The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 1 · Section 15
Section 15. Having thus made way for our debate with the Doctor by ſhewing the nature of Superſtition, &c.
THe offence taken at this Section is, p. 55. n. 2.that I ſay, [commonly thoſe that are moſt ſuperſtitious, are moſt confident, of their Innocency and Piety, &c.] The Doctor would wiſh and hope to make it convertible; [They which are moſt confident of their Innocency, &c. are moſt Superſtitious.] So to retort it upon me: Truly, what I ſaid, was true enough, and needed not to have troubled him, unleſs he were guilty: for I expreſly applied it to Romiſh Proſelytes; and of them it's too evident, the moſt Superſtitious, are moſt confident: It was no great charity in him to invert the propoſition, & put it ſlily upon me, whom he cannot charge me with any one kind of Superſtition, unleſs it be perhaps with Negative Superſtition; n. 3.which here [he allowes me for my portion.] Not that he accuſes me of Negative Superſtition, (for I know he cannot) but that he grants me, the firſt kinde of Superſtition, viz. Negative, to be truely one kinde of Superſtition: but little cauſe to make ſport with that Conceſſion, if he conſider the conſequence thereof a little above. But he ſayes, n. 4.[He ſhall much accuſe himſelf, if he cannot juſtifie his notion of the word Superſtition, to be as good, as Mr. C. his Super ſtatutum.] Enough hath been ſaid to Super ſtatutum, already; I owned not that Notation of it. But if he will ſpeak to the thing, I dare venture my skill, that he cannot juſtifie his notion of it, in the largeſt ſenſe of it, ſo well as I can this, of Super ſtatutum: that all Superſtition is above the Statute Law of Worſhip: but all Superſtition is not Superſtitum Cultus.
Here ſhould come in my 16. Section.
Let's hear what he ſayes; firſt, to clear me from owning that Notation, he takes notice, p. 56. n. 1.[That I rather reſted in the definition of the School-man, as afore] then in that notation of others; and yet how often would he perſwade his Reader, that was my Notation? Then ſee how he juſtifies his own: [My ſecond Section was not to give any compleat definition of Superſtition; n. 2.but, &c.] But ſhould he not here, or ſomewhere elſe, have given us a Complete definition of it; eſpecially having one provided to his hand by the School-man? whom he follows at heels ſometimes. Was not that definition avoided on purpoſe, that he might cloud and cover his own Superſtition, by the old Heatheniſh uſage of the word? We enquire not ſo much, what it ſignified of old, amongſt Heathens, but what in after times, amongſt Christian Authors, Ancient and Moderne. None whereof (I dare confidently affirm it) take the word in a good ſenſe, or uſe it any otherwiſe, then for to ſignifie a vice, contrary to Religion in the exceſs; as ſhall appear anon. …ee his 46. and 47 ſ. of Superſt.But he ſayes, [I no where grant exceſſive fear of the Deity, to be another kinde of Superſtition, among the Heathens.] It's prov'd above, that Slaviſh fear of the Deity, is an exceſs in Religion, and that's Superſtition in the School-mans definition. And I ask whether that Fear of God which the Epicureans would have diſpatched out of the world, was not that cowardly, trembling fear, dreading the Gods, as ſo many Tyrants, &c. if ſo, the Doctor may [go herd himſelf among the Epicureans, with the famiſhing prodigal] which ſcornfully he puts upon me. For I do not believe the Doctor will allow ſuch a fear in mens hearts or in the world: If it was not ſuch a Slaviſh fear, but a juſt and moderate fear of puniſhment for ſin, I have pleaded for it, as much as he: But foreign, I ſaid, did not ſignifie at firſt, or in the proper notation, the worſhipping of Daemons, but a ſlaviſh fear of the Deity; p. 58. n. 3.dreading the Gods as ſo many Tyrants, &c. An irrational fear of the Gods, as he ſpeaks; wiſhing there were no God; as Plutarch hath it. But this was ſpoken to, above, at large: and proved to be an exceſs, and ſuperſtitious.
