An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 4 – Chapter 5
CHAP. IV. Of the Particular exceptions of the Diatribiſt to the Tract of Superſtition.
Sect. 1. Confidence of innocence no argument of guilt.
IAm now more immediately ſummoned and called into the liſts by this Diatribiſt §. 15. and the ſeverall Sections of the Treatiſe of Superſtition muſt be brought to a ſtrict examination, and I hope they will not be unable to bear it.
In my firſt §. there is nothing diſliked, but onelyonly that I will not acknowledge my ſelf or our Church guilty, before the trial, and to that purpoſe I am told [commonly thoſe that are moſt Superſtitious are moſt confident of their innocency and piety, and no marvaile if they underſtand Superſtition as the Dr. doth.]
But to this I anſwer, that I hope this his prudent Aphoriſme is not ſimply convertible, viz. That they which are moſt confident of their innocency and piety, are moſt Superſtitious (for if it be, I muſt not be ſo unkind to wiſh, or ſo uncharitable to believe of the Diatribiſt, that he hath a good conſcience, nor any longer rely on that Apoſtle that hath taught me Gods method of judging of us, by the verdict of our own accuſing or excuſing conſcience) and ſo long tis poſſible that I may be free from that guilt, though I am never ſo confident. Mean while I that allow the Diatribiſt one ſpecies, that of Negative Superſtition for his portion, have his leave to conclude from hence, that this is the reaſon why he is ſo confident of his innocence.
As for the 2d part, my underſtanding of the notion of the word Superſtition in that Treatiſe, if I cannot juſtifie it to be as good as Mr. C. his ſuperſtatutum, I ſhall very much accuſe my ſelf, and in the interim be comforted with his confeſſion, that if I have not erred in the notion of Superſtition, of which he is no competent judge, being a party, then both I and our Church (for the Romiſh I ſhall not be ſo ſollicitous) are farre enough from this crime.
Sect. 2. The nature of the word. Exceſs of fear among the Epicureans, Superſtitio from Super and ſto, not ſtatuo. Aquinas miſreported.
THe next or 16th §. conſiders the notion by me given of the Latine Superſtitio, Superſtitum cultus, and having yeelded it to be ſo defined by the heathens, yet he cannot think that I will ſay, that that this is the onelyonly Superſtition to be found in the world, becauſe I acknowledge an exceſſive fear of the Deity to have been another kind of it among the Heathens, and other kinds alſo among Chriſtians, adding that ſome there are, and they no mean ones, that derive it from Super and ſto or ſtatuo, as ſupra ſtatutum, worſhip inſtituted by men above the ſtatute Law of God, but he rather reſts in the definition of the Schooles, that it is a vice contrary to Religion in the exceſs which may extend to the other commandments, whereas this limits it to the 2d.
To all this I need no farther to reply, but 1. That my 2d Sect. was not deſigned to give any complete definition of Superſtition, but to ſearch how much was to be concluded from the Latine word, as in the following Sections how much more from the Greek, and then to make uſe of all other proper means, the uſe of the word in Scripture and Fathers, to collect the full importance of it; and conſequently, if what I vouched out of the Latine origination be true, there is no more to be expected of my 2d §. 2dly. That I no where grant an exceſſive fear of the Deity to have been another kind of Superſtition, among the heathens, but onelyonly that ſome heathens, eſpecially the Epicureans which denyed all providence and judgement to come, and ſcoft at all fear of puniſhment for ſin, affixt to this the name as of Superſtition, ſo of Religion alſo, whereupon I thought it reaſonable that we ſhould not (not that we ſhould) take our notion of Superſtition from them, which yet it ſeems the Diatribiſt is content to do, and ſo with the famiſhing prodigal to herd himſelf among the Epicureans.
Having thus ſecured my ſelf (as far as pertains to this §.) I may now be allowed to conſider the Diatribiſt, and then I find in theſe few words a competent number of infirmities. 1. That mentioning their Etymologie of Superſtition, who will have it ſuper ſtatutum, he makes them derive it indifferently from (ſuper and) ſto or ſtatuo, as if thoſe two were Synonyma, whereas certainly [to ſtand] is competently diſtant from [to make laws or ſtatutes] and if it be derived from the one, it is not from the other.
2dly. That deriving it from ſto, he doth not diſcern that this is my way of derivation, for ſure ſuperſtes is from ſuper and ſto, and ſo he confirmes my origination of the word, whileſt he thinks he confuteth it, abſolves very frankly, whom he ſat down on purpoſe to condemne.
3dly. That his forſaking the etymon from ſuper ſtatutum to which ſo oft he had expreſt kindneſs, was again on an undirect aime, that he might get more advantage to his hypotheſis by that means, not moved with the abſurdity of the derivation, but meerly that he might have more liberty to range in, by ſerving himſelf on a notion of Superſtition qualified to extend it to all the Commandments of the firſt table, which how thoſe (no mean ones) whom for his own ends he hath now deſerted, will take at his hands, I leave him to conſider.
4thly. That having rejected the derivation from ſuper and ſto, or ſtatuo, he hath ſubſtituted no other, and ſo left a rivulet without a ſpring, a compound derivative without an original, a monſter in art, as well as nature.
5tly. That making uſe of the Schooleman's definition, he extends it much farther then he knows that Schooleman extended it, This he formerly confeſt §. 3. naming this Learned Schooleman as the firſt, who came ſhort in aſſigning the ſpecies of Superſtition, and here he more then confeſſeth it, extending Superſtition to all the four Commandments of the firſt table, when he knows Aquinas made it a breach peculiar to the firſt of them.
Sect. 3. foreign among the heathens for Religion, ſo in Heſychyus and Phavorinus.
THe queſtion of the 17th, Sect. concerning foreign, what kind of fear or dread of a Deity was among the heathens noted by it, I have anſwered already, even that which the Epicureans would have driven out of the world, as making the Gods cruel, tyrannical &c. and accordingly in Cicero, Superſtitione liberare, to free men from Superſtition, and in Lucretius, Religionibus, from all Religion and obligation of duty, is explained by metum omnem Deorum pulſum eſſe, to have all fear of the Gods baniſht from us.
If there be any other minute difference obſervable, it is this, that it is ſuch a feare of the Deity as wicked men are in reaſon to have, (and that ſure, though a great trembling, was yet no exceſs, no more then was very equitably the portion of ſuch) ſo ſaith l. 2. p. 779.Diodorus Siculus of Bomilcar foreign, they that are about to undertake any notable wicked actions, are generally afraid of the Gods or Daemons, and ſo ſtill that will yield our Diatribiſt no aid toward the ſupport of any of his hypotheſes, ſure the inſtituting of our Chriſtmaſs Feſtival, was no act of ſuch a juſt dread of vengeance for ſin, nor effect whether immediately or remotely produced by it.
As for his affirmation that the former part of the word foreign doth not ſignifie worſhip, but fear, and not that fear which is oft put for the whole worſhip of God, but ſlaviſh fear &c. this is a clear miſtake; Tis true indeed it doth ſignifie ſometimes a trembling fear (ſuch as I ſaid was the wicked mans portion and due lot, and ſo not an exceſs, or unproportionable to his ſtate) as when Plutarch ſaith of him, he wiſheth there were no Gods, but it doth not always ſignifie thus, but ſimply foreign the fear of Gods and daemons, and accordingly as Phavorinus in the Epicurean notion of it renders it foreign, a cowardly fear toward God, foreign, or an irrational fear of the Gods, ſo Heſychius renders it foreign fearing God, or Religion in univerſum, and the ſame Phavorinus explains foreign by foreign Superſtitious, by devout or pious, and addes, foreign as Saint Paul uſeth the word Act. 17. 22.
Sect. 4. Falſe worſhip is not Wil-worſhip. Impoſition of hands.
HIS 18th §. being but an approbation of my concluſion, that foreign refers to the Poetical Gods, Angels, or dead men, or indeed any thing but the onelyonly true God, muſt not be reſiſted by me; I am glad I have once gratified him.
But when he addes, that this clears what he had ſaid, that this is rather idolatry againſt the firſt Commandment, which is Polytheiſme, then any kind of Superſtition, which is the giving of falſe, i. e. uncommanded worſhip to the true God againſt the 2d Commandment, this is but a heap of incongruities; for 1. Idolatry, as hath been evidenced, is a ſin againſt the 2d Commandment, though Polytheiſme be againſt the firſt.
2dly. Though Superſtition be the giving of falſe worſhip to the true God, as well as worſhip to falſe Gods, Daemons and Superſtites, the ſoules of men departed (or a dread, which is not a worſhip, to the true) yet this falſe worſhip is unfitly explicated by uncommanded worſhip, For certainly all ſuch is not falſe, as out of Aquinas was cleared, eſpecially if the word Worſhip be extended, as this Diatribiſt extends it, to rites and obſervances, as well as to the ſubſtantial parts of worſhip; ſuch were impoſition of hands in benediction among the Jewes, continued alſo for many uſes among Chriſtians, yet never preſcribed or commanded by God; and many the like elſewhere mentioned.
