The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 10
Sect. 10. Firſt he ſayes, he will give his reaſous, &c.
THat the Doctor in taking the word, foreign, in a good ſenſe, complies with ſome Papiſts, is evidently true; that moſt Papiſts take it, p. 125. n. 1.in an ill ſenſe, is alſo clearly true: yet [he confeſſes himſelf unable to give any anſwer, as not gueſſing wherein the objection lies:] But preſently after findes my meaning. The objection lies here, that the Doctor (for carrying on his own deſigne) had rather joyn and comply with thoſe few Papiſts, who oppoſe the Orthodox ſenſe of the word, then with our own Divines, and thoſe many Papiſts which agree with them, (which oft they do not) in the ill-ſenſe of the word. For not onelyonly my ſelf, and partners (as he ſcornfully ſpeaks) but the learnedſt Doctors and Biſhops of our Church do ſo expound it. That the Doctor ſhould be croſs to them, and to the more ingenuous learned Papiſts, is ſomething to be admired. But hear what he ſayes, p. 126. n. 3.1. [He borrowed not this Interpretation from any Popiſh Writer, but from the weighing of the text it ſelf, &c.] It may be ſo; yet may he comply with them; As Doctor Montacute profeſſed, he never read word of Arminius, yet was as perfect an Arminian, as if he had ſtudied him many years. It's no wonder that men of parts do meet in the ſame errour. As our vulgar people (on the other ſide) and all the Sectaries (for the moſt part) do meet, in the errours of Arminius; Ʋniverſal Redemption, Free-will to good and evil, &c. Yet never heard of, or read, Arminius, or the Doctors Fundamentalls. 2. Yet well fare a ſtout heart; He ſayes, [he ſhall not ſtartle at the Interpretation upon that account, many Papiſts having given true ſenſes of Scripture.] But ſure, then all our Divines agree with them, as they with us; truth forcing them to it. Now ſuch is the text or word before us; moſt of the Popiſh Interpreters take it in an ill-ſenſe, and render it, by Superſtition; and that's a ſtrong Teſtimony againſt an Adverſary. But, 3. he will retort the argument upon me; [The ſenſe which he hath given is owned by moſt of the Papiſts, then he that complies with moſt of the Papiſts, and not he which complies with ſome few, muſt be guilty of that crime of compliance.] Sure this muſt be, where thoſe few Papiſts, are in the right, and the moſt of Proteſtants and Papists are in the wrong; which if the Doctor ſhould affirm to be the preſent caſe, he begs the queſtion, and wrongs thoſe many learned men of the contrary judgement. And when I ſaid, n. 4.[I did believe his Interpretation was without any precedent, Proteſtant or Papiſt, ſ. 7.] I meant not abſolutely, to a man, but for the most part, (as after I ſaid.) Chamier ſayes the ſame, yet after inſtances in Bellarmine, taking it in a good ſenſe, and ſo does Salmeron too, hereafter: But Eſtius, as judicious, and ingenuous, as any Papiſt I ever met with, ſayes, in confutation of thoſe, that will needs take it ſo, In locum.Docere non poterunt foreign uſquam accipi in bonum. [They can never teach (or prove) that Will-worſhip is taken in a good ſenſe.]