He charges me here again for extending Superſtition to all the four Commandments of the firſt Table; p. 57. n. 7.[when I know Aquinas made it a breach peculiar to the firſt Commandment.] In the Doctors gloſs, he does, but in no mans elſe. For Aquinas makes one and the firſt Species of Superſtition to be, when Worſhip is given cui non debet, that is, to the Creature; and that is, referred to the firſt Commandment, God alone is to be worſhipped. The ſecond is prout non debet, in an undue manner; which may extend either to the matter of Worſhip, when not preſcribed by himſelf: which the Doctor calls, p. 59. n. 3. [The giving of falſe. Worſhip to the true God:] which is ſpecially reduced to the ſecond Commandment: or to the geſture of Worſhip, performed in an unreverent manner, which is refered to the third Commandment. The third (with him) is, quando non debet; in regard to the unſeaſonableneſs of the time; which he exemplifies, by worſhipping God now after the Jewiſh manner, with Circumciſion, Sacrifices, &c. But theſe belong rather to the matter of inſtituted Worſhip, and were reduced to the ſecond Commandment. The quando non debet, ſhould rather have reference to the Sabbath, and Feſtivals, aboliſhed by Chriſt, or now made parts of Worſhip by men, with reſpect to the fourth commandment. But this Aquinas durſt not meddle with, not daring to touch the Romiſh Superſtitions, in this particular of Feſtivals: And if he had done ſo, he had made Superſtition a breach of all the four Commandments, of the firſt Table, as I have done: and I think, moſt reaſonably and juſtly. Let others judge.
What he ſayes, in the following numbers of this Section, is a meer contention of words, and ſufficiently anſwered above; as alſo what is found in the third, and fourth, except this Conceſſion be taken notice of; p. 59. n. 3.[Though Superſtition be the giving of falſe Worſhip to the true God, as well as Worſhip to falſe Gods, Daemons, &c. (or a dread, which is not a Worſhip, to the true) yet this falſe Worſhip is unfitly explicated by uncommanded Worſhip: for certainly all ſuch is not falſe, &c.] Obſerve here, firſt, He grants a Superſtition, [in giving of falſe Worſhip, to the true God;] But this he never took notice of, in his Tract of Superſtion, but carried his Reader away with his old notion of Superſtitum cultus: Now it concern'd him, a Chriſtian and a Divine, to have ſpoken of the other notion of Superſtition, as it gives falſe Worſhip to the true God; which why he waved, let him now conſider. 2. He yet excuſes it; [This falſe Worſhip yet, is unfitly explicated by uncommanded Worſhip, for certainly all ſuch, is not falſe.] Certainly? Then are not onelyonly all our Divines, but the Doctor himſelf alſo, See p. 12. n. 13.much deceived; who hath often granted, that uncommanded Worſhip is unlawful, and ſo falſe: and then certainly, all falſe Worſhip is uncommanded: unleſs he will ſay, ſome falſe Worſhip is commanded, or not forbidden; which ſure his learning will not ſuffer him to ſay. If onelyonly commanded Worſhip be true, and onelyonly true Worſhip be commanded, then all uncommanded Worſhip, is falſe, and all falſe Worſhip, uncommanded, yea, forbidden. 3. He ſpeaks of [a dread, which is not Worſhip, to the true God.] But firſt, Is not a dread of the true God, Worſhip, in the firſt Commandment? how then can he ſay it is not Worſhip? 2. Or does he mean it, a cowardly, trembling, deſperate feare of the true God, counting him as a Tyrant, (which I called ſlaviſh fear and exceſſive) is not Worſhip? This is true in a ſenſe; it is not true Worſhip or accepted, but yet it is a kinde of Worſhip, though falſe. 4. What he addes, with an eſpecially; [If the word Worſhip, be extended, as this Diatribiſt extends it, to Rites and Obſervances, as well as to the ſubſtantiall parts of Worſhip.] But this is a ſpecial calumny, (as he uſes to phraſe it) for this Diatribiſt hath oft profeſſed the contrary, as this Doctor hath confeſſed more then once. And himſelf rather extends the word Worſhip, farther then I do; for even here, he (cloſely) inſinuates, a diſtinction of Worſhip, whiles he talks of, Subſtantial parts of Worſhip: that is, Subſtantial Worſhip: which may imply, there is ſome Accidental or Circumſtantial Worſhip, in thoſe Rites and Obſervances, he ſpeaks of, which as they are no Worſhip, (or if made Worſhip, are confeſſedly unlawful) ſo the Doctor, durſt never yet call them Worſhip, though his practice makes them worſhip, and his Tract of Will-worſhip, defends ſuch kinde of Worſhip; as will appear in due time. One thing more, and I have done, with this Section: He ſayes, p. 60. n. 4.[The ſecond Commandment, is ſpent upon the Worſhip of Idols (all for the interdicting of that) and cannot be properly ſaid to conſider the Worſhip of the true God, unleſs it be the external part, that of bowing down, &c.] Indeed in the Doctors Gloſs, that's all, the interdicting of Idol-worſhip: but I hope thoſe two learned Catechiſts, will teach him otherwiſe, cited above, ad p. 43. n. 4. That the ſcope of that Commandment, is to forbid all unpreſcribed Worſhip; and to command the obſervance onelyonly of Commanded Worſhip; which is more then that of bowing down, &c.