The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 1 · Section 23-24 – Section 30
Section 23, 24. The ſecond Inconſequence he ſayes, is this, [That the uſe of Ceremonies or Rites in the Worſhip of God, if not diſtinctly preſcribed, &c.]
THis I ſaid, I believed was a miſtake, but rather thus, That what Rite, &c. is made a part of Worſhip, &c. is ſuperſtitious. Now ſayes he; [This is brief, p. 77. n. 1.but very conſiderable; and might well make an end of this debate, between the Diatribiſt and me. 'Tis the yielding me the whole cauſe, and I have no more to contend for, but onelyonly peace.] n. 3.But then, why did he ſay juſt now, [The queſtion muſt be ſet not of Ʋncommanded Worſhip, but of Ceremonies, &c.] And he being certified of this my ſenſe, long ago, why hath he contended thus long about nothing, to violate that pretended peace? Do I, or any of our Divines, ſay, that Ʋncommanded Rites, &c. are ſuperſtitious, unleſs they be made parts of Worſhip? &c. Yes, he would perſwade me, that I know ſome, [who condemne uncommanded Rites as ſuperſtitious, p. 77. n. 2.becauſe ſuper ſtatutum, ſuch as kneeling at the Euchariſt, Croſs in Baptiſme, &c.] Truly I can ſafely profeſs I know none that do condemn thoſe as ſuperſtitious, but that they conceived them, to be made (by ſome) parts of Worſhip. He ſhould have done well, to name ſome of them. That he will by and by, but firſt, he askes, [Why then did he undertake the confutation of the Tract of Superſtition, which, he muſt know, intended no more then this, &c.] But I believe, he intended more than this, in that Tract, viz. to plead ſecretly for ſome Ʋncommanded Worſhip; which he newly made the onelyonly matter of conteſt between us. Yet if he will needs know the reaſons of my undertaking that Tract; theſe they were. 1. To vindicate the truth, from his interpolutions, and obſcurations, in Theſi, of the full ſenſe of the word Superſtition. 2. Becauſe I ſaw, he pleaded for Ʋncommanded Worſhip, as well as Circumſtances, &c. 3. Becauſe in Hypotheſi, I ſaw, he makes ſome of his Rites, &c. parts of Worſhip; as his Feſtival in particular; which yet elſewhere, he calls but a Circumſtance of Worſhip: Theſe were ſome of my reaſons; if I have any more, he ſhall hear them anon.
But though I know none, that condemne Ʋncommanded Rites or Ceremonies as ſuperſtitious, &c. yet he may know ſome; p. 78. n. 5.[Who have abſtained from the uſe of ſome Ceremonies, meerly upon this ſcore, becauſe commanded by their Civil and Eccleſiaſtical Superiors.] I fear this is (as he calls ſuch charges) a calumny; They were conſcientious godly men, and gave all due Honour and obedience to their Superiors, in all Indifferent things; and that they ſhould abſtain from ſome Ceremonies, meerly upon this ſcore, becauſe Commanded, &c. is to me incredible. They might, and did abſtain from ſome Ceremonies, as too many, and burthenſome, but eſpecially as they eſteemed them to be made parts of Worſhip; which they have I think, proved ſome of them to be. The Doctor himſelf condemns the number and burdenſomeneſs of them, and as made new ſorts of Worſhip: and ſo they are agreed; and pity it is, he and they ſhould fall out again: But he will break the peace, what ever it coſt him; [Inſtead of naming thoſe men, without their conſent, for that muſt now be the vilifying them, &c. as not underſtanding Chriſtians, in the Diatribiſt cenſure; he will name one, upon whom he may paſs what judgement he pleaſe; the Diatribiſt himſelf, p. 31. Where, firſt, he hath theſe words, If men may judge what are fit for number, and wholeſomneſs, every after-comer, may think himſelf as wiſe as he that went before, till they have loaded the Chriſtian above the Jew. 2. That the Learned Chamier, &c.] How will he hence prove his calumny, againſt me and learned Chamier? (glad I am, of ſo good company) Why thus: [If the objection be, becauſe men are Judges of the number, &c. as they are, when they command, then they that abstain from Indifferent Ceremonies upon this ſcore, moſt abstain becauſe commanded by lawful Authority.] Oh, the Doctors conſcience! Do any men abſtain from Indifferent Ceremonies? it is, from Uncommanded Worſhip, at leaſt as they ſuppoſe. He hath therefore varied the queſtion; And if he had but looked back to the former page of mine, p. 29. he had found that, which might have ſilenced all this vain and falſe diſcourſe. There I ſay; [If men or any number of men, may be competent Judges in the Worſhip of God; (in the Worſhip, not in the Circumſtances of Worſhip) will not