But that the Doctor will undertake to prove; [firſt, p. 127. n. 1.Becauſe it's joyned with Humility.] I ſaid, Humility was not the laudable Chriſtian vertue, but a pretended humility, &c. He anſwers, [That ſerves his turn very fitly; for ſtill they are aſſociated, pretended Will-worſhip, with pretended humility; then the fault is in the fainedneſs of them both: but when they are truly ſuch, they are Chriſtian vertues, &c.] This was ſpoken to, partly before: Here was not onelyonly a ſhew of Will-worſhip, but real Will-worſhip, in thoſe obſervances: and not onelyonly a ſhew of Humility, but real Will humility, and Will-ſelf-denial, (for foreign, is applyable to all three, (as I noted from Eſtius.) Pretended humility may be in a commanded Worſhip, but affected, in a VVilworſhip.Now Will-humility, (which is more, then pretended Humility) is an Humility affected, not of Gods command or allowance, and ſo ſinful, as well as the Will-worſhip. Beſides, in the 18. verſe foreign, imports, a voluntary uncommanded Humility, and is joyned here with Worſhip; and both confeſſed by the Doctor to be impious: Why may it not be ſo underſtood here, thoſe Abſtinences being as impious, as worſhipping of Angels? There was in both, a ſhew of Chriſtian true Humility, but there was alſo a real Will-humility; as a real Worſhip, or Will-worſhip. Say the ſame of Will-ſelf-denial, or will-deviſed wayes of mortification: I inſtanced in the Romiſh Penances, made parts of Worſhip. To which he ſayes, p. 128. n. 4.[It is not their making it the Worſhip of God, that renders it culpable, but ridiculouſneſs, and unfitneſs to the end deſigned.] Let the Reader mark this, to make new ſorts of Worſhip, (ſuch as Romiſh Penances are) is not culpable. And yet the Doctor hath condemn'd all new ſorts of Worſhip, as impious and unlawfull, more then once. I wonder not now, that he juſtifies Will-worſhip. But he hopes to help himſelf, by ſaying, it is not that, [but the ridiculouſneſs and unfitneſs.] And why not both theſe? for they are both. He knows, there are other Ceremonies or practiſes named, which are not ridiculous, nor cruel laniations of themſelves, but ſeem ſad and grave exerciſes of devotion; as their Phariſaical Faſtings from fleſh, their Caelibate, Religious orders, &c. wherein they place much Religion, that is, make them ſpecial parts of Worſhip: will he ſay, this does not render them culpable? If ſo, he will ſay, I know no great reaſon, but he may, in moſt of their VVill-worſhip, joyn with them: and I fear, does make ſome things parts of Worſhip, which are as like theirs, as one egge is to another.
In his vindication of his ſecond argument; he again rejects that notion, of [ſome truth or reality of VViſdom] to be meant by the Apoſtle; yet comes of with a mind to have it thought poſſible. [The bare poſſibility that it might ſo ſignifie, n. 5. See p. 140. n. 3. and n. 25. If it ſhould be ſo taken, &c.ſuperſedes the proof from this text, for the criminouſnes of Will-ſhip.] When he knows, if he will not offer violence to the text, there is no poſſibility, it ſhould ſo ſignifie in this place. It was ill done to dazle the eyes of his Reader, with ſuch vain notions, as this.
We are next to conſider the ſenſe of 1 Tim. 4.8. [Bodily exerciſe profits little, or is profitable for a little] as he reads it: I ſaid, p. 129. n. 7.[there was a foreign, it's hurtfull and abominable:] The Doctor jeſts it away, firſt, comparing it with, foreign, Acts 26.28. But I ſay, there's a great difference between foreign, in this text, and foreign, in the other: which muſt be taken from the context here: for the ſenſe, look back to the former verſe 7. [Avoid profane and old wives fables, but exerciſe thy ſelf unto Godlineſs: for bodily exerciſe, &c.] Now ask Interpreters what is meant, by profane and old wives fables; Chryſoſt. will tell him, foreign, others refer it to thoſe Jewiſh fables, which he cenſured, 1 Tim. 1. Some to the Fables of the Simonians, of a good and an evil God, &c. But the beſt is to conſult the context: at ver. 3. where he tells of ſome, that ſhould (in time to come, ver. 1.) depart from the faith, ſo far, as [to forbid marriage, and command to abſtain from meats.] Theſe were thoſe profane and old wives fables, and call'd by them, foreign, exerciſes of Piety and mortification: To theſe the Apoſtle oppoſes, foreign, Godlineſs, that is, [the true and right VVorſhip of God;] as Eſtius well explaines it: [Exerciſe thou thy ſelf, in the true VVorſhip of God;] for, thoſe bodily exerciſes, though pretending to much Piety, profit nothing; that is, made matters of Religion, and parts of Worſhip (as they were by ſome Hereticks, in thoſe, or in following times) are hurtful and abominable. Thoſe exerciſes of Religion, in abſtinence