And this therefore 3dly. cannot be truely affirmed to be againſt the 2d Commandment, which alſo being ſpent upon the worſhip of Idols (all for the interdicting of that) cannot be properly ſaid to conſider the worſhip of the true God, (unleſs it be the external part, that of bowing down &c. in the affirmative branch of it) which had been the ſubject of the firſt Commandment; and to that in all reaſon all falſe worſhip of the true God muſt be reduced, and not to the ſecond.
Sect. 5. foreign Act. 17. 22. (The Athenians the moſt devout of all the Greeks.)
WHat he ſaith by way of dilemma §. 19. concerning the uſe of the word foreign more Superſtitious, of the Athenians, Act. 17. 22. [If ſaith he, they were ſo called becauſe they worſhipt more Gods, then they were Polytheiſts, If becauſe they were devout or pious, rather impious in worſhipping the true God ignorantly in a falſe manner, then their ſin was againſt the 2d Commandment] though true, in ſome ſenſe, is yet nothing gainfull to his deſign, which can thrive by no other means but by getting foreign or Superſtition to denote all uncommanded rites in the worſhip of the true God.
This it no way ſignifies in that place of the Acts but onelyonly their worſhipping a multitude of Gods, moe then any other nation did, and the foreign or unknown God, for one, and ſo their being more pious in their courſe, then other their heathen country men were, or indeed then the Romans, or any elſe.
That this is the truth, and the whole truth, hath ſufficiently been evidenced in the Tr: of Superſtition, §. 11. and I now adde three teſtimonies more, to that heap, one out of Joſephus, l. 2. Contra Ap: foreign, All men affirme the Athenians to be the moſt pious of the Greeks. A 2d out of Sophocles, Oedip:
foreign
foreign,
If any know how to worſhip the Gods with honors (ſacrifices and offerings to their Temples) Athens excels them all; The third even now intimated out of Phavorinus, but here more fully to be expreſſed, who having explicated foreign ſuperſtitious by foreign pious, ſubjoyns this teſtimonie of the Acts, foreign, as S. Paul ſaith, I ſee that you are more Superſtitious, the very place which we have now before us, brought by that learned Grammarian as an inſtance, that the word is there taken in a good, not ill ſenſe, yet not of any uncommanded worſhip of the true God, but a pious, though Ethnick devotion toward the multitude of their falſe, ſuperadded to the one true God, which though in a Chriſtian ſcale or judgement it cannot be approved, becauſe it is Polytheiſme, yet in compariſon with other heathens (which was S. Pauls buſineſs in that place) it was truly by him lookt on as a greater meaſure of devotion, then the reſt of the heathen world were guilty of, and that is all that was meant by that phraſe, and ſo tis not at all uſefull to the end, to which the Diatribiſt would have inclined it.
Sect. 6. foreign Act. 25. Feſtus's ſcorn fals on the Jews, not on Paul. foreign his own, not theirs. foreign an accuſation. Jeſus put under the notion of a foreign by Feſtus. foreign taken for a daemon. foreign. The Diatribiſts objections anſwered. Superſtition for Religion ſimply.
HIS 20th §. is an arraignment of §. 12. of Superſt. concerning the place Act. 25. 19. foreign &c. which I had rendred, queſtions or accuſations concerning his own Religion or Superſtition or Worſhip, and (to explain what was meant by the word foreign) of one Jeſus that was dead, whom Paul ſaid to be alive, putting him under the notion of a dead Heros, and ſo meaning the worſhip of him by foreign.
Againſt this the Diatribiſt excepts in 3. particulars. 1. It is like, ſaith he, Feſtus ſpake in ſcorn, not of Pauls onelyonly, but of the whole Jewiſh Religion, as, ſaith he, the words may import, and are tranſlated by ours. 2. That what I ſaid of putting Jeſus under the notion of a dead Heros or foreign, is a ſtrein of Criticiſme, compounding things which are in the Text diſtinct, for Feſtus ſayes (ſaith he) they had many queſtions both concerning their own Superſtition, and alſo concerning one Jeſus, &c. adding (to confirme this) that he was accuſed of queſtions of their Law, c. 23. 29. and of ſedition, ſeducement, profanation of the Temple, 24. 5, 6. 3dly. That Paul affirmed Jeſus to be alive, not in part, as the Daemons were ſuppoſed, but in the whole man, as raiſed from the dead.
To theſe I briefely anſwer, and firſt to the firſt; For the ſcorn, it no way appears to be meant by Feſtus againſt S. Paul or his Religion, for Feſtus is at this time ſpeaking in favour of Paul, and ſlighteth the Jews accuſations of him, as matters of no conſiderable moment, and ſo, if there be any thing of ſarcaſme in the ſpeech, it fals on the Jews, not on him, and ſo cannot ſet any ill character on the foreign, in caſe that be S. Paul's, and not theirs.
As for the Diatribiſt's phanſie, that the ſcorn ſhould fall not on Pauls onelyonly, but on the whole Jewiſh Religion, that cannot hold, for when he ſpeaks of the Jewes charge againſt Paul, he cannot ſpeak of that wherein Paul and they agreed, but wherein they differed, and that muſt either be their way, which Paul oppoſed, or Paul's way, which they now accuſed him of.
Now which of theſe two it was, is not determinable by the words in Greek, for the foreign may either be rendred his own or their own; Yet that it muſt be interpreted his, I offer this reaſon to perſwade, (whereas the Diatribiſt pretends to none for the contrary, but onelyonly that ſo the words may import, and that our Engliſh hath ſo tranſlated) The Jews accuſation or charge againſt S. Paul is plainly mentioned in this place; That is the meaning of foreign, they had queſtions or laid charges againſt him; the word foreign ſometimes ſignifies a charge, complaint, inditement, ſo c. 18. 15. foreign, but if the accuſation or charge be of a word; Thus Satan, who is ſo called, as foreign an adverſary in foro, foreign an accuſer, is ſaid foreign to ſeek. 1 Pet. 5. 8. (and Luk. 22. 31. foreign to require) i. e. to accuſe and charge men, that ſo they may be delivered up to him as an executioner, to winnow, in one place, and to devour, in the other. So to queſtion a man among us vulgarly ſignifies to accuſe him, and that ſo it, ſignifies here, appears by v. 18. foreign, the accuſers brought no accuſation of the things which I ſuppoſed, foreign, but ſome queſtions, that muſt be accuſations again, foreign v. 7. &c.
Whence, I ſuppoſe, it will follow, that the foreign of which he was charged, which is the matter of the accuſation, or that wherein the offence conſiſted, was his, not their Superſtition, for how could their own Superſtition be the matter of their charge againſt him?
To the 2d, that what I ſaid of Feſtus putting Jeſus under the notion of a dead Heros, though it be of that nature that I ſhall not, becauſe I need not, make it a matter of controverſie with any, yet I had this conſideration to incline me to it, the immediate ſubjoyning of one Jeſus whom Paul foreign contended to live, to be ſuperſtes, as of their Daemons, Feſtus and thoſe of his perſwaſions ordinarily affirmed. To which purpoſe I remembred what the Athenians ſurmiſed, when Paul preacht to them Jeſus and the Reſurrection, Act. 17. 18. He ſeems, ſay they, foreign, to be a proclaimer of ſtrange or new Daemons, where St Chryſoſtome judges it ſo manifeſt that thoſe Graecians thought Jeſus to be a Daemon, that he addes, foreign, they took alſo Anaſtaſis (Reſurrection) for ſome Goddeſs, as being accuſtomed to worſhip females alſo. And then why Feſtus, an heathen likewiſe, and which underſtood none but heathen Theologie, ſhould not thus mean in words of ſo neer an importance that will bear it ſo fitly, I can yet ſee no reaſon to doubt.
Of this I am ſure, that in the one proof offered to the contrary, the Diatribiſt hath ſtrained more, then I have in my Criticiſme, for 1. When he thus reads the text, they had many queſtions, that ſo he might make it neceſſary to diſtinguiſh the queſtion concerning his Superſtition from that of Jeſus, he hath inſerted the word many, there being neither in the Greek nor in our Engliſh any ſuch word, but onelyonly foreign ſome or certain accuſations. 2dly. When (on the ſame deſign) he again reads [both concerning their Superſtition, and alſo] there is no ſuch word, nor any thing, either in the Greek or our Engliſh, anſwerable either to [both] or to [alſo] but onelyonly thus, foreign —concerning his own Superſtition or daemon worſhip, and one Jeſus, which was, or had been dead, ſo foreign ſignifies, whom Paul affirmed to live; and 3dly. When he addes that he was accuſed of queſtions of their Law, c. 23. and of ſedition &c. c. 24. this proves nothing, which the Diatribiſt would have, for though the Jews had thus accuſed him, yet he had anſwered for himſelf in the latter part of c. 24. and cleared himſelf perfectly from thoſe two charges, from the firſt, v. 12. and from the ſecond, v. 18. and ſo again, c. 25. 8. and ſo ſtill it remains that in Feſtus's judgement (to which Paul appeals for the knowledge of it, telling him that he knew he was guiltleſs from having done any wrong to the Jewes, v. 10.) Paul was not guilty, nor ſtood charged of any thing, but onelyonly of his own Religion, and one Jeſus, i. e. I ſuppoſe by way of explication (as [foreign and] is frequently exegetical) of believing and proclaiming Jeſus and the Reſurrection, c. 24. 15. which laſt alſo being common to him with the Jewes, as there he conteſts, could not by them duely be charged upon him, and ſo the whole charge, and that which is the characteriſtick, diſtinctive note of his Religion, is his contending that Jeſus was alive, who had dyed, which how agreeable it is to Feſtus's notion of a Daemon, I ſhall not need farther to declare.
