An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 5 · Section 1
Sect. 1. The ſtate of the Queſtion. Will-worſhip diſtinguiſht from the circumſtances of it. The matter of mans will of three ſorts. The 6. ſeveral poſſible notions of Will-worſhip. The application of them to the matter in hand. The vanity of the Diatribiſts diſtinction The ſcope of the 2d Commandment.
IN the Diatribe of Will-worſhip, the firſt complaint is, that the Dr. had not (as it became him) diſtinguiſhed the words foreign in Greek, or Will-worſhip in Engliſh, before he began his defence of them] and to repair this unbecoming defect on the Doctors part, the Diatribiſt is pleaſed to do it for him, by aſſigning it a double notion, 1. For voluntary, ſpontaneous or willing worſhip, i. e. willingneſs or freeneſs in worſhip commanded by God,) and then they were to blame, ſaith he, that put an ill notion upon them, or 2. For worſhippe deviſed by the wit and appointed by the will of man, as contradiſtinguiſhed to the will and wiſdome of God, and then it was not ſo much the ill fortune as the juſt puniſhment of them to paſs under an ill notion &c. For the ſcope of the 2d Commandment in the affirmative part being this, God muſt be worſhipped with his own preſcribed worſhip, and in the negative, to forbid all deviſed worſhip of God by the wit or will of man, the very name of will (of man) put to worſhip of God, as oppoſed to the will of God, the onelyonly rule of worſhip, is as a brand in the forehead of it, to characterize it as condemnable in all.
This his firſt §. I have thus fully ſet down, as the foundation of his diſcourſe on this ſubject, and very fit for my direction how to proceed in the reply to it; For if I ſhall now punctually obey his admonition, and having, in his opinion, formerly failed of my duty, ſpeedily indevour to repair it, 1. by diſtinguiſhing the Greek and Engliſh word (though by giving it the exact limits in that one place, where it is uſed in Scripture, I had hoped well that I had formerly performed all that was neceſſary in this kind) and telling him clearly in what ſenſe I take it, defending it to be no way reprovable; and 2. by ſhewing the unfitneſſe of his diſtinction here premiſed, and the fallaciouſneſſe of the reaſon, or proof annexed to it, me thinks this ſhould ſet me on a good way toward the end of this ſecond Stage, and ſo do that which is moſt deſireable to the Reader and my ſelf, confer much to our expedition in this journey.
For the firſt then, I ſhall diſtinguiſh, as formerly betwixt foreign worſhip, whether the theological virtue, or ſome act thereof, together with the gradual intenſion and extenſion, the degrees and alſo the frequency or number of thoſe acts, on one ſide, and the external ceremonies or circumſtances of it, on the other ſide, which are not parts but accidents of worſhip; As in any other habit, that of juſtice particularly, may be exemplified, It may beſide the virtue of juſtice, ſignifie 1. ſome act of that virtue, or 2. the degree thereof, and frequent repetition (more or leſſe) of the acts of it, but for the circumſtance of time or place attending on any act of it, they will never be called juſtice with any propriety.