the wiſdom and wit of man expatiate here, and grow wanton?] But if we extend it to his Ceremonies; are not my words every way true? Does not long experience of all ages, make it evident, that the Wiſdome and Wit of men hath herein grown wanton? Let the Church of Rome be the inſtance; have not they loaded the Chriſtian above the Jew? and the *See p. 38.Greek Church, as much? And I retort it upon the Doctor. If the Judges of Ceremonies for number and wholeſomneſs, have ſuch large unqueſtionable Authority, [to appoint what Ceremonies, they ſhall judge moſt uſeful, moſt for edification, and most agreeable to the analogy of faith.] (As he aſſerts, they have, of Feſt. ſ. 9.) Then, the Judges of the next age, having the very ſame power, with their predeceſſors, may add as many more, (and the next after them as many more) as they ſhall think uſeful to thoſe ends; till they have made the number great, and burthen intollerable. This conſequence is unavoidable, upon his Antecedent. It therefore concerns him (as well as me) to expedite himſelf out of this ſnare: How ſhall this be done, to free us both? I conceive one of theſe wayes; 1. That the power of the Church reaches onelyonly to Circumſtances of Worſhip, reſpecting Order, and Decency; and then, as any Wiſe-man can eaſily determine them, by the Light of Reaſon, as Time, Place, Geſture in Worſhip; ſo they will be very Few, and cannot well be Multiplied, being the ſame or like, in all ages of the Church. And this I think, is moſt ſuitable to the Simplicity of Goſpel Worſhip. 2. Or elſe, that if the Church take upon her, to appoint new Ceremonies, above what the Scripture holds out, ſhe makes them parts of Worſhip; (as the Church of Rome, does all her Ceremonies, and ſome did ſome of ours) which is unlawful. And this was the opinion of thoſe who abstained from our Ceremonies, that they were made parts of Worſhip, and therefore unlawful. Theſe things ſatisfie me; If they do not pleaſe the Doctor, let him take his own way to expedite himſelf. Sure if he were but conſtant to himſelf, and did not confound Circumſtances and Ceremonies, putting one for another, as if they were the ſame; he might remember, what he ſaid afore; [That ſome Rites and Circumſtances of time, place and gesture, are abſolutely neceſſary to Religion;] That was his concluſion. pag. 7. n. 5. If then he means by Rites and Ceremonies, nothing but ſuch Circumſtances of Worſhip; we grant the Church, to be Judge of them: But if he take Ceremonies, for more then Circumſtances, new Rites of Worſhip, or new kinds of Worſhip (as ſometimes he does.) I could eaſily name the man, that is ſuperſtitious, in defending and practiſing uncommanded Worſhip, but ſhall reſerve that, till a fitter time. I ſhall now meet the Doctor, p. 79. n. 6.at his own weapon, his own inſtance; [He ſuppoſes, howing when Jeſus is named in the publique Worſhip, (or when Chriſt, or the Holy Ghoſt) to be in it ſelf lawful or indifferent; he ſuppoſes again, then, this and a few other ſuch Ceremonies may ſafely be uſed by a man, without command: He now demands, may a few, three or four be commanded by Supreme Power? If they may, then men may be Judges, what Ceremonies are fit, for number and wholeſomneſs, which is contrary to the words of the Diatribiſt.] But I demand of him, if this be not a very Sophiſme? For firſt, will he ſay, bowing at the Name of Jeſus, is a new Worſhip, or onelyonly a new Circumstance of Worſhip; if the latter, it's beſide the queſtion, and improperly call'd a Ceremony. 2. Will he ſay, that any thing, in it ſelf Indifferent may be brought into the Worſhip of God? hath the Church ſuch a power, to inſtitute Ceremonies, of what is ſo indifferent? will not this make them quickly to be many, to be burdenſome, and bring confuſion into the Church? ergo, It's indifferent (he ſays) to bow, at the Name of Jeſus, of Chriſt, of the Holy Ghoſt; may the Church of this age command men to bow in publick, when, & as often as all theſe three are named? If ſo; the name of God, Jehovah, Lord, Almighty, and all his Attributes, are in themſelves Indifferent to be bowed at, when they are named. May not the Church of this, or the next age, command her members to bow, when any or all theſe are named? what confuſion would this breed? yet ſo ſhe may, by the Doctors arguing. If ſhe may not multiply Ceremonies of that kind, [then it ſeemes (his words) what was before lawful and indifferent, is now ſince it was commanded, and by no other change, become unlawful:] Let him try, how he will eſcape.