As to the laſt, it is evident that he that affirmes Jeſus to be alive, both ſoul and body, doth to a heathen eare as much define him to be a Daemon, as if he ſaid nothing of his body: However all that Feſtus here ſaith is, that foreign, he affirmed him to live now after he had been dead, and if to that we adde, that Paul preached his aſcenſion to heaven, what could a heathen, according to his perſwaſions conclude from thence, but that he had attained his foreign, which was all that they required to his being a Daemon. And ſo much for theſe objections.
Meanwhile, if all were granted that is here deſired by the Diatribiſt, that the Superſtition ſpoken of was not S. Pauls, but the Jews, this could no way incommodate me, or hinder my pretenſions, in order to the main, for then, ſay I, it ſhall ſignifie the Jews Religion ſimply, without any character of ill or good laid on it, as in l. 3. c. 8.Quintilian, Primus Judaicae Superſtitionis author, the firſt author of the Jewiſh Superſtition or Religion, and in Leg. Qui ad Temp. D. Decurion.Ʋlpian that Severus and Antoninus permitted thoſe to be capable of dignities, qui Judaicam Superſtitionem ſequuntur, who follow the Jewiſh Superſtition or Religion, and many the like.
Sect. 7. The method of ſearch for the original notion of the word. Mr. Cawdries collections from the heathens. Among them Superſtition all one with Religion. Plutarch of the Sabbatick reſt. Sacrificing children to Moloch, was not to the true God, Jer. 32. 35. Lev. 20. 2. nor a bare uncommanded worſhip. The gloſſes of the Etymologiſt and Phavorinus.
THe 21th. §. is a ſhort diſpatch of all that I had ſaid of the uſe of the word among other Authors from §. 14 to §. 27. All which Sections, though intirely deſigned to the diſcovering the true notion of the word, by that norma loquendi, the beſt rule to judge of words, the uſe of it among writers of all ſorts, are ſhortly cenſured as [a great deal of reading and learning to little purpoſe, except to cloud the buſineſs, to lead men away in a miſt from the true and proper ſenſe of the word among Chriſtians.]
It ſeems they which receive benefit by being in the dark, are apt to miſtake light for miſts, and the Apoſtle hath given the reaſon, foreign they are reproved by the light. Tis certain the Chriſtians took the word whether Greek or Latine, from the heathens, which were before them, and accordingly to judge of the propriety of the uſe of it, I thought my ſelf obliged to ſearch to the original, i. e. to the uſe of it among the heathens, and finding the Scripture uſe of it exactly agreeable to their acception of it, from whom the Scripture had it, and ſo likewiſe the Chriſtian Gloſſaries, that of Heſychius, Suidas, Phavorinus, the Etymologiſt and others, I thought this had been to ſome other purpoſe then onelyonly to cloud the buſineſs, And becauſe I continue ſtill in the ſame opinion, I refer the judicious Reader for three eminent teſtimonies more to the ſame purpoſe (out of Diod. Siculus of Imilco, out of Heraclitns, foreign, out of an edict of Tiberius ſet down by Joſephus) to the Annotations on Act. 17. By which, and thoſe already produced in the Sections, here thought fit to be deſpiſed by the Diatribiſt, it is moſt evident that Religion and Superſtition were by them who were guilty of daemon worſhip, or when uſed of them by others, taken, as exactly Synonyma, words importing the ſame thing.
But againſt this the Diatribiſt conceives himſelf out of theſe very Sections to have gained ſomewhat to object, It ſeems, ſaith he, the heathens did oft take the word in an ill ſenſe, and branded Religions which they did not like by that name. Plutarch taxes the Jewes for their Superſtition in two things remarkable. 1. That when invaded, they would not riſe from their ſeats on the Sabbath day, which was exceſs againſt the 4th. Commandment, and groſs Superſtition. 2. Their killing and ſacrificing their children to Moloch, which being an horrid Superſtition, was (as the former) intended as a worſhip to the true God, and yet was interpreted no better then ſacrificing to devils, Pſal. 106. 37. which though in other reſpects it was againſt the firſt Commandment groſs Idolatry, ſo in making it a worſhip of the true God (when he commanded it not, neither came it into his heart, as ſomewhere he ſayes) it was a kind of Superſtition againſt the 2d Commandment; concluding in a word, that the Etymologiſt ſpeaks fully his ſenſe, the word among the heathen is taken for a good thing, but among Chriſtians for impiety.
How ſolid this way of objecting is, will now ſoon be diſcerned, 1. By remembring in the general, that at the beginning of the §. the teſtimonies brought by me in thoſe Sections, were judged to be to little purpoſe but to cloud the buſineſs and lead men away in a miſt, and yet now he can expreſs kindneſs to ſome of the teſtimonies, as thinking they may be uſefull to his pretenſions, which aſſures me all the other might have been capable of the like favour and friendly reception from him, if they could any way have been perſwaded to do him ſervice.
2dly. To the heathens taking the word in an ill ſenſe, the anſwer is moſt obvious, ſo they did Religion too, and indifferently either, when either they that ſpake were Epicureans, enemies to all Religion, or when the Religions they ſpake of were diſliked by them, and ſo ſure that proves nothing for the Diatribiſt.
3dly. This is the anſwer alſo to what is obſerved from Plutarch, for he ſpeaks of the religions which he diſliked, the Jewiſh was one of them, and particularly their obſervation of Sabbatick reſts to the ruining their City, which he thought their Religion had bound them to, and never dreamt that they had miſtaken their Religion, or that their 4th Commandment allowed them greater liberty.
4thly. That Plutarch mentions the killing and ſacrificing of children, he took that alſo for a part of ſome mens Religion, and thought he had reaſon to be diſſatisfied with it, and to make it an inſtance of the Quantum Religio potuit, how much evil Religion did in the world, ſtill making no diſtinction betwixt Religion and Superſtition. But here by the way the Diatribiſt hath a little miſtaken, in thinking that this bloody worſhip in ſacrificing their children to Moloch was as the former (i. e. as that of the ſtrict Judaical reſt in time of invaſion) intended as a worſhip to the true God.
Certainly Moloch was no true God, but a falſe, the abomination of the children of Ammon, 1 Kin. 11. 7. and 2 Kin. 23. 13. thought by learned men to be a deified King of the Aegyptians, and ſo a daemon, placed among the ſtarres, the ſame that others make the planet Mars (ſee Kircheri Prodromus Coptic. 1. 5.) and that ſacrifice was the giving their ſeed to Moloch that falſe God, Lev. 20. 2, 3, 4. or the making their ſonnes and daughters paſs through the fire to Moloch, Jer. 32. 45. and ſo no way intended to the true God.
And whereas he ſaith this was interpreted no better then ſacrificing to devils, Pſal. 106. 37. tis ſtrange he ſhould not ſee or acknowledge that it was a downright ſacrificing to Moloch, a Daemon, and not as to the true God, but then he could have had no pretenſe to make it an act of uncommanded worſhip, and ſo ſuch a kind of Superſtition as is chargeable on our Chriſtmas Feſtival; and then he had loſt all the advantage which this inſtance was to bring in to him.
Toward this he thought to reap ſome benefit by that text of Scripture, He commanded it not, neither came it into his heart, as he ſomewhere ſayes] But why did he not tell us where God ſaith this? If his memory had failed, his Concordance would ſoon have helpt him to ſet down the place. But it was not for his turn it ſhould be examined. The place is Jer. 32. 35. and again Jer. 7. 31. and truely, belongs to theſe ſacrifices to Moloch, but then God's not commanding &c. ſignifies not onelyonly uncommanded worſhip, but by the figure foreign, ordinary in the Scripture, worſhip directly forbidden, under threat of exciſion, Lev. 20. 2. Whoſoever he be that giveth any of his ſeed to Moloch, he ſhall ſurely be put to death, the people of the land ſhall ſtone him with ſtones, and I will ſet my face againſt him, and cut him off from among his people. v. 3. And if the people of the land do any way hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his ſeed to Moloch, and kill him not, then will I ſet my face againſt that man and family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, v. 4. and accordingly we ſee it in the Execution, Jer. 7. 31, 32. The valley of Tophet where they burnt their ſonnes and daughters in the fire, ſhall be called the vally of ſlaughter, for they ſhall bury in Tophet till there be no place.
And ſure this was not the manner of proceeding againſt thoſe that obſerved any feaſt or ſacrifice to the true God, which was not commanded or preſcribed by God, they that kept the Encaenia were not thus judged, and therefore this was very little to the Diatribiſt's advantage, as now appears by examining the place; it is pity Mr. C. would not conſider it.