Secondly, For [will,] the other ingredient in the compoſition of the word, meaning thereby the will or choice of man it may be of four ſorts, diſtinguiſhable by the matter which is will'd or choſen, 1. when the thing thus will'd by man is forbidden by God, or 2. when 'tis commanded and under obligation, as far as the force of affirmative precepts extends (of which the rule is true, that obligant ſemper, ſed non ad ſemper, they oblige us alwayes, but yet do not oblige us to be always exerciſing ſome act of the virtues ſo commanded) and ſo when it is done, it is done in perfect concord with, and agreeableneſſe to the precept, but yet for that time, or in that degree, it lay not under particular precept, but might without diſobedience or ſin, have been omitted. 3. When the thing will'd, is left free and indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden by God. 4. When although it be not indifferent, much leſſe forbidden, but good in an high degree, yet it is not under particular precept, and ſo may be omitted without ſin, & when it is done, it is highly rewardable by God. I ſhall give an example of each of theſe branches alſo; Of the firſt, when a man himſelf commits, or teacheth others to commit adultery, adultery being forbidden by God, and ſo his action or teaching, an act of his will oppoſed to the will of God. Of the ſecond when I give to the poor, yearly, or weekly, ſuch a proportion out of my eſtate, which I am able to give (and ſo offend againſt no office of juſtice in giving) and yet am not obliged to give by any precept of Gods which laies it as a duty upon me. An inſtance of which, is ſet down at large in the Tract of Wil-worſhip §. 32. which together with other exemplifications of the point in hand, very neceſſary to cleer my ſenſe, and yet in no reaſon here to be repeated, I muſt deſire the Reader to fetch from that place §. 30. and ſo forward. Of the third, when I walk or ſit ſtill, laugh or weep, the law of God leaving it perfectly free for me to do, or omit, either of theſe as I ſhall chooſe. Of the laſt all writers, Jewiſh, Heathen, and Chriſtian, give us frequent examples. Maimonides among the Jewes p. 381.More Nevoch. par. 3. c. 17. mentions it as the common ſaying of the Iewiſh Doctors, that Reward is by God given to him that doth any thing uncommanded. Among the Heathens one for all, Plutarch who inſtances in acts foreign. Plut. lib. foreign.of fortitude, freeing the city from Tyrants doing any great thing, which (ſaith he) are not foreign, or foreign, required or commanded by Law. For (ſaith he) foreign &c. if the Law command ſuch things, then all muſt be counted foreign diſobedient and breakers of Lawes, which deſerve not reward in warre, which let the Tyrants live an houre, or which do not ſome of thoſe other things which are accounted excellent and by conſequence all ſuch muſt be puniſhed as offenders. So Nazianzen of the Chriſtian Law, foreign. Of our Law ſome things lay neceſſity on them to whom they are given (i. e. ſaith the Scholiaſt, foreign, (on us Chriſtians) and danger to them who obſerve them not. Others impoſe no neceſſity, but are left to choice, bring honor and reward to the obſervers, but no kinde of danger to them that perform them not, adding that as he that doth not deſerve puniſhment, doth not preſently deſerve praiſe, ſo neither doth he that doth not deſerve praiſe preſently incur puniſhment: So among the Latins, Tertullian ſpeaking both of continence and of abſtinence, in his book de cultu Foemin. (long before he was under any ſuſpicion of Montaniſm) c. 9. Multi propter regnum Dei fortem & uti que permiſſam voluptatem ſponte ponentes. Many there were which for the Kingdom of God voluntarily and of their own accord parted with that great and lawful pleaſure of women. And again, Quidam ipſam Dei creaturam ſibi interdicunt, abſtinentes vino, animalibus exulantes, quorum fructus nulli periculo aut ſolicitudini adjacent, ſed humiliatem animae ſuae in victus quo que caſtigatione Deo immolant. Some interdict themſelves the creature of God, abſtein from wine, and living creatures, the uſing of which is perfectly free and ſafe, and ſo by chaſtiſing of the body, ſacrifices to God the humility of the ſoul. So S. Hierome ad Demetriad. ſpeaking of Chriſts words of ſelling and giving to the poor, Non cogo (ſaith he in Chriſts name) non impero, ſed propono palmam, praemia oſtendo, Tuum eſt eligere, ſi volueris in agone & certamine coronari. Chriſt doth not command it or compel to do it, but propoſeth rewards, and thou if thou wilt be crowned muſt make the choice. And ad Pammachium, Non tibi imponitur neceſſitas, ut voluntas praemium conſequatur, No neceſſity is impoſed on thee, that thy will may obtain reward. And adverſ: Helvidium, Of Virginity, Virgo majoris eſt meriti, dum id contemnit, quod ſi fecerit, non delinquit. A Virgin is of greater worth, while ſhe contemns that, which if ſhe do, ſhe offends not. And adverſ: Jovinian: Ideo plus amat Virgines Chriſtus, quia ſponte faciunt quod ſibi non fuerat imperatum, Therefore Chriſt loves them more, becauſe they of their own accord do that which was not commanded them. So Chryſoſtom formerly produced on Rom: 8. foreign. The Spiritual do what they do with appetite and deſire, and demonſtrate it in that they alſo exceed commands. So Caſſian Chryſoſtoms ſcholar, Coll. 22. c. 30. Perfecti ſub gratiâ evangelii conſtituti, voluntariâ legem devotione tranſcendunt &c. They which are perfect now under the grace of the Goſpel do tranſcend the law by voluntary devotion. And c. 29 he ſpeaks of worldly men, qui nihil Deo voluntariè offerunt, who have no free-will-offering for God. And ſo Gregory Moral: in Job: Quidam praecepta legis perfectione virtutum tranſcendunt, Some men tranſcend the precepts of the law by perfection of virtues.
