The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 1 – Section 2
Sect. 1. Had the Reverend and Learned Doctor (as it became him,) diſtinguiſhed the words, either foreign, in Greek, or Will-worſhip in Engliſh, &c.
HE now begins to do what before he had forgot, p. 93. n. 3.or neglected; to diſtinguiſh, till he hath confounded the words, more then before, and yet not telling us clearly, in what ſenſe he takes it, as he promiſed n. 2. Firſt, [Betwixt Worſhip on the one ſide and on the other ſide, external Ceremonies or Circumſtances of it, which are not parts, but accidents of Worſhip.] Where he does not diſtinguiſh of the word Worſhip, (as was required) in it ſelf, that we might know, what he means by Worſhip, in the word Will-worſhip; but between Worſhip, and Ceremonies, or Circumſtances of Worſhip, which are not parts, but accidents of Worſhip, as he ſayes. And yet ſome Ceremonies and Circumſtances are made by him, and called Worſhip, as we ſhall hear. 2. He diſtinguiſhes Worſhip indeed, after as confuſed a manner, when he ſayes, [Worſhip, whether the Theological vertue, or ſome act thereof, together with the degrees, and frequency of thoſe acts.] As if a man ſhould diſtinguiſh Juſtice, (his preſent inſtance) thus, Juſtice is either, 1. The Moral vertue it ſelf. 2. Or ſome act thereof. 3. Or ſome degree or frequency of that act. Were theſe ſeveral ſpecies of Juſtice, or not rather the ſame vertue diſtinguiſhed by accidental differences? So the Acts of Worſhip, and the degrees thereof, &c. are either the ſame kinde of Worſhip, or but accidental differences of the ſame Worſhip. 2. In his diſtinction of Worſhip, againſt Ceremonies and Circumſtances, he is no leſſe confuſed. For 1. Ceremonies and Circumſtances of Worſhip, are not one and the ſame, (which yet he ſeemes to make them) as was ſaid above. 2. Ceremonies and Circumſtances, were ſometimes parts of Worſhip (and ſo Worſhip Ceremonial) as the Sabbath, and Temple, time and place, after mentioned, in his Illuſtration, by Juſtice, &c. And Ceremonies however, are commonly taken for external Worſhip, (as I ſaid above;) and then he ſhould have diſtinguiſhed Worſhip, thus: Worſhip is either Moral and Subſtantial, or Ceremonial and Accidental; and then his Ceremonies had been, not onelyonly parts, but ſpecies of Worſhip: And ſuch indeed he makes them, however he diſſemble the matter here. But who is the wiſer by all this confuſion? who can tell, for he tells us not) what is meant by Worſhip in the word, Will-worſhip: It muſt be, either the vertue or ſome act, or degree, or frequencie of it, on the one ſide; or a Circumſtance, no part, but accident of Worſhip, which of them I know not. Perhaps his Illuſtration will ſpring ſome light. [As in Juſtice; it may ſignifie, 1. The vertue it ſelf. 2. Some Act of that vertue. Or, 3. the degree thereof, and frequent repetition of the Acts of it; but for the Circumſtances of time, or place, attending on any Act of it, they will never be called Juſtice, with any propriety.] Where, 1. he leaves out, (whether negligently or willingly) the other word Ceremonies: For there may be ſome Ceremonies alſo in Publique Juſtice, the Formalities of the Judges and Court, &c. He ſhould have told us, whether thoſe may, in any propriety, be called Juſtice; as Ceremonies in Religion, are by ſome called and made Worſhip. 2. He ſhould now apply this diſtinction and illuſtration, and tell us, what now he meanes by Worſhip; whether the vertue, or ſome Act, or degree & frequency of it, or the Ceremonies, that is the circumſtances of time and place: if he mean the latter onelyonly, Circumſtances of time and place; as it is not comprehended in the word VVill-worſhip, ſo it is not controverted between us: as hath oft been ſaid in the other Tract. If he mean the former, let him conſider, that he confutes himſelf from the beginning of this Diſcourſe; who maintains VVill-worſhip, Uncommanded-worſhip, men Deviſed-worſhip; not VVill-ceremonies, or VVill-circumſtances of VVorſhip, time or place; which can with no more propriety be called VVorſhip, then the ſame, or the like Ceremonies or Circumſtances, in exerciſing of Juſtice, can be called Juſtice. But he is no leſs confuſed in the next; for he ſays, [Secondly, for the other part of the word will, or choice of man; it may be of four ſorts diſtinguiſhable by the matter willed: 1. When it is forbidden by God. 2. Commanded, but not ad ſemper: 3. Left free. 4. When though not indifferent nor forbidden, but good in an high degree, yet not under particular precept, and ſo omitted without ſin, &c.] But here's confuſion enough: 1. VVho ever diſtinguiſhed the faculty of Will, (which is but one) into four ſorts, according to the objects or matter of the things willed? 