I had ſaid, they abſtained, becauſe they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of Worſhip: p. 30. n. 8.[Theſe words are either a calumnie againſt the Governors of the Church, or elſe they aſſert what he diſclaims ſo ſolemnly.] Neither of theſe is true; 1. n. 9.Not a calumy againſt the the Church, [as if they thought the Ceremonies ſimply neceſſary, by Divine Law, though ſhe had not commanded them.] This is none of my meaning (whatever ſome might think) but becauſe the Refuſers, thought they were ſo obtruded, or being obtruded, were by themſelves thought to be not Indifferent, but parts of Worſhip. Suppoſe they did erre, in ſo thinking; yet they did not abſtain meerly becauſe they were commanded (which is the Doctors calumny) by lawful Authority; they rather thought the Authority unlawful, that obtruded on them things perhaps indifferent, as parts of Worſhip. 2. Nor do I mean, that being in themſelves indifferent, they became neceſſary, by the Churches command; and ſo made parts of Worſhip, as that may poſſibly ſignifie parts of obedience, to Superiors, by Gods command: For neither do I ever call that obedience to Superiors, in the ſecond Table a part of Worſhip, nor ever ſay, that the Churches command, can truly make them ſo, and neceſſary: But I meant (as before) they that abſtained, did it upon this ground, becauſe they thought them to be made parts of Worſhip, and ſo not, upon his, becauſe they were commanded by Superiors. n. 11.And that I may take in the next; [becauſe uſed and abuſed by Papiſts, and by them made parts of Worſhip:] It's evident that Papists do make all or moſt of their Ceremonies parts of Worſhip; Hear what favor he ſhews to Papiſts that he may lave himſelf from guilt: [Truly I cannot with truth thus affirm of the Papiſts, that any of the Ceremonies which we uſe from them, were ever by them accounted parts of Worſhip, but onelyonly as vſeful wholeſome Ceremonies appointed by the Church.] Cannot he ſay this of them, when he knows, they place the Worſhip of God in them? Are not their Holy-days made and accounted parts of Worſhip? Is not Caelibate, and vowed Virginity, Poverty, &c. made a part of Worſhip? Is not the croſs in Baptiſme ſo eſteemed by them? Truly if the Papiſts do not make thoſe Ceremonies parts of Worſhip; our men (that have borrowed them from them) are the more to blame, who (what ever they ſay againſt it) do practically make and obſerve ſome of them as parts of Worſhip, well nigh as much, as thoſe that were inſtituted by Chriſt, or his Apoſtles, as ſhall appear hereafter.
Hence, the Doctors Apology for himſelf, by miſcenſuring of me, is the more blameable; [That all his skill lies in mannaging that one fallacy; putting all Ceremonies and inſtitutions of the Church, under that one ambiguous phraſe of uncommanded Worſhip, perſwading himſelf, or others, that we retroduce new parts of Worſhip.] I know no fallacy here at all; For that it is untrue, that I put all Ceremonies under that ambiguous phraſe, appears, by my profeſſion often, and one newly cited here; from my 28. ſect. [Some Rites and Ceremonies of Worſhip, are rather called Circumſtances of Worſhip, time, place, geſture, which are common Adjuncts of religious and civil affairs, then parts of Worſhip.] Where it's evident, both that I take Ceremonies onelyonly for Circumſtances of Worſhip, and alſo oppoſe them, to parts of Worſhip. And the Doctor himſelf hath as fully and plainly profeſſed againſt all Ʋncommanded Worſhip (ſuch is all Willdeviſed, and falſe, impoſed Worſhip) as I have done; I hope without Ambiguity. Let's hear what he aſſerts; p. 81. n. 12.[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 of God, have yet been lawful, &c.] If this were all he ſaid, we might well agree; But I fear the Doctors skill lies in mannaging that one fallacy, under that one ambiguous phraſe, of Ʋncommanded Worſhip. See ad p. 73. n. 10.For he does allow of ſome Ʋncommanded Worſhip, (he calls it after, Will-worſhip, not commanded Worſhip) and makes it more acceptable, and rewardable, then Commanded Worſhip: as we ſhall hear in due place: And I ſhall conclude with his own words, [If he would really and in earneſt clear himſelf, theſe debates were certainly concluded.]