Laſtly, For the words in the Etymologiſt, which he ſaith are fully his ſenſe, tis again a miſtake, they are directly the contrary, foreign &c. It muſt be known that the word Superſtition is among the Graecians (or Gentiles) taken foreign for a good thing, but among us Chriſtians foreign for impiety. i. e. evidently the heathens and the Chriſtians uſe it for the ſame thing, the worſhip of daemons, but that the Gentiles commend and account good, who uſe it, but we Chriſtians juſtly deem it the greateſt impiety.
Agreeable hereto again is that of Phavorinus a Chriſtian alſo. foreign, Superſtition is the worſhipping all things, even thoſe which' are not to be worſhipt, and that foreign ſignifies foreign, one that is dubious concerning faith (as the Iſraelites betwixt God and Baal,) or as Tertullian ſaith, if there were conceived more Gods then one, cultura ejus in anceps deduceretur, he ſhould not know whom to worſhip, whether one onelyonly or both, (adv: Marc, l. 1. c. 5.) or he alſo that fears (or worſhips) daemons, as the Aſſyrians in Samaria that feared the Lord and ſerved their own Gods. And ſo ſtill this is as contrary to the Diatribiſts pretenſions as might be. And ſo much for that Section.
Sect. 8. Superſtition always ill, but not always exceſs. Probations from the uſe of words among heathens. The Quaere of Divorce vindicated. Superſtitions not reprocht in the Romans by Polybius. Ignorance not preſently Superſtition. foreign, Act. 17. The Iſraelites worſhipping the Calfe. foreign. Superſtitioſus noting exceſs.
THe 22d. §. makes a leap from the 14th to the 27th over 12. not very brief Sections, I ſuppoſe it is becauſe he hath no leaſt objection to make againſt them (being not elſe very ſparing in this kind) and yet in them is contained my enumeration of all the notions, wherein the word Superſtition is or can be taken in the antient heathens, Scriptures, and Chriſtian gloſſaries, and the premiſes on which the ſubſequent concluſions are founded, and cannot be denyed while the premiſſes are granted, and the whole matter made clear, that none of the notions of the word is applicable to the benefit of the Diatribiſt's pretenſions.
Now in §. 27. it ſeems ſome flawes are to be found, as 1. When I ſay tis inconſequent that Superſtition ſimply and abſolutely taken ſhould be reſolved in all Authors to ſignifie ſomewhat that is ill, particularly falſe worſhip, this, ſaith he, is not the queſtion, but whether in Scripture and orthodox Divines it do not always ſignifie ſomething evill, particularly exceſſive and falſe worſhip. To this the anſwer is eaſie, that I am far from doubting that Superſtition is an ill thing, and therefore never meant to make that the queſtion, This appears of me, becauſe I every where acknowledge the word, Greek and Latine, to ſignifie the worſhip of daemons or falſe Gods, onelyonly I could not but obſerve in the firſt place that the heathens who are known to worſhip ſuch daemons, and not to think that a fault in themſelves, did mean no new ill by that word (whether exceſs or other the like) either more or worſe then they ordinarily meant by Religion, this being indeed their Religion to worſhip many Gods.
This they muſt have done, if they had by that word underſtood an exceſs of Religion, and by their taking it in a good ſenſe, as Synonymous with Religion, it appears that this of exceſs was not eſteemed the due notion of it.
This I thought uſefull to be ſaid, that the very title of Superſtition might not defame every thing as an exceſs in Religion, and criminous, to which it was affixt, unleſs it might otherwiſe appear that there was really any ſuch evill in it, and this I ſaid foreign (to ſhew the abſurdneſs of their concluding, who taking the word Superſtition for a word of an univerſal ill ſavour, as ſignifying exceſs of Religion, firſt affixe it to innocent ceremonies and inſtitutions, to which it no way belongs, and then infer them nocent, as being Superſtitions, without proving any charge of malignity againſt them) and as preparative to the diſcovery of the following miſtakes, rather then that I ever imagined Superſtition truely ſo called to have no ill in it.
And therefore of this, any otherwiſe, then as I now ſay, and then meant, I ſhall make no queſtion, and on condition he will never apply the word Superſtition any otherwiſe, then the Scripture and antient Chriſtian writers apply it (i. e. to daemon worſhip, or to undue worſhip of the true God, in the notion of indebitus or illegitimus cultus in Aquinas, not to each ſuch Super ſtatutum as he will call an exceſs, the uſing of each uncommanded ceremonie and the like) I ſhall acknowledge the word always to ſignifie that, among all good writers, heathen or Chriſtian, which we Chriſtians juſtly deem evil, and that was clearly the Etymologiſt's meaning, as we ſhewed in the laſt Sect. and againſt that there is no colour of argument offered in all this long Sect.
For what if the vulgar tranſlation (which he ſets as the onelyonly inſtance of Popiſh Commentators) render foreign by Superſtitio? what if the Papiſts pretend it not to be taken in a good ſenſe (whom I ſuppoſe far enough from yielding themſelves to be Superſtitious) doth that prove that Feſtus meant any exceſs by that word, or indeed any more then Religion?
Next when he makes his obſervation, that in all my large diſcourſe I bring onelyonly heathens to ſhew the meaning of the word, and not one Divine, Greek or Latine Father, &c. who take it in a good ſenſe] this is neither true in the affirmation, for I bring the Scripture and the Chriſtian gloſſaries to teſtifie all that I pretend to, nor yet in the application, for I do not pretend the word to ſignifie that which a Chriſtian counts good, but among the heathen the worſhip of many Gods, which none but heathens can think to have no ill in it, and conſequently I pretend it onelyonly of them, and of thoſe that ſet down the uſe of words among them, and of S. Paul when he is not a finding that fault in them, Act. 17. 22. and ſo ſtill this is ſufficient to prove that the word originally ſignifies not any exceſs of Religion or any other evil, abſtracted from that of the Daemon worſhip &c. which was all that I had in deſign to conclude.
And in making this uſe of heathen Authors, ſure I have done nothing which I ever blamed in any man elſe, as the Diatrihiſt's margent accuſeth me, citing the Quaere of Divorce, §. 58. where I thought it unreaſonable that all the antient Chriſtian writers ſhould not be as competent to give us the ſignification of foreign as Demoſthenes and Philo (and yet made no ſcruple to acquieſce in the notion, which either Demoſthenes or Philo gave us, §. 57.)
For if he pleaſed to mark, there is here no difference between the heathen writers and others, Scripture and antient Chriſtians, concerning the meaning of the word Superſtition, all yeelding it … to ſignifie the worſhip of many Gods (whereas there that other perſon whom I oppoſed, profeſt a contrariety, and then preferred the one before the other) To which yet it is neceſſarily conſequent, that in another inquiry, whether Superſtition were among Authors taken in a good ſenſe, ſome difference ſhould be obſerved between Authors heathen and Chriſtian, becauſe it is certain the heathen worſhip is by us Chriſtians moſt juſtly lookt on as an ill thing, being the worſhip of creatures, but by the heathens thought well of, as the Diatribiſt here confeſſeth, practiſed and commended, and ſo not lookt on any otherwiſe then Religion it ſelf, foreign, in the Etymologiſt, uſed for a good thing; conſequently, the thing which I conteſt, is not this, that the worſhip of daemons is or ever was true or lawfull, but that beſide this, ſuppoſed by Chriſtians but denyed by heathens, to be evill (adding the like of illegitimate worſhip) there is nothing elſe which hath been lookt on as ſimply bad in Superſtition, particularly not the exceſs, as that ſignifies unpreſcribed uncommanded worſhip, which is the onelyonly matter of the preſent conteſt with ſuch as the Diatribiſt.
And he doth but perplex and diſturbe the matter when he ſaith the queſtion is, whether it doth not always in Scripture and Orthodox Divines ſignifie exceſſive and falſe worſhip, for he muſt ſet the queſtion, as elſewhere he doth, of exceſſive, as that ſignifies no more then uncommanded worſhip, without the addition of being falſe, it being evident that I defend not falſe worſhip of any kind to be good, but that ceremonies or inſtitutions not commanded by God may yet be perfectly lawfull and blameleſs, and that that is the onelyonly queſtion between us.
For the text of the Act. c. 25. 19. I have anſwered already, and evidenced that Feſtus meant nothing ill by Superſtition; and the Drs. words cited from Sect. 24. of the ordinary practiſe of every Sect to diſlike the diſtant worſhip of others, and defame it under the title of Religion, doth no way prejudge this; becauſe it is certain Feſtus was no way factious for the Jewes againſt Pauls Religion; No more doth the marginal citation from §. 22. where I have ſaid that Superſtition was made matter of reproach to the Romans; where 1. It was not Superſtition ſimply, but the foreign, not coming ſhort of exceſs, of which that was ſaid that it was foreign, reproached by others, and yet as much commended by the Author Polybius in that place, and 2. That the old rule in Logick will always hold, there is no ſyllogizing from particulars, nor can this ever be formed into a regular ſyllogiſme or valid probation, ſome there were that reproacht the Romans Superſtition, therefore Feſtus reproacht Paul's Act. 25. 19. or ſpake of it by way of defamation.
