The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 1 · Section 31 32 – Section 33
Sect. 31.32. But herein the Doctor is again miſtaken, that he ſayes, &c.
THe Doctor confeſſes, That [in the Church of Rome, p. 84. n. 6.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.] As if he had ſaid, the Church of England laid a weight and yoke upon her members, but not ſo great and heavy, as Rome layes upon hers: This is but little for her Commendation. Fatemur Ceremonias non eſſe nimis multiplicandas: Bellar. de effect. Sacr. c. 30.But were not the Ceremonies in the Church of England, many in themſelves, and compared with other Reformed Churches? Beſides the old ones, of Croſs in Baptiſme, Surplice, bowing as oft as Jeſus was named, kneeling at Sacrament, &c. and all thoſe many Holy-dayes, (which ſome people found to be a heavy yoke:) the New ones that were, by ſome well affected to Rome, even near upon impoſing; as bowings and cringings, at Church door, in the midſt, and Chancel, and at the Altar, and what elſe, God knows: would not theſe be a reaſonable number to deſerve the name of a multitude? And then I would know, what number of Ceremonies will make a burden and a yoke; will 20. or 30. or more do it? and if under 10. will that be no yoke? let the Doctor ſtate and ſettle his number. Then I ask again, why are 30. or 20. a yoke? is it becauſe of their number? why then, 10. is number ſufficient, to make a leſſer yoke: But if the reaſon be, (as indeed it is) becauſe they are but Traditions of men, Gal. 5.1.prejudicious to Goſpel ſimplicity, and to Chriſtian liberty, where Chriſt hath left us free; then any one ſuch Ceremony (I ſay not, neceſſary Circumſtance) is a little yoke, Who made them judges or dividers of tasks to their brethren? p. 111. n. 8. p. 85. n. 7.and why ſhould any Church aſſume a power, to yoke and burden thoſe, whom Chriſt hath left free? And this was Chamiers reaſon againſt Bellarmine; though the Doctor thought good to take no notice of it, to give it any anſwer. He ſays, [I ask a ſubtle queſtion; Whether if a Jew had obſerved ſome Jewiſh Ceremony, not foreſhewing Chriſt to come, or had deviſed any new Rites or Ceremonies, &c. would not the Apoſtle have blamed them for that as ſuperſtitious?] He muſt remember, we are ſpeaking of Ceremonies, made parts of Worſhip, (as thoſe Jewiſh were before) what ſayes he to the queſtion? He anſwers confidently, to both the parts; [No, *Yet often hath ſaid, that thoſe rites of the old law, are forbidden under Christ. p. 19. n. 32. and juſt now, that they were interdicted Chriſtians. p. 84. n. 5. n. 8.he would not: and to the laſt first; in asking the queſtion, I beg the queſtion, which is (ſayes he) whether every deviſed Rite or Ceremony, not commanded of God, be ſuperſtitious.] No ſuch matter, the queſtion is, of Ʋncommanded Worſhip, not of Circumſtances of Worſhip; no nor of Rites and Ceremonies, if not made parts of Worſhip; And is it probable that the Apoſtle would cry down the old Ceremonies, appointed by God, and parts of Worſhip, and give them leave to ſet up new ones, of their own Head? To the former part of a Jewes obſerving a Jewiſh Ceremony, &c. he anſwers as confidently, by a queſtion; n. 8.[What thinks be of the abſtinence from ſtrangled and blood, a Jewiſh Ceremony, and obſerved by Chriſtians? yet not blamed as Superſtitious.] I ſay this, firſt, as it was obſerved by Chriſtians, ſo it was ordered by the Apoſtles, who might do more then any Jew or Chriſtian. 2. It was not made now, a part of Worſhip (as before it was) but onelyonly to prevent a ſcandal to the weaker Jews: which is evident by this, beſides other reaſons, that after the Jewes were better inſtructed or hardened, the cuſtome ceaſed. And if the Doctor had a mind to plead for a Ceremony, he might better have pleaded for continuance of this, both for the Antiquity of it, before the Law, under the Law, and under the firſt plantation of the Goſpel, obſerved by Chriſtians, many ages, (ſays the Doctor) and alſo for the Authority of it, from the Apoſtles themſelves. He cannot produce ſo much for his beloved Feſtival. His other inſtance of the old Sabbath, is juſt the ſame; [He hath the practice of the Chriſtian Church, of the Apoſtles, and pureſt time, who continued the obſervation of it, with the Lords day, for ſome hundreds of years.] But I would ſay further, 1. The Apoſtles did not obſerve the Sabbath day, as now a part of Worſhip, as afore; but to take occaſion to preach the Goſpel, at their Aſſemblies, which they could not have on other dayes. 2. The following Churches, finding it in being amongſt the Jewes, continued it a while to gratifie them. 3. If they continued it, as a part of worſhip, I would ask the Doctor whether they did well, or he would juſtifie them, ſeeing it was before annul'd, and interdicted (as he ſayes.) 4. I muſt profeſs, there is much more to be ſaid for the obſervation of the old Sabbath, by the Jewiſh Sabbatarians, than can be ſaid for any of the Doctors Feſtivals; the Antiquity of it, the Authority of it, the Apoſtolical practice, (ſayes the Doctor) and the Churches obſervation of it for many ages) clearly manifeſted in ſtories. Whereas, the Feſtivals, (eſpecially his darling Chriſtmas) have no Apoſtolical Authority, or Practice, nor of the two firſt Ages of the Church, that can be made appear. I leave theſe to his conſideration.