from meats and marriage, were long ago exemplified in the Gnoſticks, (of whom with the Romaniſts, this is a propheſie) and perhaps in ſome, in the Apoſtles times, not yet come to deteſt marriage as damnable, &c. but onelyonly placing ſome Religion in them; and calling them foreign. Of theſe the Apoſtle ſpeakes modeſtly, they profit little, that is nothing; though he mean, they are hurtful, and indeed abominable. And if the Apoſtle had meant it, of thoſe foreign, which the Doctor underſtands by them, he would not have ſaid, they profit a little; but very much; not to the body onelyonly, as ſome, but to the ſoul alſo; to make more *See p. 131. n. 15. & n. 17. The excellencies of Faſting. De jejunio non poteſt hic locus accepi, quia non eſt corporalis exercitatio, ſed ſpiritualis. Eſtius in locum: vide laudes jejunii. The Doctor makes Faſting VVorſhip, p. 130. n. 12, 13. and ſo Piety, and not a bodily exerciſe.acceptable to, and rewardable by God, as under no command, and being voluntary oblations, and Free-will-offerings, which (ſayes the Doctor) may expect greater reward in Heaven, then any commanded ſervice. Beſides, the oppoſition of Godlineſs to thoſe exerciſes, argues, they were conſidered as ill and hurtful by the Apoſtle; For abstinence from meat and marriage (thoſe bodily exerciſes) in the Doctors conceit of them, are great parts of Religion, Piety, Devotion; and therefore could not well be oppoſed to Godlineſs; the Apoſtle certainly looks at ſomething before, under the notion of bodily exerciſe, elſe he could not ſay ſo abruptly, foreign, for bodily exerciſe, (before intended and expreſſed in ſome other terms) whether the Jewiſh obſervations or abſtinences from ſome meats, ver. 3. as Chryſoſt. or thoſe abſtinences of fore-propheſied hereticks, from meats and marriage. ver. 3. Ad p. 109. n. 4.profits nothing; that is, is hurtful, and deſtructive; as the Doctor ſaid above. And theſe are the grounds of my Interpretation. If the Doctor, have any better, let him impart them, or enjoy his own opinion.
Somewhat he ſayes, to that which I ſaid, [of making thoſe abstinences parts of Religion, or Worſhip] which he calls, [an help at a dead lift,] p. 130. n. 10. n. 11.and diſputes againſt that notion, ſaying, [They that make abſtinence from marriage a thing acceptable to God, and a ſtate of perfection, do not count it a Worſhip unleſs in a genervl ſenſe, as every vertuous act performed to God may be ſtiled Worſhip, and ſo this, a Will-worſhip.] Here firſt we have a diſtinction of Worſhip, which ſhould have come long ago; that we might know in what ſenſe the Doctor took it, when he ſpeaks of Will-worſhip. Something was ſaid of the word worſhip, p. 93. n. 3. but then it was onelyonly diſtinguiſhed from [external Ceremonies, or Circumſtances, which are not parts but accidents of Worſhip.] And nothing was called Worſhip, but [the vertue it ſelf, or ſome act thereof, together with the degrees and number of thoſe acts] But now we have a diſtinction, of Worſhip, in a ſpecial, and a general ſenſe, as every vertuous act (of the ſecond Table) may be ſtiled Worſhip.: which is moſt improperly. 2. What meanes the Doctor to talk of Will-worſhip, and voluntary Worſhip, if they be not Worſhip, but in a general ſenſe, as every virtuous act of righteouſneſs, &c. may be ſtiled Worſhip? that is, not an Elicite act of Religion or Worſhip, but an Imperated act of it; as viſiting the poor and widow, is by Saint James called, pure Religion: If thus he meant, why did he not tell us ſo at firſt, to prevent both miſtake and trouble? 3. Thoſe abſtinences forbidden by our Apoſtle, were formerly acts of Religion and parts of Worſhip properly, and were ſo held out ſtill by the falſe Teachers; not Worſhip, as every vertuous act may improperly b… called Worſhip. 4. The Papiſts for certain do make them parts of Worſhip, place Religion, in their Caelibate, Faſtings, and Religtous Orders, &c. not in a generall ſenſe, but proper and ſpecial Worſhip. Will the Doctor yeild, that they that do ſo make them parts of Worſhip, are ſuperſtitious, and this is unlawful. Will-worſhip? I ſhall ask no more. Laſtly to make things more acceptable to God, becauſe not commanded; to place more vertue and more perfection in things, then God hath placed in them, is confeſſed to be ſuperstitious: But this the Doctor does ſufficiently; and this we call Will-worſhip. And that we may not go far for an inſtance; the Doctor makes Faſting, a Sacrifice, n. 12. and a ſpecies of Worſhip, as well as prayer, and almſgiving, and calls it [an acceptable worſhip of God,] as Papiſts do; p. 130 n. 13. See p. 14. n. 20. Faſting and Alms, two ſorts of Gods Worſhip.which our Divines deny to be Worſhip, but onelyonly an help and furtherance to worſhip.