2. Will, in this word, muſt be referred onelyonly to Worſhip; (Will-worſhip) which is either commanded or forbidden; there's none left indifferent. 3. That there ſhould be any thing, which is neither indefferent, nor forbidden, nor commanded, (and yet good in an high degree) is to me a myſtery, and ſome of the Doctors new Divinity. It helps him not to ſay, [It is not under particular precept.] For if it be under a general precept, it is under precept, and ſo pro hic & nunc, (as they ſay) cannot be omitted without ſin, and if then done, how it can be highly rewardable by God, eo nomine, becauſe not under particular precept, I am yet to ſeek; of which more hereafter. 4. His particular inſtances, are nothing to the preſent purpoſe; which is of the Will, with relation to Worſhip, and none of his inſtances are of Worſhip, but other things. We enquire, what Will, ſignifies in the word Will-worſhip; whether, it import, willingneſs in commanded Worſhip, or willing and inſtituting Worſhip not commanded: To which all that diſtinction, and diſcourſe of the Doctor, ſayes nothing; OnelyOnly he takes occaſion from the laſt part of his diſtinction to empty his Notebook, of what he had read of that notion, [of things good in an high degree, neither indifferent, nor forbidden, nor commanded, and yet highly rewardable by God;] wherein I ſhall not now follow him, but conſider it in a place more fit for it, where we ſhall meet with it again. We ſhal attend his application of that diſtinction, n. 6. (for the 5. p. 96. n. 6.is loſt) or rather his no-application of it; for he tells us nothing, in which of thoſe four ſenſes he takes the word, will, but comes preſently to the word in compoſition, the word foreign, Will-worſhip, to diſtinguiſh of that, and then tell us, in what ſenſe he does not, or does take it. And to confound us the more, hath found out ſix wayes, or things, which it may denote. [1. The performing any ſort of worſhip to God, forbidden by him; which yet is not truly but equivocally called Worſhip, &c.] Where I obſerve; firſt, That any ſort of Worſhip forbidden by God, is Will-worſhip, and conſequently Superſtition; and ſo Worſhip of Daemons, is not the onelyonly Superſtition, which the Doctor was very loath to grant in his former Tract. 2. How warily he ſpeaks; [which yet is not truely Worſhip, but equivocally;] It's ſufficient, firſt, that the offerers think it truly Worſhip; and then I would ask, is not falſe Worſhip truly called Worſhip, if Worſhip be properly diſtinguiſhed into true and falſe, as ſeveral ſpecies thereof, as it is by the Doctor hereafter? But we go on; 2. [The uſing any Ceremony in Gods Worſhip, which is forbidden, &c.] Now for theſe two, the Doctor ſayes, [He muſt readily acknowledge, p. 97. n. 8. Was not the Worſhipping of Angels, a Wil-worſhip? foreign, and forbidden?they are criminous, and he pleads not for them, nor are they capable of that title of Will-worſhip.] But, firſt, Worſhip forbidden by God, and deviſed and inſtituted by the meer Will of man, may well be capable of the title of Will-worſhip: but forbidden Worſhip, is Worſhip deviſed & inſtituted by the meer Will of man, ſ. 1. may well be called Will-worſhip. 2. Worſhip not commanded by God, or uncommanded Worſhip, is forbidden by God as hath often been ſaid & proved: ergo, all uncommanded Worſhip, that is ſet up by the meer will of man, is criminous, & may well be called Will-worſhip. [3. Ridiculous and unprofitable Ceremonies, which though no where forbidden ſeverally by God, yet by their multitude become an hinderance to devotion, a yoke too heavy for Christians.] What thinks he of theſe? He profeſſes his diſlike of them, p. 97. n. 9.