The 32. Section of mine, p. 86. n. 9.he overlooks moſt of it, that moſt concern'd him to have anſwered, about his number of wholſome Ceremonies; of the efficacy put in them by ſome, to procure grace, &c. and who ſhall be the Judge of their number and wholeſomneſs. All this is waved, but a flaw or fault is found in my words, which takes him wholly up: that I affirm him to ſay, [If Ceremonies be but harmleſs, or negatively wholſom, there cannot be too much of them.] Truly, he that reades the words in his 41. Section, might eaſily be miſtaken, if he attend not heedfully to them: thus they are, [Ceremonies muſt be few and wholſom; yet if they be wholſom, not onelyonly negatively, but poſitively; not onelyonly harmleſs, but tending to edification, (for ſo ſalubrity imports) then there will be little reaſon, to accuſe them of exceſs.] Would not a man at firſt ſight take the meaning to be that which I have given? If they be wholeſom, negatively, harmleſly, though not onelyonly ſo, but poſitively, and tending to edification, &c. eſpecially if he eyed not the parentheſis following, which, all know, may be left out, and the ſenſe be ſtill entire. But I ſhall freely acknowledge my Inadvertency, and beg his pardon; I am ſure he needs mine much more, in mislating of the queſtion, ſo often (I ſay not, willingly) as if the controverſie was only, [Whether every Rite or Circumſtance, not commanded by God, be Superſtition. n. 7.] when he knows, it is about Uncommanded Worſhip.
Sect. 33. This queſtion of a competent Judge, &c.
THe Sophiſme charged upon me, n. 10.will rather reflect upon himſelf: I ſaid, what is Superſtition but folly and vanity, in the Worſhip of God: In vain do they Worſhip me, &c. [This is (ſays he) a parologiſme, ſuppoſing things to be convertible which are not: every Superſtition is folly and vanity, but every folly and vanity even in the Worſhip of God, is not Superſtition.] Duplex ſuperſtitio pernicioſa, & vana ſeu ſuperflua. Filuc. Trat. 24. c. 2. Fooliſh and vain Ceremonies or ſuperstitious.But that's the Doctors miſtake; I dare maintain, that every folly and vainty in the Worſhip of God, is Superſtition: which I prove from the definition of Superſtition: [Every exceſs in Religion, of mens deviſing, is folly, (as proceeding from mans Wiſdom, which is folly with God) and vanity, as wanting ground of it's performance; but every folly and vanity in Religion, of mens deviſing is an exceſs in Religion; ergo,] And from his own words, [In this caſe, (of too many Ceremonies) though any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault, yet this not the fault of Superſtition, but of folly and vanity.] He was ſpeaking of ſtore of inordinable, unfit Ceremonies in the Church of Rome, are not they Superſtitious? yet are they alſo fooliſh and vain. And when he ſayes, [any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault,] how will he reconcile this with what he had ſaid before: [If the exceſs be, in taking too many Rites and Ceremonies into the Worſhip of God, then (he haſtily aſſumes this) by this it is granted, Any one Ceremony, if made a part of Worſhip, (as the word ſignifies) is a Nimiety and exceſs in Religion, and ſuperſtitious: not the multitude only, as was ſaid abovethe Rites and Ceremonies themſelves are not Superſtitious, but the multitude onelyonly.] But now he ſayes, Any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault; Now that cannot be, if onelyonly the multitude of Ceremonies makes them ſuperſtitious; ſuppoſe ten Ceremonies, all ſingly indifferent and lawful; which of the ten is a Nimiety, and a fault? they are ſuppoſed all equally, good: or if the number onelyonly make them Superſtitious, how can ſo many goods, added together, make them bad? either therefore there muſt be ſome Rule in Scripture, how many Ceremonies may be inſtituted, and yet not be ſuperſtitious, unleſs they exceed that number; or elſe the Adding of one, any one Ceremony, to the Rule, is a Nimiety, and faulty in Superſtition. Let the Doctor reſolve us in this caſe.