Sect. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. We acknowledge this aſſertion, that, [Superſtition may and doth in ſome Authentick Writers, Sacred eſpecially, ſignifie a Nimiety, or Exceſs in Religion, &c.
THere is nothing ſaid to theſe Sections, p. 82. n. 1.but what hath been ſaid many times heretofore; and therefore I lightly paſs them by. OnelyOnly deſiring the Reader, to take notice, that the Doctor having given three reaſons againſt my Aſſertion, [That Superſtition ſignifies an exceſs,] and I having ſpoken to them all, he replies not a word to them; but ſeemes to yield all, and yet upon my Preface, denies, that ever he denied Superstition to be an exceſs; See ad p. 20. n. 2. His onelyonly evaſion is, That thoſe Divines condemn Superſtition, but mean not by it, every exceſs in Worſhip not preſcribed, as that comprehends all Ceremonies, and Feſtivals not commanded by God; and thoſe are the men, he meant, when he ſaid, [They are ſo few & modern, & of ſo ſmall authority, that ſcarce worth producing.] But firſt, I am confident the Doctor cannot produce one modern Divine of note, that ever ſimply condemned all Ceremonies, and Feſtivals, &c. for themſelves did obſerve ſome Ceremonies and Feſtivals, taking occaſion to preach upon them, &c. they onelyonly condemn'd them as they were made parts of Worſhip, equally holy, with the Lords Day, &c. 2. I provoked the Doctor to give us the names of thoſe many, Ancient, Authentick Fathers, &c. that take Superſtition, in a good ſenſe; He uſes not to be ſo ſparing, &c. and yet not one produced. Whereas I have given him many, that take it in an ill ſenſe, p. 82. n. 2.for exceſs in Religion. [All Divines condemn Superſtition, but mean not by it every exceſs in Worſhip not preſcribed, as that phraſe comprehends all Ceremonies and Feſtivals not commanded by God.] But firſt, all Divines do condemn Superſtition, for this reaſon, becauſe it is an exceſs, or addition of Worſhip not preſcribed, according to the School-mans definition of it, before given; and therefore muſt neceſſarily mean it of every exceſs in Worſhip not preſcribed. 2. If Ceremonies and Feſtivals not commanded by God, be made parts of Worſhip, by men, as they are by Papiſts and the Doctor himſelf, they mean by that phraſe, to comprehend all Ceremonies and Feſtivals not commanded by God. And theſe Divines, are many, and of no ſmall Authority; though the Doctor ſlights and contemns them. And I might ask the Doctor, Why is Daemonum cultus called Superſtition, but becauſe it is an exceſs in Worſhip; adding the Daemons or falſe Gods, to the object or Rule of Worſhip, in the firſt Commandment: Juſt ſo it is in all the other three Commandments, the Superſtition in them is an exceſs, in the matter, manner, or time of Worſhip, not preſcribed by God.
Section 30. Of this kinde are thoſe three ſort of ſignificant Ceremonies, &c.
I Expected here, n. 4. p. 83.that the Doctor would have ſhewed his opinion of ſignificant Ceremonies, (not thoſe mentioned by me and him, but) uſed in our Church, as Croſs in Baptiſme, Surplice, &c. & have declared his Judgement, whether ſuch ſignifications put upon them by men, do not make them Religious Ceremonies, and ſo parts of Worſhip, and conſequently ſuperſtitious: But he wiſely waves the debate, and falls upon the obſervation of Decency, Ʋniformity, and Obedience to Superiors; which he muſt mean, of Circumſtances of Worſhip, not of new ſorts or kindes of Worſhip. No Obedience is due to Superiors, when they command ſuch: But he as wiſely lets go the reſt; [when they are taught, as making the obſervers more Religious, then others, or more acceptable to God, &c.] I ask now, if a man ſhould put Religion *That a man is heard, non ſaid it.in a gesture, in a place, &c. Or think that it will make quia precatur, ſed quia ibi. He knows what B. him more acceptable to God: Whether this would not make them parts of Worſhip, and ſo ſuperſtitious? ergo, If a man ſhould place more Religion, Holineſs, acceptation, &c. in praying in a Church privately, in kneeling at the Supper, then in ſitting or ſtanding (all being left indifferent) let the Doctor ſay, whether this be Superſtition, or no: I believe many of our Ignorant, and Formal Proteſtants do ſo, though the Doctor himſelf perhaps, will ſay, he looks onelyonly at the command of his Superiors, enjoyning that geſture.