An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 6 · Section 1
Sect. 1. The uſe of them in this queſtion. The Diatribiſts diſcourſe of them. His foreign. The Leviticalneſs of ſpontaneous offerings aſſerted by him, in order to denying them among Chriſtians. Arguments againſt this conceit. Allowance of days as well as of worship among the Jewes. Allowance acknowledged by the Diatribiſt to be as good as commands.
TO make it evident that all things which are not commanded, are not yet unlawful or prohibited in the ſervice of God, and conſequently that all uncommanded ceremonies and circumſtances (and under that head, Feſtivals i. e. Times) of worship are not prohibited to a Chriſtian, I thought it neceſſary in that Tract of Will-worship to reflect on the foreign or free-will-offerings of the Jewes, which being ſpontaneouſly, and without any obligation of divine law preſented to God, were ſo farre from being deteſted or diſliked, that they were accepted and rewarded by him.
And on this head I inlarged in that Treatiſe, conceiving the foreign once mentioned in the New Teſtament, Col. 2. and taken in the notion of ſpontaneous performances, to be directly parallel to thoſe foreign voluntary or uncommanded oblations among the Iewes, and from thence concluding, as I thought, irrefragably, that the uncommandedneſſe of a few decent rites, or uſeful ſeaſons ſet apart for the worship of God, could not upon that one account, their being uncommanded, become preſently unlawful and criminous, when even under the foreign they were allowed and accepted. And if in any other reſpect there were difference betwixt the things thus compared, yet I was ſure there was none in that, wherein I compared them, both agreeing evidently in this, that they were equally not commanded or preſcribed by God, and ſo though the obſervation of rites or ceremonies or feſtivals arrived not to that excellency of being parts, but only circumſtances of worship, yet they would by thoſe precedents be ſecured from being abominable or criminous in the ſight of God upon that one account of uncommandedneſſe, for if ſuch they were, then the foreign would be ſo too, and being ſuppoſed to be uncommanded, either ſtand together, or both fall under the ſame condemnation.
And to this part of my diſcourſe he at length proceeds §. 29. and finding fault with me for not ſetting down or ſhewing wherein the formality of a free-will offering conſiſted, he is pleaſed to ſpend ſome leaves on this task.
But as I had not offended in that kinde, nor needed this ſupply of his, there being evidently no more required to the formality of a free-will offering, but that 1. it were not particularly commanded by any law of Gods, and ſo were ſpontaneous (not neceſſary) to offer, or not to offer; 2. that it were offered to (and graciouſly accepted by) God, as being of thoſe kindes which are known to be allowed by him; and both theſe being evidently ſet down by me in that Treatiſe §. 29. I have little to thank him for in his diſcourſe on this ſubject, finding the greateſt part of it to concern the preſcribed, commanded ſacrifices, and the willingneſs firſt, and ſecondly ſome lower degree of freeneſs obſervable in them, both which are certainly nothing to our purpoſe, who ſpeak only of thoſe oblations which were not commanded and might freely not have been offered (to which none but the laſt member of his diſtinction appertains, libertas exercitii) and yet were graciouſly accepted by God when they were offered, which one ſort of oblations (meddling not with any other that were any way commanded) make it viſible, that even under the foreign, that government of the Iewes where God preſided immediatly and gave lawes preciſely for the very manner of his worship, ſome things were yet left to mens free-power and choice, if they offered, they ſhould be accepted, if they did not offer, they ſinned not, which is the perfect image and clear interpretation of that foreign or Will-worship, for which that Treatiſe undertook to plead, that it was not criminous in a Chriſtian.