By the way, the Doctor, as he makes Worſhip of that which is not Worſhip, ſo he degrades ſome Worſhip, and makes it none: p. 131. n. 14.[Hearing of Sermons is not any acknowledged branch of Worſhip.] I know he addes the word (bare) to hearing; but bare hearing of the word by profeſſion is Worſhip, though not pure and right Worſhip; as bare praying with the lips, is Worſhip; but vain Worſhip: [In vain do they Worſhip me &c. and bare preaching of the word, is Worſhip, though not true VVorſhip. But the Doctor makes hearing of Sermons no Worſhip; when he ſayes, [Hearing of Sermons, in caſe it ſhould be taught, or aſſume to be a part of Gods VVorſhip;] As if to teach it to be a part of VVorſhip, were an aſſumption, or preſumption. Indeed this is ſome of the old language, that Preaching and hearing of Sermons was no Worſhip, but the whole VVorſhip of God, ſtood in reading and hearing the Liturgie.
That the Doctor placed the illneſs of thoſe bodily exerciſes, in this, when they are taught as neceſſary, to the defaming of meats and marriage, I found no fault with, but that he placed it in that onelyonly; I expected that he ſhould have ſpoken to my queſtion; p. 133. n. 19.[If they taught them not in that ſenſe, but onelyonly placed Religion and the VVorſhip of God in them, as Papiſts do, were they not ill?] To this he ſayes juſt nothing, but empties his Notebook, to prove, what is not denied.
By all Interpreters, I meant, the greateſt part; p. 134. n. 22.and he cannot name any, it ſeems, before Grotius, a Neoterick, n. 23. &c.Caſſandrian Authour. As for his queſtion, and what here he again repeats, it is ſpoken to before, upon the word, foreign. I ſhall onelyonly adde, that he varies the queſtion, by altering and putting in words not in the text, piety, for wiſdom, and (in reſpect) of Will-worſhip: the words are, a ſhew of Wiſdom in Will-worſhip; that is, thoſe abſtinences wicked enough, made a Worſhip, by thoſe men: And here it is, that ſome would have the adverſative foreign, to be underſtood; [but in Will-worſhip,] that is, in Falſe-worſhip, deviſed by the will of men, it hath a ſhew of Wiſdom, but is but Will worſhip; which ſuppoſes, the VVillworſhip, to be ill and impious. And the Doctor himſelf ſayes, n. 24.[I confeſs, that ſuppoſing VVill-worſhip as ill, as the Diatribist would have it, a thing may be fooliſh or impious, in reſpect of VVill-worſhip.] To clear this, change but the word, VVillworſhip, into *So the vulgar, and others read it.Superſtition, or Idolatry; and then ask, may not thoſe abſtinences have a ſhew of Wiſdom, in reſpect of Superſtition in them? or, and yet [be but Superſtition?] which moſt Interpreters take to be the ſenſe of the words. Now Superstition, amongſt Chriſtians, is alwayes taken in an ill-ſenſe, as hath been proved above: put another like queſtion, may not worſhipping of Angels have a ſhew of Wiſdom in Idolatry; or, and yet [be but Idolatry?] All the queſtion then is, whether, there be any VVill-worſhip good; which (as we deny) it concerns him to prove, becauſe he is on the Affirmative part, and muſt not beg the queſtion. He again varies the queſtion, when he reads, n. 26.Piety for VViſdom, here: [How can a thing have a ſhew of Piety, in reſpect of that very thing which is impious?] The words ſhould be thus, how can a thing have a ſhew of VViſdom in reſpect of that thing which is