What remains of this Sect. belongs to the place Act. 17. 23. of which I had ſaid, 1. That the Apoſtle ſpeaking of thoſe whom he cals foreign, more Superſtitious then other men, tels them that they did foreign worſhip the true God though ignorantly, 2. That he ſtyles them more religious then other men, meerly in relation to their worſhipping the unknown (which was the true) God, which others worſhipt not, and ſo meant no more by that phraſe then that they were more religious then other men, no way appearing to accuſe them of that as of their fault, but preparing thereby to declare to them that true God whom they worſhipt ignorantly.
To this many things are here objected, 1. That their worſhipping the true God ignorantly with their own deviſed worſhip, was a Superſtition juſtly to be condemned, It being groſs Idolatry and ſinful Superſtition in the Iſraelites to worſhip the true God in the golden Calfe.]
I anſwer, their ignorance of the true God was juſtly to be condemned, according to that of Minutius Felix, Non minoris eſt ſceleris Deum ignorare quàm laedere, it is as great wickedneſs to be ignorant of God as to hurt him, or that of Triſmegiſtus (as I remember) foreign, Ignorance of God is a ſpecies of madneſs, and in another of the antients ſtyle, foreign a kind of drunkenneſs of the ſoul; But that being granted, 1. This ignorance was not the thing that denominated them Superſtitious, but their worſhipping many Gods, 2. Their worſhipping the true God, though they knew him not, was no new ſpecies of Superſtition, wherein they exceeded others, 3. Their worſhipping him with their own deviſed worſhip was not it which is meant by their worſhipping him ignorantly, the words in the original are foreign, literally whom ye not knowing, or being ignorant of him, worſhip, i. e. worſhip him whileſt ye know him not, which no way refers to the manner of their worſhip, as deviſed by themſelves, but onelyonly to their ignorance of the God whom they thus worſhipt, which therefore the Apoſtle applies himſelf to cure, and accordingly it follows, him declare I unto you.
Laſtly, their worſhipping him as dwelling in Temples made with hands, i. e. in little Chaplets or Shrines or Images &c. v. 24. is not their Superſtition but Idol-worſhip, and is very much more then the uncommanded ceremonies will amount to, and ſo cannot be a proper inſtance of their own deviſed worſhip, in the Diatribiſts notion of the phraſe for all uncommanded worſhip; and ſure the Iſraelites woſhipping the true God in a golden Calf, is as little pertinent to that buſineſs, for if it be true, that they worſhipt none but the true God, then was that only Idolatry againſt the 2d Commandment, not Superſtition or daemon worſhip againſt the firſt, or if they worſhipt the Gods of the Aegyptians, or any one of them, Apis in that figure, then what was that to the worſhipping of the true God in an ignorant, or by themſelves deviſed manner?
2dly. He ſaith my rendring the place more religious then other men, in relation to their worſhipping the unknown God, which others worſhipt not, is my gloſs, begges the queſtion, is againſt the text it ſelf, I perceive that in all things yee are too Superſtitious, both in their worſhipping many falſe Gods, and in their ignorant worſhip of the true, and in their vitious rites of worſhip, adding that this ſenſe the Dr. himſelf gave §. 11. I conſider and behold you in all things (or in all that I ſee of you) as men more Superſtitious then others.
Here I perceive my words are miſtaken, and therefore ſhall firſt anſwer to that, then to the former parts of the objection. The Greek is foreign, literally, in all things, or in all reſpects, I look upon you as more Superſtitious, i. e. (I take it, and I thought I had ſufficiently expreſt it before) conſidering all the altars and inſcriptions, i. e. the names of your deities, which I ſee or behold, I conclude that you are more Superſtitious or religious, worſhip more Gods or daemons, then other men.
That this is the ſenſe, I am inclined to believe by the reaſon of his ſpeech rendred in the next, foreign &c. for paſſing through and contemplating your wor…ps, i. e. the Gods which you worſhip, I found alſo an altar on which was inſcribed To the unknown God. The ſumme of which is, that in the ſurvey of their altars, which contained the names of their Gods, he found one altar remarkably more, then is uſuall among other people, that to the unknown God, the true God of heaven, which others in their foreign or worſhip of many Gods did not worſhip, which being the proof or reaſon (expreſt by the foreign for) of the former ſpeech, muſt needs give me authority to interpret it in proportion thereto, that conſidering all that he had ſeen of them, peculiarly that altar to the unknown God, he concluded them more Superſtitious, i. e. worſhippers of more Gods then other folkes.
That the Athenians truely were ſo eſteemed appears evidently by what was ſaid in the Tr: of Superſtition § 11. and hath here formerly been added to that head, and therefore that will very fitly be the notion of the word, not too Superſtitious, but literally more Superſtitious then others, eſpecially if it be remembred that the bare addition of the worſhip of the true God (however unknown to them) to their other foreign or worſhip of many Gods, cannot be a new fault in them, diſtinct from the other, or a ſuperaddition to the guilts of other men.
All which being conſidered, it now appears, 1. How far from truth it is which is here ſuggeſted, that Pauls ſpeech of foreign (however rendred) belongs both to their worſhipping ſo many falſe Gods, and to their ignorant worſhip of the true, and to their vitious rites of worſhip, when it clearly belongs but to one, their worſhipping the unknown God, which others worſhipt not. 2. How far my words §. 11. were miſtaken or perverted by him, 3. How far my interpretation hath been from oppoſing the text it ſelf, being the clear importance of the text conſidered with S. Pauls reaſon, as the key by which to enter into the true meaning of it; and laſtly how far this is from any begging the queſtion, when I proved ſo largely whatſoever I ſaid, and when no anſwer is here offered to thoſe proofs, and yet, if there were any need, here have been added farther convincing confirmations of the ſame thing, if yet they may deſerve to be taken notice of.
And this is all that is in the leaſt degree needfull to be ſaid to this §. 22. unleſs I yet adde that thoſe words in the cloſe of it, cited from me, that §. 31. Superſtitioſus in the poſitive ſignifies exceſs more then in the comparative, are not very intelligible, which they would ſurely have been, to me at leaſt, if they had rightly reported my ſenſe.
That which I ſaid is no more then this, that Superſtitioſus by force of the termination oſus, may ſignifie an exceſs, and that ſo Religioſus may alſo; but what is that to the uſe of the word, whether in the poſitive or the comparative, when it is the bare rendring of the Greek foreign, as here it is, which no way ſignifies thus?
Sect. 9. The Diatribiſt's conceſſion of the innocence of unpreſcribed ceremonies, and ſo of all that is demanded. His cenſure of himſelf and Chamier. Authority in a Church to inſtitute Ceremonies. Abſtaining from ceremonies, becauſe commanded by men or abuſed by Papiſts.
THe next or 23d, §. is very brief, but yet ſeems to me to be very conſiderable, and that in ſuch a degree that it might well make an end of this debate betwixt the Diatribiſt and me, for having exactly ſet down a 2d. inconſequence (by me noted and concluded to be ſuch, from the opening of the Greek and Latine words) viz. that the uſe of ceremonies or rites in the worſhip of God, if not diſtinctly preſcribed by the example or precept of Chriſt, ſhould be called Superſtition, and for that condemned] he anſwers no more but this. [I believe this is a miſtake, none that I know make ſuch a conſequence, but rather thus, that what rite or ceremonie ſoever is made a part of worſhip, without ſuch example or precept of Scripture, is Superſtitious and therefore condemned.
I ſhall not here indevour to perſwade the Diatribiſt that he knows ſome who condemne uncommanded rites as Superſtitious, becauſe Superſtatutum, ſuch as kneeling at the Euchariſt, uſing the croſs in baptiſme, bowing at the name of Jeſus, but taking him at his word, I beſeech him to tell me, why then he undertook the confutation of the Tr. of Superſtition, which, he muſt know, contended no more then this, being deſigned to this onelyonly end, the averting that envy and calumnie, that was then frequently but unjuſtly caſt upon our Church, upon the account of ceremonies, and which was ſince in the Tract of Feſtivals, no farther applied, then as that analogie would juſtly bear, which was betwixt uncommanded rites and uncommanded days of worſhip, betwixt unpreſcribed geſtures, and times, both which are known to be but circumſtances and acceſſories, no eſſentiall parts or branches of worſhip.
This truely were very ſtrange for him to be ignorant of; As it is, 'tis the yielding me the whole cauſe, and I have no more to contend for, but onelyonly peace, and what by perfect analogie from one circumſtance of worſhip to another, will irrefragably be concluded from that which is here granted by him.
Tis now pity that we that are thus ſuddenly pieced, ſhould ever fall out again; Nay we are likely, if words may be believed, to be yet more firmly knit together and conſolidated, for § 24. in anſwer to the 3d. inconſequence noted by me [that men on pretence and in the name of piety ſhould abſtain from ſome obſervances (indifferent) as Superſtitious, either becauſe commanded by lawfull authority or abuſed by Papiſts] he ſpeaks clearly that it is a worſe miſtake, and that he believes I cannot give an inſtance of one underſtanding Chriſtian, that ever did abſtain from obſervances indifferent, becauſe commanded by lawfull authority, but rather that they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of worſhip, and ſo likewiſe for the other, that they have been uſed by Papiſts, is not all, but that by them they have been abuſed and counted parts of worſhip, and may eaſily return to be ſo accounted by others.