[yet thinks it not applicable to the notion of the word in the Apoſtle, but rather to that in Epiphanius, foreign, ſuperfluity of Willworſhip: where ſtill the fault is the ſuperfluity, &c. and not the Ʋncommandedneſs of them.] Enough hath been ſaid to this in the former Tract: But I adde, firſt, The multitude orſuperfluity of Ceremonies made parts of Worſhip by men, as they were by the Phariſees, and are by Papiſts, may well be capable of the title of Will-worſhip. 2. The fault is not then onelyonly the Superfluity; for any one Ceremony made Worſhip, by the Will of man, Ceremony in common acception, ſignifies, external VVorſhip; and being appointed by men, any one is a Nimiety, and Criminous; as was ſaid above.is a Superfluity, and too much, and ſo criminous, as Will-worſhip. 3. Epiphanius taxes the Phariſees, not onelyonly for their ſuperfluity of Ceremonies, but for their Will-worſhip in them. The Doctor then muſt not beg, and take the word Will-worſhip, in a good ſenſe, and talk of [Superfluity of Will-worſhip.] 4. If theſe ſuperfluous ridiculous Ceremonies, be not applicable to the word in the Apoſtle, Col. 2.23. Why does he make this one ſenſe, or one ſpecies of Will-worſhip? Surely ſuperfluous Ceremonies are one ſpecies of Superſtition, in the judgement not onelyonly of others, but of the Doctor himſelf in the former Tract; and being impoſed by the Will of man, may well be called will-worſhip: the Ʋncommandedneſs of them, as well as the Superfluity, will name them ſo. And if any one ſuch Ceremony be lawful, and ſo a ſecond, and a third, &c. The more the better; and how then can there be a fault in the multitude? when as the Doctor ſaid, [If they be wholeſome, Of Superſtition, ſ. 41.then there will be little reaſon, to accuſe them of exceſs; for they will then more probably help the inner devotion, then encumber it.] But of this afore ſufficiently, and we go on. All Ceremonies in the ſenſe above, are forbidden. n. 10.4 [Ʋſing or inſtituting one or more Ceremonies, not forbidden, yet not commanded, but founded in ſome pious or prudential conſideration, &c] Of this he ſayes, [It is not Worſhip in it ſelf, and I need not allow that the title of Will-worſhip, Does not the Doctor in this and the next Tract, plead for VVillworſhip, in Ceremonies and Uncommanded VVorſhip in Feſtivals, &c. and yet now will not allow them the name either of VVorſhip, or VVillſhip? n. 11.but refer it to thoſe Circumſtances of VVorſhip, &c.] But ſuppoſe this one or more Ceremonies be made parts of Worſhip, not meer Circumſtances; will he not them grant them Superſtitious, and ſo VVill-worſhip, by the VVill of man? as was ſaid to the third ſenſe afore. 5. [Offering to the ſervice of God any thing, which God hath any way reveal'd, he will accept of, and reward, if duly performed, &c.] But what means he, by offering to the ſervice of God? that men may offer ſervice, or VVorſhip, which God hath not commanded? This I ſuppoſe he will not ſay; yet palpably does it, in his maintained VVill-worſhip: what then? will he ſay, it is not VVorſhip, but a Circumſtance of Worſhip? Then it cannot indeed be called VVill-worſhip, for it is not VVorſhip at all: yet to this, the Doctor applies the word in the Apoſtle, under the notion, [of voluntary oblations, and as good and commendable (no way vitious) if it be truly ſuch as it pretends to be.] So then, he calls that VVill-worſhip, which is no VVorſhip: and yet with a limitation, [if it be truly ſuch as it pretends to be.] So that if it be not truly ſuch; ſuch what? ſuch VVill-worſhip, as is good and commendable, the Doctor (begging that there is any VVill-worſhip good) will not allow that, the name of VVill-worſhip, in the Apoſtle; though it be inſtituted meerly by the Will of man. There is yet one way more, 6. [Laſtly, when either for the degree or frequency of any known act of VVorſhip, a man doth more then be is by Gods law ſtrictly required to do, prays, or *Faſting is not an act of VVorſhip: but an help to VVorſhip: yet here and elſewhere made ſo.faſts oftner, &c.] But to this I ſay, 1. This is impertinent to the point, for we are ſpeaking of VVill-worſhip, not of Commanded Worſhip; VVorſhip deviſed by the VVill of man, not by God, as prayer is. 2. The degrees and frequency of theſe VVorſhips, are under a precept, if not particular, yet general; with reſpect to abilities and opportunities: but the VVill-worſhip we ſpeak againſt, is under no precept at all, unleſs by way of prohibition. 