impious? changing Wiſdom into Piety, and putting in (in reſpect) makes all this difficulty. For mark his next queſtion; [Can any thing be repreſented to me, n. 27.as having ſo much as a ſhew of Piety, in reſpect of luſt, or rage diſcernible in it:] He ſhould firſt have ſaid, a ſhew of wiſdom (not of piety) and in luſt, and rage, (not in reſpect of them) can a thing have a ſhew of wiſdom, which is but luſt and rage? And then I would anſwer, firſt, it may: and ſecondly, the queſtion is well laid; [For luſt and rage are confeſſedly for kinde, wicked things; but VVorſhip may be true or falſe, &c.] He asks, [whether VVill-worſhip may be ſo, true or falſe? p. 136. n. 28.that's the word we contend about.] What if we ſay, it may not, but is always falſe? [Then it is directly parallel, with luſt and rage, they always ill and this alſo.] Why that's it we aſſert; but then ſee afore how he altered the queſtion: I ſaid VVorſhip (not Will worſhip) may be true or falſe: The truth of Worſhip conſiſts, in the Inſtitution or Command of God; the falſhood, in the Inſtitution of men. Now that's VVill-worſhip, and therefore it is always falſe. We do not ſay, nor can with reaſon ſay, VVill-worſhip is true or falſe, but is always falſe; and therefore the Doctor (begging this diſtinction) is far enough from a demonstration pretended.
When I ſaid, [The words are not, p. 137 n. 31.which things have a ſhew of wiſdom, and of VVill-worſhip, &c. but in VVill-worſhip: and if faulty becauſe they had onelyonly a ſhew of VViſdom, they will be more faulty, that they had but a ſhew of VVorſhip.] I ſaid in the laſt clauſe, too little; for here was more then a ſhew of VVill-worſhip, and VVill humility, &c. even a reality of them. Now VVillworſhip being Worſhip deviſed by the will of man, (not Commanded by God, which onelyonly makes true VVorſhip) it muſt neceſſarily be Falſe-worſhips and ſo ever unlawful; as was ſaid above. He may compare this verſe with the 18. There was in the worſhipping of Angels, a ſhew of Humility, and a ſhew of Worſhip; but there was more, a reality of voluntary humility, and a reality of voluntary Worſhip: and both of theſe, miſtaken and impious: ſo in theſe abſtinences, there was alſo a ſhew of Worſhip, and a ſhew of humility, &c. but there was more; a reality of Will-worſhip, and of will humility, &c. and all theſe, impious Worſhip, humility, and ſelf-denial; being all deviſed by the will of man, not commanded by God. This may ſatisfie any reaſonable man. VVill-worſhip then is not taken in a good ſenſe here, becauſe it is joyned with humility and ſelf-denial; but contrarily, they are here both taken in all ill ſenſe, becauſe they are joyned with VVill-worſhip, VVill-deviſed VVorſhip, which is alwayes falſe; both becauſe it is not commanded (but forbidden) by God, and alſo, becauſe invented and inſtituted by men: And now the Doctor may ſee, that VVill-worſhip, is parallel to Judas traiterous kiſs, p. 138. n. 32.and Papiſts bowing to ſtocks and ſtones. And that uncommandedneſs of Worſhip makes it ill, is not onelyonly ſuppoſed, but proved in the former Tract. I ſay uncommanded VVorſhip, not uncommanded Circumstances. The Doctor may now conſider, how well he hath vindicated his ſecond argument, for the good ſenſe of the word; and I leave him all that wholeſome heap of Rbetorick, n, 34.to enjoy himſelf, who beſt deſerves it.