Now of theſe freewill offerings, defined by him, p. 91. juſt as I now, and then defined them, there is but one thing onelyonly which he obſerves by way of praecognoſcendum to his anſwer to that Treatiſe, and I muſt here take a particular view of it, becauſe I ſuppoſe it that, on which all his contrary hypotheſis muſt be founded; It is this, that the formality of a freewill offering, as contradiſtinguiſhed to the offerings commanded by the Law, conſiſting in this, that it was left free for a man to offer or not to offer, beyond what was poſitively required by the Law, here, ſaith he, the Leviticalneſs or Ceremoniality ſeems to ly, whereby (he pronounceth that) they are now aboliſhed. And afterwards oft to the ſame purpoſe, that they were parts of the worſhip of God in thoſe times is true, p. 92. intimating that thoſe times differed from theſe times in this reſpect; and this inference, ſaith he, hath too much of the foreign ſhew of wiſdome, but neither ſubſtance, power, nor truth in it. It was ſo in the Old Teſtament, therefore it may be ſo in the New, p. 93. and Divines reſolve that the worſhip of God then, was far different from the worſhip of the Goſpell, and conclude the contrary. It rather follows, that they are not parts of worſhip now, becauſe that Levitical worſhip was aboliſhed. p. 94. And this is his principall engine of battery to demoliſh all that I had ſaid from that parallel between thoſe freewill offerings and the foreign in the New Teſtament.
I ſhall therefore, I ſay, make ſome ſtay here to examine and conſider this reſerve of his, for if it ſhall fail him, it is evident he hath no other refuge to retire to.
And 1. I ſuppoſe it ſufficiently reſolved between us, that the kind of the worſhip (that by bloody ſacrifices &c. among the Jews) was indeed Levitical, no longer to continue then the Jewiſh prieſthood of the Tribe of Levi continued, and ſo is long ſince aboliſhed by Chriſt, and accordingly I never meant (and I hope he cannot think I meant) to conclude that the ſame kinds of freewill offerings which were acceptable then, that of ſlaying a Bullock or a Ramme &c. do now continue acceptable among Chriſtians.
2dly. Then the onelyonly queſtion muſt be of the ſpontaneouſneſs of the oblations, whether that being confeſtly lawfull and acceptable under the Law, it be now unlawfull under Chriſt, or in plain termes, whether Gods acceptance of uncommanded oblations, when the matter of them is confeſt to be ſuch as is acceptable to him, be to be deemed Levitical, and ſuch as being peculiar to the Moſaical oeconomie, is not now to be lookt for, being aboliſhed under Chriſt?
The queſtion thus plainly ſet, his affirmation is too far from the the leaſt ſhew of probability, and ſo utterly diſtitute of all proofs, either from reaſon or Scripture, as far as he hath here diſcovered himſelf (and ſo but a begging of the queſtion in him that thus affirmes) that there is no need of my pains in diſproving it; Yet ſhall I offer a few conſiderations to this purpoſe, and the firſt ſuch as may be of force adhominem, to this Diatribiſt.
And it ſhall be the reminding him of his three ſpeciall proofs, which he hath brought in his Preface and in his Diatribe, to infer the ſinfulneſs of Will-worſhip, viz. the 2d Commandment, the ſumme of which is, as he oft ſaith, Gods preſcribed worſhip, and all deviſed worſhip, an exceſs and ſo ſin againſt it; The words of Deut. 4. 2. where all additions to the word are prohibited; And (to the particular of Feſtivals) the 4th Commandment, againſt which, ſaith he, it is an offence in the exceſſe to obſerve any other holy day, but that one of the Weekly Sabbath. Now of theſe three it is plain, that they are all taken out of the words of the Judaical Law, and conſequently if they were fitly urged to Chriſtians, then muſt it needs follow, 1. That they were thus of force againſt all uncommanded ſervices in the Old Teſtament: and 2. That by way of analogie they ſtill hold under the New Teſtament, which if they do, then is this the direct contradictory to both the Diatribiſt's preſent pretenſions, to his allowing unpreſcribed uncommanded worſhip under the Old Teſtament, for how can that be when his proofs againſt uncommanded worſhip are all fetcht from the Old Teſtament, to the aboliſhing in the New Teſtament what was allowed in the Old, for if ſo, how can the analogie hold betwixt the Old and the New, in which his three proofs were founded, as to the application of them to Chriſtians?