But to this I muſt reply, leſt by ſilence I incur the guilt of ſcandal of having wronged others, and of writing all that hath been written on this Theme, without any adverſary to provoke me to it. Firſt then, I profeſſe to be able to give inſtance of many, that were baptized into our common faith, and ſo were Chriſtians (how deeply underſtanding I pretend not to judge) who have abſtained from the uſe of ceremonies meerly upon this ſcore, becauſe commanded by their Civil and Eccleſiaſtical Superiors, the King and Biſhops, by Canon Eccleſiaſtical; This, ſaid they, was laying more burthens on them then God had laid, and ſo uſurping on their Chriſtian liberty. And in ſtead of naming thoſe men, without their conſent, for that muſt now be the vilifying them, the involving them under the Diatribiſts cenſure, that they are not underſtanding Chriſtians, I ſhall name one on whom he may paſs what judgement he ſhall pleaſe, having full power to do it, this very Diatribiſt himſelf, p. 31. where 1. He hath theſe words, If men may be Judges what are fit for number and wholeſomeneſs, every after comer will think himſelf as wiſe as he that went before, till they have loaded the Chriſtian above the Iew. 2. That the learned Chamier hath well obſerved, that there may be many miſchiefs in a few ceremonies, if the authority to inſtitute them be in the Church or any man or men.
The former of theſe ſpeeches is pretty home to the point in hand, for if the objection to the number or wholeſomneſs of ceremonies be this, that men are judges of them, as they always are when men command them, then ſure it is the power of the lawful magiſtrate (for he is a man or men) to command, which is the ground of the quarrel, and they that quarrel thus, and abſtain from indifferent ceremonies upon this ſcore, muſt abſtain becauſe commanded by lawfull authority. As for example, I ſuppoſe bowing when Jeſus is named in the publike worſhip (or when Chriſt, or when the Holy Ghoſt) to be in it ſelf lawfull or indifferent, becauſe no where forbidden by God, I ſuppoſe farther, that being ſo, this and a few other ſuch ceremonies may very ſafely be uſed by a Chriſtian, though they were not commanded; I now demand, may a few, namely, three or four ſuch ceremonies be lawfully preſcribed or commanded by the Supreme power in any Church to all under that authority? And may all under that authority ſafely obſerve ſuch ceremonies ſo commanded? If they may, then men may be judges what ceremonies are fit both for number and wholeſomeneſs, which is contrary to the direct words of the Diatribiſt, in the former part of this ſpeech, If they may not, then it ſeems what was before lawfull and indifferent is now ſince it was commanded, and by no other change, become unlawfull, which was the inconſequence I pointed at, and it ſeems miſtook not in thinking ſomebody (it now ſeems this Diatribiſt) to be the very perſon guilty of it.
But then the latter ſpeech is as punctuall to it as could be well imagined (and if the Diatribiſt have cited duely, Chamier and he are both of this opinion) For it being certain that nothing can be commanded by lawful authority, unleſs the authority of inſtituting it be either in the Church or man or men, it muſt neceſſarily follow upon the aſſerting of the many miſchiefs in a few ceremonies, if the authority to inſtitute them be in the Church or man or men, that there muſt be many miſchiefs in their being commanded by lawfull authority, & then no underſtanding Chriſtian can think it fit for him by obſerving ſuch commands to be acceſſory to or guilty of the introducing thoſe miſchiefs, & ſo muſt abſtain on that one account of the Churches exerciſing ſuch an authority, which was the very thing I deemed, and noted to be ſo inconſequent.
Nay the very words of the Diatribiſt in this place, when he charges me of miſtake, being theſe [that they that abſtain from indifferent obſervances, do it becauſe they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of worſhip] are either a calumnie againſt the Governors of our Church, or elſe they aſſert what he diſclaimes ſo ſolemnly.
For I ſhall demand, Is his meaning this, that the Governors of the Church thought the ceremonies ſimply neceſſary and not indifferent, antecedently to the command of the Church, i. e. neceſſary by the Divine Law, though the Church had never commanded them? If that be his meaning (as ſeems moſt probable by what follows [obtruded on them as parts of worſhip] for all parts of worſhip are neceſſary by divine Law, though never commanded by man) then this is a direct calumnie againſt the Governors of the Church, who never thought all ceremonies to be preſcribed by God's Law, and therefore preſcribed them by Canon Eccleſiaſtical, which argues that they eſteemed them not as Divine but Humane Laws, never obtruded them as parts of worſhip, but as ceremonies for uniformity and decency, and as uſefull toward aſſiſting, inciting, and expreſſing of piety outwardly.
But if his meaning be, that being in themſelves indifferent, they became neceſſary and not indifferent by the intervening of the Churches command, and ſo were obtruded on men as parts of worſhip (as that may poſſibly ſignifie with him parts of obedience or duty to God by virtue of his command to obey our Superiors) and if this were the thing diſliked in the ceremonies preſcribed by the Church, then again tis evident that their being commanded by lawfull authority, is the onelyonly objection to them and ground of abſtaining from them, in the judgement of his Diatribiſt, at the very point of time, when he ſo ſolemnely diſclaimes it.
So likewiſe may be ſaid to his account of thoſe things which are abſtained from becauſe they have been uſed by Papiſts, This, ſaith he, is becauſe they have been by them abuſed and counted parts of worſhip. But truly I cannot with truth thus affirme of the Papiſts, that any of the ceremonies which we uſe from them, were ever by them accounted parts of worſhip, but onelyonly as uſefull wholeſome ceremonies appointed by the Church.
Of the difference between parts of worſhip and circumſtances of time, place, geſture, acceſſaries, of worſhip, I have ſpoken at large, c. 2. §. 3. And though hereafter §. 28. this difference be fully conſented to by the Diatribiſt in theſe words [ſome rites and ceremonies of worſhip are rather called circumſtances of worſhip, time, place, geſture, which are common adjuncts of Religious and Civil affaires, then properly Religious, much leſs to be accounted parts of worſhip] yet by what hath here been ſaid by him, it appears that all his skill lyes in managing that one fallacie, putting all ceremonies and inſtitutions of the Church under that one ambiguous phraſe uncommanded worſhip, perſwading himſelf or others that we introduce new parts of worſhip, and ſo do contrary to God's command, who hath ſet down the rule of worſhip, i. e. preſcribed all the parts and ſpecies of worſhip, whereas he cannot but know that all that we ſay in aſſerting whether of ceremonies or Feſtivals, is no more but this, that each of theſe, not as parts of worſhip, but as decent attendants of it, though not inſtituted by God, have yet been lawfully and orderly appointed and obſerved by the Church of God in generall, and are to us become matter of obligation, by that means, and as preſcribed by the Governors of our particular Church, to which our obedience is due, and ſo that there is no degree of Superſtition in us in doing that which is thus required of us, nor in thoſe that require it in laying this obligation upon us.
And ſo much for his animadverſions on the three inconſequences, from which if he would really and in earneſt clear himſelf, theſe debates were certainly concluded.
Sect. 10. Strictures on ſome particulars in the remaining Sections. What exceſs Divines mean by Superſtition. What St Auguſtine. Obligation to performance, without being parts of worſhip. Obſervers of order more Religious more acceptable then others. The reaſon why Jewiſh ceremonies are interdicted. The Church of England ſparing in ceremonies. Ceremonies not foreſhewing Chriſt lawful to be retained by Chriſtians. The abſtinence from blood, long continued in the Church. The Saterday Sabbath. Negative wholeſomneſs not ſufficient to recommend ceremonies. All folly in worſhip is not Superſtition. The opinion of the antient Church worth conſidering. No duties appointed for the circumſtances ſake. Time or place inſtituted by God is a circumſtance, as well as when by man. Apoſtolical Divine.
THat which follows §. 25. &c. is for the moſt part but revolving the ſame things again that have hitherto been ſpoken to, or the hiding himſelf in thoſe obſcurities which have now been explained, ſometimes granting all that I aſſert, ſometimes denying it in ambiguous phraſes, as that all exceſs in worſhip not preſcribed is a nimiety and culpable §. 25. that rites be they never ſo few, if introduced as parts of worſhip, are Superſtitious v. 28. and the like, And the Reader muſt not be condemned to the penance, of having all that hath been ſaid on theſe heads, repeated again, and therefore I am both in juſtice and charity obliged to omit particular replies foreign to the remaining Sections, yet ſhall read them over as carefully as I can, and obſerve whatever I diſcern may be thought pertinent to his cauſe, which hath not hitherto been ſpoken to.