To apply all this apparatus to the preſent matter, the ſtating of the queſtion in hand, the word foreign Will-worſhip as terminated in the one God, the object of worſhip, cannot be imagined to denote any more then ſome one of theſe ſix things, 1. the performing any ſort of worſhip to God, which is forbidden by him, which yet is not truly but equivocally called worſhip, as when the Phariſees perſecuting the Apoſtles, was by them ſtyled the doing God ſervice, and the like. 2. The uſing any ceremony in the worſhip of God, which either is particularly forbidden by God, or bears analogy with thoſe which are certainly forbidden, as among Chriſtians ſacrificing of beaſts, &c. 3. Burthening the worſhip of God with many whether ridiculous or unprofitable ceremonies, which though they are no where forbidden ſeverally by God, yet by their multitude become an hindrance to devotion, or a yoke too heavy for Chriſtians. 4. Uſing or inſtituting one or more ceremonies, no way forbidden, and yet no where commanded by God, but yet ſuch as the inſtitution or uſing any of them, is founded in ſome pious or prudential conſideration, whether of decency, as when any geſture of bodily reverence or humility is uſed or appointed, or for edification, as when feaſts not preſcribed by God, are ſet apart by the Church, and ſo by men, for the commemoration of any eminent mercy of God, for the propoſing ſome exemplary virtues to others &c. and withal that care is taken, that they are no way offenſive by the number of them. 5. Offering to the ſervice of God any thing of which God hath any way revealed that he will accept of, and reward, if it be duly performed, though he do not by any law exact it from every man, as dedicating himſelf to the miniſtery, doing it without any hire or payment here, vowing vows of building Hoſpitals, Churches &c: and moſt eminently martyrdome, when it may poſſibly, and without ſin be avoided by ſlight &c. but yet the man thinks it may much tend to Gods honor in the good of ſouls, if he thus ſeal and publickly teſtifie his obedience to Chriſts commands by his bloud, and accordingly chooſeth to do ſo. Laſtly, when either for the degree or frequency of repetition of any known act of worſhip, a man doth more then he is by Gods law ſtrictly required to do, prays oftner every day, faſts oftner (ſuppoſing he no way hurt himſelf, or omit the performance of any other duty, by ſuch frequency in either of theſe) gives a more liberal proportion out of his eſtate to pious and charitable uſes, then any precept of Chriſt obligeth him to do, and the like.
As for that of a cheerful and ſo voluntary performance of any act of commanded worſhip, I take not this in at all, ſuppoſing that in the commands of God, not only the action, but the cheerfulneſſe of the performance is in like manner commanded by God, and ſo neceſſary, not voluntary, as that referres to the will of man, diſtinguiſht from the command of God.
Now for the two firſt of theſe, it is by me moſt readily acknowledged, that they are criminous, and of theſe I plead not the cauſe in the leaſt, either here, or in the tract of Will-worſhip, nor do I apprehend that either of theſe are truly and properly capable of that title of will-worſhip, or called by it, in that one place of Scripture, Col: 2.
Of the third ſort alſo I acknowledge my diſlike, but yet again think it not applicable to the notion of the word in the Apoſtle, but rather to that by Epiphanius uſed of the Phariſee, foreign exuberance, or ſuperfluity of Will-worſhip, where ſtill the fault is the multitude and unprofitableneſſe of theſe ceremonies, not ſimply the uſe of any one, and ſo of each of them, the ſuperfluity, and not the uncommandedneſſe of them.