Which being ſo, the great evidences on which he had founded his hypotheſis, proving ſo irreconcileable with his preſent pretenſion, I ſhall ſtill give him his choice which part of his method he will adhere to, the former or the latter; The former he cannot (the force of thoſe places in the Moſaical Law) for it is manifeſt by the free-will offerings, and now confeſt by the Diatribiſts, that uncommanded worſhips were allowed; and ſo lawfull among the Jews; And the latter he cannot, having formerly ſuppoſed in his arguing, that the analogie holds in this matter between the two Teſtaments.
So that I may now forme a Syllogiſme the premiſes whereof ſhall be both fetcht out of the Diatribiſt, the Minor from his very words, the Major from that on which his arguments are founded, thus, Whatſoever was lawfull under the Old Teſtament, is lawfull under the New; But freewill or uncommanded offerings were lawfull under the Old Teſtament; (and then having given me me my premiſes, twill be great unkindneſs to deny my concluſion) therefore, uncommanded offerings are lawfull under the New Teſtament; Quod erat demonſtrandum.
A 2d argument againſt his affirmation ſhall be, the conſideration of the liberty, and advantages which reſult to Chriſtians from the abolition of the Moſaical Law. That liberty muſt conſiſt, in the taking off, not in the impoſing of weights and interdicts, whereas, by this Diatribiſts affirmation, there ſhall by this abolition of what was Levitical. i. e. by this libert, y come in a multitude of unprofitable burthens, which never lay upon the Jews; Whenſoever I ſhall do any thing in the ſervice of God, which I am not particularly commanded to do, I am preſently enſnared, guilty of an abominable ſin, whereas a Jew might, by his confeſsion, bring a thouſand free-will offerings, and in each of them be accepted. This ſure muſt be directly againſt one main part of the deſign of Chriſt's coming, and therefore is not to be admitted in the 2d place.
3dly. It is ſufficiently known, and by the Apoſtle affirmed, that they were foreign, poſitive ordinances, and foreign, Eph, 2. 15. A Law of Commandments in ordinances, which Chriſt did by his death foreign cancell and naile to the Croſs, and indeed nothing elſe is capable of abolition or cancelling, But this of the free-will offerings, among the Jews is not any Law or Commandments or Ordinances, but rather a negation of all thoſe, (for ſuch is a bare allowance to be deemed) and therefore ſure this, as to the voluntarineſs of them, was none of the things which were aboliſhed by Chriſt.
4thly. If it were true, which is here ſaid by the Diatribiſt, that the Leviticalneſs or Ceremoniality of the offerings ſeems to ly here, viz. in the uncommandedneſs or freedome to offer or not to offer (wherein he truly ſaith, that the formality of a freewill offering conſiſts, as that is contradiſtinguiſhed to the commanded offerings) then ſure the Leviticalneſs &c. would not extend to the commandedneſs of the other offerings, and conſequently the commanded offerings under the Law would not be Levitical, Which as it is palpably falſe, and contrary to plain Scripture, Heb. 9. 1. 20. and elſewhere frequently, ſo it will farther conclude alſo, that the commanded offerings are ſtill in force, for by the Leviticalneſs and Ceremoniality, ſaith he, it was, that thoſe other are ſuppoſed to be now aboliſhed.