As 1. When he ſaith §. 26. that all Divines generally condemne it, I anſwer, they condemne Superſtition, but mean not by it every exceſs in worſhip not preſcribed, as that phraſe comprehends all ceremonies and feſtivals not commanded by God; and thoſe Divines that condemne this under the name of Superſtition, are the men of whom onelyonly my words are to be underſtood, that they are ſo few and ſo modern, and of ſo ſmal authority, that they were ſcarce worth producing, no antient writer having ever condemned all ceremonies and feſtivals, which are not commanded by God, under the title of Superſtition; and that 2•. 2. qu… art. 1.Aquinas's words are no way appliable to it, hath been already ſhewed.
As for St Auguſtines place produced by me §. 33. from whence he collects that an inſtitution of worſhip by men may be Superſtitious, I anſwer, that that Father ſpeaks there of thoſe qui inſtituerunt Deorum ſimulachra, who inſtituted images of Gods, which the Diatribiſt could not but ſee, if he had pleaſed, and of ſuch inſtitutions I grant that they not onelyonly may be, but are Superſtitious, but our ceremonies and Feſtivals are no Deorum Simulachra, images of the Gods, and ſo ſure not lyable to his cenſure.
2dly. When §. 29. he affirmes of uſages in themſelves lawfull and allowable, that if they were taught or practiſed as neceſſary, or as making the obſervers more Religious then others, or more acceptable to God, then they would be parts of worſhip] (and then I muſt ſuppoſe by his tenure of doctrine, Superſtitious) I anſwer, 1. That decency, or uniformity, or obedience to Superiors may be a competent ground to turn lawfull ceremonies into neceſſary, and on thoſe grounds joyned together, I may kneel and teach kneeling at the taking of the Euchariſt to be neceſſary, viz. not by any neceſſity of divine precept terminated immediately in this geſture, but by ſuch neceſſity as Humane Laws, by force of the fift Commandment, and foreign, obey thoſe that are placed over you, lay upon me, and this is far from making this kneeling a part of worſhip, when we know it is but a geſture, and circumſtance of it. 2. That they which pray reverently and decently, obſerve uniformity, obey the lawfull commands of the Church, are in ſo doing more Religious and more acceptable to God then others, who caeteris paribus, do it not, pray irreverently, act undecently, obſerve not uniformity, diſobey the lawfull commands of their Eccleſiaſtical Superiors, or then they which perform the ſame things upon their own choices. So ſaith Leo de jejun: 7. menſ: Serm: 3. Divinarum namque reverentia Sanctionum inter quaelibit ſpontaneae obſervantiae ſtudia habet ſemper privilegium ſuum, ut ſacratius ſit quod publica lege celebratur, quàm quod privatâ inſtitutione dependitur. The reverence of the Divine, i. e. Eccleſiaſtical ſanctions have always this privilege among ſpontaneous obſervances, that whatſoever is performed by publick law, is more ſacred, then what is done upon private inſtitution. This I hope I ſhall not need farther to prove, and if not, then ſure the teaching this or acting on theſe grounds, will not make my allowable action criminous or Superſtitious.
3dly. When §. 31. he finds fault with men for ſaying that the ſole reaſon why old Jewiſh ceremonies are interdicted us Chriſtians, is, becauſe the obſerving thoſe which foreſhewed Chriſt, and teaching the neceſſity of them, would be the denying Chriſt to be come, paralleling this with an anſwer of Bellarmine's and rendring an account from Chamier, that there was another reaſon of their abrogation, becauſe they did load the conſcience with a yoke of a multitude of ceremonies, and that this is common to thoſe, and to the traditions of men] I anſwer, 1. That it is one thing for Jewiſh ceremonies to be interdicted Chriſtians, another for them not to be impoſed, the weight of the yoke was the reaſon why they were not to be impoſed, and to that the Diatribiſts reaſons in the concluſion of §. 31. do all belong; but my ſpeech was evidenly of their being interdicted, and that meant not onelyonly of the multitude of them, but of every or each of them, and the ſole reaſon of that, was this which I aſſigned, for if the weight of the multitude were at all conſidered in that, then any one of them, which ſure was not a multitude, would have been lawful, by name circumciſion, or ſacrificing, or the like, againſt which yet the Chriſtian interdict lyes, as well as againſt the whole number.
2dly. Tis certain that in the application of this inſtance to ceremonies (not preſcribed by God in a Chriſtian Church) there is great difference betwixt the Church of which Bellarmine was an advocate, and that which I undertook to defend. In the Church of Rome there is a great multitude of ceremonies and feſtivals, which may be capable of the title of weight and yoke, but the Church of England is far more ſparing, and I had fully conſented to the rule of paucae & ſalubres, few and ſalubrious, and was now diſputing for the lawfulneſs of ſome ceremonies, uncommanded by God, not for the expedience of neer ſo many, as other Chriſtians both of the Weſtern and Eaſtern Churches have received into their Canons, and proportionable to that was any one, or never ſo few old Jewiſh ceremonies, for the abrogation of which I was therefore obliged to give ſuch an account, as was not founded in the multitude of them, and conſequently could not take either Chamier's or the Diatribiſt's adviſe, to render any other then what I rendred, as I thought, from ſuch like plain words of the Apoſtle, We have an altar, of which they have not power to eat, that ſerve the tabernacle, Heb. 13.
In this matter the Diatribiſt asks a ſubtle queſtion, whether if a Chriſtian had obſerved ſome Jewiſh ceremony, which did not foreſhew Chriſt to come, but ſignificant only of ſomething paſt (though they had not taught it neceſſary) the Apoſtle would not have blamed them for that as ſuperſtitious; and ſo for any new rites and ceremonies? To which I anſwer conſidently, and to the latter firſt, that he would not, and the very asking or queſtioning it in that form, as if it could not be denied but the Apoſtle would have blamed them, is the known fallacy of begging the queſtion: For the whole matter of controverſy betwixt me and the Diatribiſt is this, whether every deviſed rite or ceremony not commanded by God, be ſuperſtitious?
And to the former part of the queſtion I anſwer as confidently, and ask him firſt, what he thinks of the abſtinence from things ſtrangled, and all eating of bloud, was not that a Jewiſh ceremony? and was not that obſerved by Chriſtians Act. 15. and did the Apoſtles blame it as ſuperſtitious? Certainly they did not. Nay, did not this obſervance continue among Chriſtians for many ages? Ne animalium quidem ſanguinem in epulis habemus, ſuffocatis & morticinis abſtinemus, we have not the bloud of any living creatures in our feaſts, we abſtain from things ſtrangled, and that die of themſelves: ſaith Tertullian, Apol. c. 9. And Lucian tells us how his Peregrinus was rejected by the Chriſtians, foreign, for eating ſome of their forbidden meats, which ſure belongs to this matter; and in Euſebius's hiſtory l. 5. c. 1. Biblis thus vindicates the Chriſtians from the accuſation of eating of children, becauſe, ſaith ſhe, foreign, we count it not lawful to eat the bloud of unreaſonable creatures. If this be not perfectly home to his queſtion, I ſhall then proceed, and alledge for my inſtance the known practice of the Chriſtian Church of the Apoſtles and pureſt time, who as they celebrated the weekly Lords day, on the firſt of the week, in commemoration of Chriſts reſurrection, ſo they continued the obſervation of the Saterday Sabbath on the laſt day of the week, in remembrance of the Creation of the World. The cuſtome appears in Tertullian de Monogam: and was continued to the time of the Laodicean Councel, which orders that not only the Law, as Act. 15. 21. but the Goſpel alſo ſhould be read that day. And the words of Balſamon are clear, foreign, the Sabbaths were by the holy Fathers almoſt quite equalled to the Lords days: and a great deal more to the ſame purpoſe, as is elſewhere ſhewed in the Expoſition of the fourth Commandment.
4thly. When §. 32. he ſo reports my words as to conclude me to affirm, that if ceremonies be but harmleſs, or negatively wholeſome, there cannot be too much of them, This is a plain changing of ſenſe into that which is moſt contrary to it; For my words are plain, without his gloſſe, that if they be poſitively wholſom or tending to edification (not contenting my ſelf with negatively wholeſom or harmleſſe, or with any thing leſſe then poſitive wholſomneſſe) then there will be little reaſon to accuſe them of exceſſe, then they will rather help devotion then incumber it, the fear of which was the main objection againſt the multitude of them.
5thly. When §. 35. he pretends to prove all folly and vanity in the worſhip of God, to be ſuperſtition, by demanding what Superſtition is, but folly and vanity?] this is a meer paralogiſme, (never reducible into a Logical mood and figure) by ſuppoſing things to be convertible which are not, as if I ſhould prove a particular ſubſtance (for example, the ſoul of man) to be a body, becauſe every body, is a ſubſtance, The anſwer would be eaſie, by ſaying, every body is a ſubſtance, but every ſubſtance is not a body, ſo in like manner, every ſuperſtition is folly, and vanity, but every folly and vanity, even in the worſhip of God, is not ſuperſtition, This was a little too groſſe a Sophiſme to impoſe it ſelf upon the Diatribiſt, and he now ſees a ſmall meaſure of ſubtility was ſufficient to enable me for the diſcovering of it.
