this difference (beſides thoſe above) that Time or Place, ſanctified by God, require holy duties, to till them up. But ſeperated by men, they are to wait upon Holy duties. In the firſt, the duties are appointed for the Time, or Places ſake: In the other, the time or place, are appointed for the Duties ſake: but this is to make any Time, or any Place, when and where thoſe duties are performed, as holy as all other times or places, that is, the one no more Holy than another. We therefore deny, that either the Univerſall Church, or any particular Church, or any private man, can make any thing properly Holy: which the Doctor doth not at all undertake to prove. OnelyOnly thus he goes on; If that which is thus ſeperated, be by Chriſt himſelf, I ſhall count it holy in that degree, and my ſelfe obliged by virtue of Divine precept, and ſo of the reſt; and then I offend not. But 1. I ſuppoſe the Doctor will account himſelfe obliged to an Apoſtolicall inſtitution, by Divine precept alſo: I had thought Apoſtolicall *Hoe thought and ſaid ſo, in his firſt Quere, ſect. 22. The Apoſtles Doctrines and inſtitutions, are ſo owned by Chriſt himſelfe, that what is truly A poſtolicall, is immediately and by neceſſary conſequence, divine and infallible Sect. 52.and Divine, had been both one with the Doctor; but I perceive he makes them differ, and yet differences Apoſtolicall from Eccleſiaſticall; as if the Apoſtles were neither Divine, nor Humane; but ſomething between both. 2. By this diſtinction of his, the Papiſts may excuſe their groſſeſt Superſtition, in placing Holineſſe, in things, times, places, &c. by borrowing the Doctors anſwer; They may ſay, they account them holy, but either by the authority of the generall, or particular Church of Rome, and that is no Superſtion, ſaies he, ſay they.
§. 40. But he goes on, If my voluntary oblation, I perform as a voluntary oblation, and onelyonly expect that God that hath promiſed to accept ſuch, will accept it; all this while I am not blameworthy. But 1. what meanes he by his voluntary oblation? If his willingneſs in tendering commanded worſhip, he cannot doe that worſhip aright, without reſpect to the command: If voluntary worship of his own, without a command, he hath no promiſe of acceptance, and ſo can expect none. Yea, he may rather expect, or fear puniſhment, threatned in the 2d. Commandement, to ſuch worſhip. 2. The Dr. may remember, that Sect. 45. he blamed that for Superstition, when virtue is placed in ſome things, which naturally, or by the rule of the word, does not belong to them, and gives the reaſon Sect, 46. becauſe that addes to the promiſes of the Goſpell, and faſtens a promiſe on Chriſt which he hath not made. Now how will hee free himſelfe from Superſtition, in his voluntary oblation, that is, his uncommanded worſhip, unleſſe hee can ſhew a promiſe in the Goſpell, for ſuch acceptance. For naturally there is no ſuch Virtue in a Willworſhip; and Inſtitution hee cannot plead; for that were a Contradiction; viderit ipſe. But hee ſaies ſtill; In caſe of reſolution, and vow, adde that reſpect in my performance, which is due to ſuch, and I am not blameworthy. If hee meane, that his reſolution and vow, makes his voluntary oblation more accepted; he addes to his Superſtition, to ſecond Willworſhip with a vow, and ſo profanes his vow, as well as the worſhip of God. If he meane, that his vow is a further degree of worſhip; what will hee anſwer to the Papiſts, who make vowes of ſingle life, and povertie, &c. to be a ſpeciall worſhip of God; which he rejects. If he ſay, their Vowes are of things unlawfull, but mine of things lawfull: I grant this difference, but then ſay, that in making thoſe vowes, or things vowed to be parts of the worſhip of God, they both agree, and both are Superſtitious.
§. Sect. 53.41. It is not then the ſtraining of theſe any degree above their ranke, as elevating an eccleſiaſticall conſtitution into a Divine precept, &c. That onelyonly makes him faulty, and that perhaps (ſaies he) capable of the title of Superſtition. For if either the Church or he, place divine worſhip, acceptance (more acceptance becauſe not commanded) or more perfection, &c. in ſuch performances, it is, and will be Superſtition ſtill what ever they think. Beſides, in deviſed worſhip, it is not enough to free from guilt of Superſtition, to ſay or think, I account this or that holy, onelyonly by the Authority of the Church, and not of Chriſt; For whoſoever is the Author of ſuch Holineſſe, he places more in it, than God allowes, and ſo muſt needs be Superſtitious.
§. 42. Obj. Papiſts and other Superſtitious perſons have don ſo, and ſo the thing is Superſtitious, and muſt be forborn, Sol. 1. Sect. 54.The ill uſe of a thing will not corrupt a thing commanded or an innocent thing. True, but we ſuppoſe your voluntary oblation, not to be a thing commanded, but to be a thing forbidden, as all Willworſhip is: and therefore to be forborn. 2. He ſaies, there is nothing to oblige me to abſtain, from that, which they have Superſtitiouſly uſed, unleſſe danger of being thought Superſtitious as they, or making others be ſo; which is not Superſtition, but ſcandall. To be thought Superſtitious, when I may avoid it, is a wrong to my credit; to cauſe others to be ſo, is a wrong to their Soules: But theſe are not conſequent of that we ſpeake of, that is, of Willworſhip, which is one of the worſt kinds of Superſtition; tendering that to God, as worſhip, which he commanded not.
§. 43. And now the Doctor may be pleaſed to review, and if he will recall, his bitter, falſe, uncharitable concluſion, Sect. 57, 58. unbeſeeming both his piety and gravity; For now it will appear (and ſhall doe more hereafter) that the charge of Superſtition upon ſome men, is no Mormo, nor yet unjuſt; but what is avowed by himſelf and party, to be their opinion and practice; and what is proved to be really Superſtitious, according to the true Notion of the word Superſtition, amongſt Reformed Orthodox Divines: which if it be not ſufficiently yet manifeſted, ſhall more fully be made good, in the following Exercitation of Willworſhip.
EXERCITATION THE SECOND, OF WILL-WORSHIP. WITH DOCTOR HAMOND, BY D. C.
Math. 15.8, 9.
This people draweth nigh unto me, with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
But in vain do they worſhip me, teaching for Doctrines, the commandments of men,
Auguſt. de conſenſ. Evang. lib. 1. c, 18. De um ſic colere oportet, quomodo ipſe ſe colendum praecepit.
London Printed for John Wright at the ſigne of the Kings Head in the Old Bayley.