An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 5 · Section 15
Sect. 15. The ſecond occaſion of taking foreign in an ill ſenſe vindicated. The deſign of the Treatiſe of Will-worſhip, onelyonly for ceremonies, not for new kinds of worſhip. Whether all ceremonies be forbidden, which are not commanded. The various reading of Philoſtorgius. Sitting at the Goſpell forbidden. Chryſoſtomes Teſtimonie. foreign for Eccleſiaſtical Canon. pilpeoppunza Will-worſhip.
THe ſecond cauſe of miſtaking this word I had ſet down at large, §. 19. to be the reflexion on the Judaical foreign, where, in the building of, and officiating in the Temple, all was to be done according to the pattern in the mount, from which ſome may have made a ſhift to conclude, that ſo it muſt be in the Chriſtian Church, no rite, no circumſtance, no degree of worſhip to be uſed there but what hath Chriſt's example or precept to authorize it. To this he replyes, 1. That I much miſtake the queſtion, for it is not about a rite or circumſtance or degree of worſhip commanded, but of the worſhip it ſelf, and herein Chriſtians are equal with the Jews, we muſt not vary from the preſcription on the mount in the 2d Commandment to conſtitute any part of worſhip, but what we have the authority of Chriſt for in the New Teſtament, adding the ground, for this, both the 2d Commandment, and this text Col. 2. to juſtifie that aſſertion.
To this I haſten this brief reply, 1. That this is not, in any word, to the point now in hand, the occaſion of taking Will-worſhip in an ill ſenſe, and tis evident that though all were true which here is ſaid, that I miſtook the queſtion, and that no part of worſhip may lawfully be ſet up among Chriſtians without the example or precept of Chriſt, yet this of the Jewiſh obligation to do all according to the pattern in the mount, may be occaſion to give men prejudices to all that is not under particular command, or according to pattern of Chriſts, and his Apoſtles, which was all I aſſumed in that Section.
But then 2dly. 'Tis moſt certain, that I do not miſtake the queſtion, nor can I miſtake it (who had the ſetting it my ſelf) unleſs I firſt ſet it one way, and then handle it another, And this certainly I do not. For the very deſign of that Treatiſe was to inquire, whether the obſervation of ceremonies uſed and preſcribed in our Church of England were criminous, onelyonly upon this account, becauſe they were not commanded by God; And in this I was then ſure that I had adverſaries enow, who concluded it ſo, upon this one way of probation, becauſe all Will-worſhip was criminous, and the uſe and impoſition of all uncommanded ceremonies were Will-worſhip.
And if this Diatribiſt be not in the number of thoſe adverſaries, then hath he done himſelf and me and the reader very great injury, in diſputing againſt that concluſion which he doth not oppoſe, then hath he moſt prodigally miſpent and laviſht out all his pains, in conſuting (or exerciſing himſelf upon) this tract, of which this was the onelyonly deſign, not to plead for any new kind or parts of worſhip, but to juſtifie the uſe of uncommanded ceremonies and circumſtances, and ſuch are days of worſhip, and to ſhew that being unforbidden as well as uncommanded, they were therefore lawfull and free to be uſed by Chriſtian people or preſcribed by Chriſtian Magiſtrates. And if he hath nothing to reſiſt in this, then why ſhould he delight in this impertinent ſeverity, arreign and triumph over a poor innocent Tract, that never thought to provoke any, which allowed the uſe and obſervance of uncommanded rites, and days of worſhip, never attempted in the leaſt to bring any new part or kind of worſhip into the Church? Upon this, and other viſible reaſons, it will ſure be needleſs here to examine again his two grounds, which we have formerly been ſo oft acquainted with, the 2d Commandment and Col. 2. 23. It was no ſmall infirmity of diſcourſe in this place to mention them.
The 2d part of his reply, is, that in worſhip that is condemned which is not commanded] But 1. What is that again to the point in hand, that particular occaſion of taking Will-worſhip in an ill ſenſe? 2. I ſhall demand, is that propoſition univerſally true, ſo as to extend to every ceremonie in worſhip? If it be, then it ſeems, I miſtook not the queſtion (as very lately I was told) nor my adverſary neither) this Diatribiſt being directly contrary to me herein, if he thus affirme, that in the worſhip of God every ceremonie is forbidden which is not commanded.
To the place in Photius's foreign out of Philoſtorgius, which I propoſed and explained, he acknowledges he hath little to ſay, yet ſomewhat he is willing to note for his own advantage, viz. that I ſeem to make it a fault to ſit at the reading of the Goſpel, which the Eccleſiaſtical Canons did not command, and yet make it no fault to adde a Will-worſhip of a mans own which foreign the divine law doth forbid.
To this I anſwer, that the Diatribiſt ought in all reaſon to have markt, what there I ſet viſible before his eyes, and then he could not poſſibly have mentioned this. For 'tis evident in that place, 1. That I had taken notice of the reading of the Manuſcript in the Oxford Publike Library, which hath foreign, in ſtead of foreign in Gotofred's Printed Copie, and 2. That as this latter reading imported it a fault to do that which the Canons commanded not (for which very cauſe I examined, and then ſaw reaſon to reject that reading) ſo the former and right reading, to which onelyonly I adhered, implied no more then this, that it was a fault to act contrary to Canon, to do many things foreign, which the Eccleſiaſtical Canon did not admit or permit, or which was not in uſe with the Church of God, but the contrary, viz. that of ſtanding up at the Goſpell.
If there need proof of this, the plain words of Edit. Savil. Tom. 6. p. 975.Chryſoſtome (or whoſoever was the Author of the Oration foreign) will be ſufficient, foreign (ſo it muſt be read, as appears, p. 974. l. 20. where we find foreign, not foreign, as it is now Printed) foreign, When the Deacon is about to open the Goſpell (that Chariot drawn with four horſes) we all look very earneſtly upon him and are ſtill, and when he begins to read (and ſo to run his race in that Chariot) preſently we ſtand up and uſe this acclamation, Glory be to thee, O Lord.
Certainly the Diatribiſt never expected that his Exercitations ſhould be examined by any, or but compared with the plain words of the Treatiſe to which they related, when he thought fit to obſerve this.
He is pleaſed alſo to retain that rendring of foreign divine Law, which he muſt needs diſcern to have been there cleared by me to ſignifie not the Law or word of God, but the Canons or unwritten cuſtomes of the Church, as there appeared by Nicephorus reciting that place of Philoſtorgius, and reading foreign, in ſtead of foreign, and by many other evidences from Epiphanius and Athanaſius and Pſeudo-Clement, and Nicephori Conſtantinop: foreign, ſuperadded to the former ſtore, in the Annotation on Col. 2. publiſhed ſince that Treatiſe. To all which I now adde Leo, who having mentioned Divinarum Reverentia Sanctionum, the reverence of divine ſanctions, ſoon explains his meaning firſt by quod publicâ lege * Ser. 3. de jejun. 7. menſ.celebratur, then by quod univerſa Eccleſia ſuſcipit, that which was obſerved by publick Law, that which the univerſall Church received.
Another parallel miſtake alſo I there mentioned in our Anglican Councels, Can. 60. Sub Edgaro, where pilpoppunza is tranſlated ficta ad libitum adorationes, but ſhould be rendred fontis adoratio, not Will-worship but Well-worſhip, for which I referre the Reader to the former place in the Annotations.