6xtly. When §. 34. on occaſion of my ſpeaking of that one kinde of exceſſe, of placing more virtue in ſome things then belongs to them, he demands what I mean by [or in the eſtimation of the purer ages of the Church] and whether the purer ages of the Church after the Apoſtles had power to put virtue into things which they had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word? I anſwer that I never thought of any ſuch thing, that my meaning is plain enough, if he would pleaſe to ſee it, in the end of §. 45. viz. that the thing, there mentioned, the ſigne of the Croſſe and the parva Evangelia, and the like, had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word, or in the eſtimation of the purer ages of the Church, that force or virtue in them, which in the latter impurer ages they were thought to have: and I wonder what difficulty there was in underſtanding, or fault in affirming this, which hath no more dangerous intimation, then that the opinion or eſtimation of the pureſt ages of the Church, i. e. the firſt and neereſt to the Apoſtles times, were, in any ſuch controverſie as this, very fit to be conſidered in their due place, i. e. next after the Apoſtles themſelves.
7thly. When §. 30. concerning holyneſſe, or ſeparation to holy from common uſes, he promiſes to ſpeak ſomewhat conſiderable, and under that head tells us that there is this difference between times and places ſeparated by God, and thoſe which are ſeparated by men, that the former require holy duties to till them up, i. e. that the duties are appointed for the time or places ſake, but the latter are to wait upon holy duties, the time or place are appointed for the duties ſake] I muſt ſtill challenge his promiſe, whereby he is yet our debtor of ſomewhat conſiderable. For certainly prayer and faſting and ſacrifices among the Jews, all duties appointed by God (as in ſtead of the laſt the offertorie or almes among Chriſtians) were not appointed for time or places ſake; holy days and holy places, the weekly Sabbath, and the annual day of Expiation, and the tabernacle and Temple at Jeruſalem, were never the end for which prayer, &c were inſtituted, nor is it imaginable how they ſhould, when each of thoſe duties, viſibly prayer and ſacrifice, were appointed and practiſed before there was any ſuch thing, as Tabernacle or Temple inſtituted by God.
Again, the time or place, when inſtituted by God himſelf, is as truly a circumſtance of worſhip as when inſtituted by man, and duty is equally the ſubſtance: and it can with no probability be affirmed that the ſubſtance is appointed for the circumſtances ſake, or (as he is pleaſed to ſpeak) to till up the circumſtances, any otherwiſe then he would ſay ſubſtances were created to till up accidents, the body for the colors ſake.
As for his charge at the end of §. 39. that I make difference betwixt Apoſtolical and divine inſtitutions, and therein vary from my reſolution of the firſt Quaere, §. 22. It is ſoon diſpatcht by acknowledging I do not think that the Apoſtles were God, and thereupon for perſpicuity ſake I made theſe ſeveral heads of inſtitutions, ſome by Chriſt, ſome by the Apoſtles, inſpired, and commiſſionated by Chriſt, the former I called Divine, the ſecond Apoſtolical, as that is not perſonally and immediatly divine, yet not at all doubting, or giving any cauſe of doubt, whether the latter were not of divine original and obligation alſo, wherein ſure I ſpake after the example and manner of men, and that in order to diſtinctneſſe and perſpicuity, not foreſeeing ſuch cavils as this, when I thus ſpake.
8thly. What follows of Wil-worſhip in the end of this Exercitation, muſt be reſerved to the next Exercitation, which is the place deſigned for it, and for the Diatribiſt to take it here for granted, as he doth, that my voluntary oblation is an eminent Species of Superſtition, againſt which, puniſhment is denounced in the ſecond Commandment: when he knowes that whole Tract of Wil-worſhip undertakes to demonſtrate the contrary, what is this but a meer begging of the Queſtion, and that a prime ſort of fallacious arguing, the ſolemn refuge of thoſe which are deſtitute of all other?
Sect. 11. A Vindication of the Tract of Superſtition from uncharitableneſs.
THeſe few things being thus ſhortly replyed to by way of Stricture, there remains now no more on this firſt head of diſcourſe, but to vindicate and approve my charity to the Diatribiſt, as I have hitherto done my doctrine againſt him. And as this is by his concluſion impoſed on me as my task, ſo I doubt not but to find it an eaſy one, if he will weigh my actions in the ſame balance which he uſeth for his own, nay I wiſh he could as eaſily clear himſelf, who hath thus judged me.
His words are theſe, §. 43. by way of concluſion of that firſt Exercitation, And now the Dr. may be pleaſed to review, and if he will recal his bitter falſe uncharitable concluſion §. 57. 58. unbeſeeming both his piety and gravity. For now it will appear that the charge of Superſtition on ſome men is no Mormo, nor yet unjuſt, but what is avowed by himſelf and party to be their opinion and practiſe, and what is proved to be really Superſtitious according to the true notion of the word Superſtition among Reformed Orthodox Divines.
In obedience to his admonition, and in a ſolemne dread of having ſaid any thing bitterly, falſely, and uncharitably, and without any manner of incitation againſt the Diatribiſt, who uſeth this language (which if it be not found to have perfect truth in it, muſt be acknowledged to be very uncharitable, I need not adde, bitter toward me) I have warily and ſuſpiciouſly reviewed thoſe Sections, and I ſhall deſire the indifferent Reader to do ſo too, and to tell me what ſyllable or minuteſt part of them there is, which can any way deſerve from any diſpaſſionate perſon, the title either of falſe in any degree, or of uncharitable or bitter in relation to any man then or now living.
For this I muſt premiſe, that the ſevereſt Satyre againſt a vice, and not a perſon, which carries perfect truth and juſtice in it, that repreſents a damnable ſin in the uglyeſt colours, and no otherwiſe reflects upon the perſon of any man, then as his own conſcience ſhall be thus awakened with a ſight of his own guilt, is ſo far from either uncharitable or bitter, (unleſs in the notion wherein the wholeſomeſt Phyſick or moſt neceſſary Chirurgery muſt undergo the ſame cenſure) that it is the greateſt and moſt obliging Chriſtian act of mercy, and kindneſs, and ſoveraign charity, that piety and gravity can ſuggeſt to any. And unleſs it aſperſe (by affixing ſuch vices to) particular perſons, eſpecially thoſe who are not guilty of them (as here the Diatribiſt hath in plain words affixt that foul ſin of Superſtition on the Dr. perſonally, and inlarged it to his party, which he knows muſt involve all the obedient ſonnes of the Church of England, for the Dr. cannot with any tolerable charity be ſaid or thought to be of any other party) there is no ground of charge of the leaſt aſperity in this.
And then it is moſt certain that thoſe 2 Sections can no wiſe fall under this cenſure, the ſumme of them being no more but this, that if the crime of Superſtition were faſtned on none but thoſe on whom the Scripture directs to faſten it, all that have oppoſed our Church in point of rites and ceremonies, and branded the innocent as guilty of no leſs crime then Superſtition, muſt be obliged to return to peace and charity, and perſwaſions of kindneſs toward us, whereas the contrary humor of thoſe who oppoſe and maligne our Church, daily inflames and advances into that diabolical ſin of calumniating, and accuſing the moſt innocent obſervances of thoſe, whom they have undertaken to oppoſe, and never conſiders or looks on thoſe many groſſer crimes, ſpirituall pride, uncharitableneſs, faction, nay ſacrilege and profaneſs it ſelf, with ſo much expreſſion of averſion or diſlike, as on the uſage of a few and wholeſome ceremonies.
This is, as neer as I can briefely paraphraſe it, the ſenſe of thoſe two Sections, and all the aſperity that is there diſcoverable, is but this, that enemies and calumniators have learnt two of the Devils attributes, foreign or foreign, and foreign or foreign, and as long as this hath palpable truth in it, and when I applied it not (ſo much as in my thoughts) either to this Diatribiſt, whoſe name I think I had never heard of, nor to any other particular perſon, and as long as it was viſible that there was ſuch enmity abroad in this nation, which thus fortified it ſelf by calumniating others, and it being certain that it was perfect duty of charity, to indevour the deterring and preſerving brethren and fellow Chriſtians from ſuch guilts and dangers, and that the pointing at other ſinnes that much more juſtly deſerved cenſure, might be uſefull to that end, by way of but neceſſary diverſion, I can with perfect peace of mind review thoſe Sections, not diſcerning any man, or virtue, moral or Chriſtian, any branch of either part of my duty, againſt which I have offended; And I now deſire the Diatribiſt, if he be not fully of my perſwaſion, that he deſcend to the particularity, and tell me the man in the world to whom I was in thoſe Sections uncharitable or bitter, and firſt to whom uncharitable, and then for the falſeneſs, that hath by all this reply to this Diatribe, been, I hope, ſufficiently conteſted.
And having ſaid thus much in vindication of my ſelf, I can very well abſtain from making uſe of the advantage, which is here viſibly given me, of more then recriminating; I am ſo well ſatisfied with my own innocence, that I cannot be farther gratified with the contemplation of others guilts.
And ſo much for his firſt exercitation, having I hope competently ſecured the obſervance of the rites and ceremonies of our Church from being the introducing of any new worſhip, or criminous exceſs againſt any of the Commandments of the firſt table, and conſequently from the charge of Superſtition in any juſtifiable notion, or Etymologie, or acception of the word, not taking that of Super Statutum to be ſuch.