5tly. Againſt his concluſion I thus argue, Whatſoever was lawfull before the Moſaical Law to mankind, and remained lawfull under the Moſaical Law, and is not now prohibited by Chriſt or his Apoſtles under the Goſpell, that certainly is now perfectly lawfull and free to Chriſtians; But ſuch are freewill offerings, Ergo. Of the Major I ſuppoſe there will be no doubt; And the Minor conſiſting of three branches, is manifeſt in the firſt of them, among many others by Abel's oblation, which the Fathers generally obſerve not to have been by way of precept from God, and tis affirmed by the antient Author of the foreign, the Pſeudo-Clement, c. 22. (I ſay not how truly) that before the Jews idolatries and high provocations, ſacrifices themſelves were not impoſed on, or commanded the Jewes, but onelyonly left to their free power, foreign If thou wilt do it, but upon their provocations impoſed, foreign, that being conſtrained and compreſt by this yoke, they might be kept from idolatry. In the 2d branch, it is granted by the Diatribiſt; And for the 3d, it muſt ly upon him to ſhew any prohibition of Chriſts or his Apoſtles, which forbids to do any the leaſt thing in the ſervice of God, which is not particularly commanded: Now this he hath not yet attempted to do (no not here, where it was moſt ſeaſonable and neceſſary to do it, the whole weight of his cauſe being divolved upon it) and though it be not incumbent on me to prove a negative, yet having all Chriſts prohibitions before my eyes in the New Teſtament, where this would be diſcernible, if there were any ſuch, and being ſure that I cannot diſcern the leaſt glimpſe of any ſuch, and withal remembring upon what grounds the Diatribiſt affirms it, viz. upon the Leviticalneſſe and ceremoniality of theſe free-will offerings, which hath already been competently diſproved, and how ſuſpicious and cautious he was in affirming that, that the Leviticalneſs ſeems to ly there, not daring to affirm any more, then that ſo it ſeemed, (and that I muſt ſuppoſe only to himſelf, no concurrence of any other mans judgement appearing with him) I doubt not but that I may with ſobriety aſſume, that there will never be produced by him any ſuch prohibition, and then there can be no way of ſuperſeding the concluſion, that uncommanded performances in the ſervice of God are ſtill lawful.
But leſt this ſhould ſtill ſeem but a leſſe perfect, being only a negative probation, I muſt (to adde yet more force to it) referre the Reader to the many poſitive inſtances, in the New Teſtament, of ſuch free-will performances, as contra-diſtinguiſht to thoſe which are under precept, ſet down in that Treatiſe of Will-worship, §. 30, 31, 32. &c. and much more largely in the Annotation on Col: 2. And then this will abſolutely ſuperſede all that he hath thought fit to obſerve here proemial to the inſtance of the Iudaical free-will offerings, or to reply to my three obſervations of them.
For as to that which he ſpecially inſiſteth on, and which only hath the leaſt ſhew of force in it, viz. Gods promulgate allowance of thoſe free-will offerings among the Iewes, without which he conceives it had been unlawful to the Iewes to offer them, 1. that allowance being no command, is an irrefragable proof that acts of uncommanded worship may be allowed and accepted by God: and 2dly. it muſt be ſome poſitive prohibition which is required to make any thing unlawful, the want of a declared allowance will not do it; and 3ly. there are many evidences under the New Teſtament of the like allowances for thoſe things, which are not under precept, yea, and ſometimes of more then allowance, of Gods accepting and rewarding of them.
And if, as he deſires to have it obſerved, thoſe voluntary oblations were a part of Gods worship, then, though I am not obliged to make good the parallel ſo farre, as that every rite and feſtival ſhall be a part of Gods worship alſo, yet certainly I may conclude 1. that foreign, Will-worship is ſuch, and that is the whole matter of our preſent debate; 2dly that the voluntary (I mean uncommanded ſpontaneous) uſe of theſe rites &c. is now as lawful, as it would have been, if they had been parts of worship, both by force of the argument, à majori ad minus, (parts of worship are much more conſiderable, and more ſpecially taken care for by God then rites and other ſuch circumſtances, the reaſons of which may be temporary and uncertain, upon ſome new or accidental emergents, whileſt the reaſons of performing, or inſtituting parts of Worship are moſt conſtant and certain) and alſo becauſe among the ſame Iewes, as we have uncommanded offerings, ſo we have uncommanded daies of worship, both feſtival, the feaſt of Purim, and of the Dedication of the altar, and faſting, that of the fourth and fift, and ſeventh and tenth monethmonth, in Zachary, and all theſe allowed by God among them, at leaſt approved, when uſed without any precedaneous ſpecial allowance.
And then, if it have any truth in it (which the Diatribiſt, when he thinks it for his turn, ſaith expreſly) that a ſpecial allowance of God was as good, and equivalent to a command, then, 1. So Gods approbation will be alſo; and 2dly I ſee not how he can avoid the inference, that then, it ſeems, theſe other feſtivals and faſts ſtood by as good an authority as did the weekly Sabbath of the fourth Commandment, or the great yearly Sabbath, the day of Expiation. But this by the way, what influence it will have in this whole ſcheme of Phenomena, I leave him to conſider.