Of the fourth ſort, though I muſt affirm that it hath nothing culpable in it, but rather commendable, as referrable to the Apoſtle's command of decency &c. yet becauſe it is not worſhip it ſelf, but an extrinſecal attendant of it, I need not allow that the title of Will-worſhip neither, nor apply to it the Apoſtles uſage of the word Col. 2. but refer it to thoſe circumſtances of worſhip, for which or againſt which no command or prohibition of the word hath interpoſed, of which I oft ſpake in the head of Superſtition, and vindicated it from that title.
Of the fifth is that I formerly ſpake, and compared it with the voluntary oblations under the Law, and of that there is all reaſon to interpret the word in the Apoſtle, and that in a notion of good and commendable (no way of vitious) if it be truly ſuch as it pretends to be, and if it be not really ſuch, it may yet have an appearance of that, and ſo farre an appearance of Piety or Wiſdome.
And ſo again for the ſixt, or laſt, I have affirmed of it and I hope made it clear, that it is firſt lawful, then commendable, and rewardable by God, above a lower degree, or leſſe frequent exerciſe of the ſame ſort of worſhip, and yet is not under particular precept, as appears by this, that at that time, and in the ſame circumſtances, when it is thus laudable to give ſo much more, the giving ſomewhat leſſe is not a ſin, as is manifeſted in the tract of Wilworſhip.
And ſo now I hope I have exactly obeyed the Diatribiſt's directions, diſtinguiſht the words, and ſet the whole queſtion before him as diſcernibly as he could wiſh, and therein laid grounds for that juſt defence of a blameleſſe word, which was at large pleaded in the tract of Wil-worſhip. And then I need adde no more to ſhew the impropriety and vanity of his own diſtinction or double ſenſe of Will-worſhip, 1. for ſpontaneous freeneſſe in worſhip commanded by God, or 2. for worſhip deviſed by the wit and appointed by the will of man, as contradiſtinguiſht to the will and wiſdom of God. For as to the former branch of the diſtinction, as it is reſtrained to worſhip commanded by God, ſo it can be no Species of that Will-worſhip, which reſpects the will and choice of man, without any neceſſity particularly impoſed by God, and accordingly I have excluded it out of my Scheme, not out of any unkindneſſe to it but becauſe it neceſſarily belongs to another head, the cheerfulneſſe and the worſhip being both ſuppoſed to be commanded by God, and ſo uncapable of this diſtant title of Will-worſhip. So that at the beſt imaginable, he hath branched Will-worſhip into but one part, and that was not the way of diſtinguiſhing that tearm.
Then for the other member, it is ſo ſet that it hath many improprieties in it, and in brief is that great fallacy to which Ariſtotle refers moſt others, fallacia plurium interrogationum (and I remember the Maim: Hal: Kelc-hammikduſch c. ult.Jews have a rule of their Ʋrim and Thummim foreign they ask not of two things at once) confounding and putting together things that are moſt diſparate, as hath already appeared by the ſeveral Species here ſet down, which were to be diſtributed into their ſeveral claſſes, ſome contradiſtinguiſht indeed to the will and wiſdom of God, but none of thoſe defended by me, other only not particularly commanded by him, or impoſed ſub periculo animae, but very conſonant and agreeable both to Gods will and wiſdom, and ſo ſtill foreign, I have very little to thank him for in his diſtinction.
As for his ſumme and ſcope of the ſecond Commandment, with the name of S. Auguſtine and the Doctor in the margent, it already appears how little force it hath againſt my pretenſions, it being evident that the words there cited both for the affirmative and negative part of the Commandment, belong to eſſential parts of Gods worſhip, thoſe only being preſcribed and particularly appointed by God, not to each circumſtance thereof, whether of time, or place, or geſture, which among us tis certain are not particularly preſcribed by God, and yet we can ſo farre judge of his will, by many indications of it, that he no way reproves or diſlikes our voluntary obſerving, or the churches appointing of ſuch, and to theſe only he knows this controverſie here belongs, as applied to the Ceremonies or Feſtivals of our Church.