3. He that will take upon him to Pray or Faſt oftner, then Gods law ſtrictly requires of him, muſt certainly know, how oft Gods law requires him to pray, &c. and no oftner: which the Doctor may do well to determine out of the chair. 4. We ſpeak not of degrees and frequency of acts of Worſhip commanded, but of new ſorts or kindes of Worſhip not commanded, instituted meerly by the VVill of man: And of ſuch VVill worſhip the Doctor muſt ſpeak, or he ſayes nothing. Let him now conſider, whether by his ſixth-fold diſtinction, he hath not rather clouded, then cleared the buſineſs. [VVill-worſhip cannot be imagined to denote any more then ſome one of theſe ſix things, &c.] Whereof the four firſt, are not allowed the title of VVill-worſhip; The two laſt are not properly VVorſhip at all, I mean, He call them ſix ſpecies of VVillſhip. n. 14. p. 98. n. 13.new ſorts of VVorſhip; and beſides fall under Commanded VVorſhip. But we ſpeak of [VVill-worſhip which reſpects the VVill, and choice (of VVorſhip) by man, without any neceſſity impoſed by God] as himſelf ſtates it. n. 13. Let him ſpeak plainly; What does the Apoſtle mean by VVill-worſhip? In which of theſe ſix ſenſes muſt it be taken? Is forbidden Worſhip, Will-worſhip? no, that's not truly but equivocally Worſhip. Are forbidden Ceremonies, Will-worſhip? no; they are but Circumſtances of Worſhip, but no Worſhip: and ſo of the reſt. I muſt profeſs, I know not well what he reſolves to be Will-worſhip; but I conjecture, he means it of the fifth and ſixth part of his diſtinction, See n. 11. & 12.voluntary oblations, which God by no law exacts from every man, or Fervency and Frequency in commanded Worſhip: Now if theſe two be either no VVorſhip, or no new ſorts of Worſhip, inſtituted by the will of man, then the Doctor hath denied that there is any ſuch thing as VVill-worſhip, at leaſt ſinful Will-worſhip in the world. I will not anticipate, but onelyonly in a word or two: The firſt ſort of his Will-worſhip, is [voluntary oblations, which God by no law exacts from every man:] But then I ſay, To thoſe, of whom God does not exact it, it is no VVorſhip at all: and to thoſe of whom he does exact it, (for of ſome the Doctor grants he does exact it) it is VVorſhip commanded; and ſo uncapable both wayes of the title of will-worſhip. Nay if thoſe, of whom God does not exact it, ſhould tender it to God, as new VVorſhip; they would incur the cenſure of (ſinful) VVill-worſhip. But this is new Divinity to the Doctor, (though it is his own) and muſt wait till it's time comes: And I proceed with him, to conſider what he thinks of my diſtinction, which was this; [The words in both languages, may be taken in a double ſenſe. 1. For willingneſs and freeneſs in worſhip commanded by God. 2. For worſhip deviſed by the wit, and appointed by the will of man.] p. 98. n. 13.To the former part he ſays, [That can be no ſpecies of that will-worſhip which reſpects the choice and will of man, &c.] I pray, did I make it a ſpecies of will-worſhip, to worſhip God willingly, in commanded Worſhip? And not rather make that, one ſenſe of the word, as it is compounded with, will of man? mans will, I hope, may willingly perform commanded Worſhip; and that may be one ſenſe, of foreign, the firſt part of the word. And why does the Doctor refuſe this ſenſe? [Becauſe he ſuppoſes, that in the commands of God, not onelyonly the action, but the chearfulneſs of this performance is in like manner commanded by God, and ſo neceſſary, and not voluntary.] Grant this true; yet I ask, may not a man do a command of God unwillingly? if he may (as is evident he may) then may he alſo do it willingly: and the neceſſity of it, doth no more hinder it from being voluntary, then the unlawfulneſs of an act againſt the law, makes it the more involuntary. That a thing may be neceſſary to be done, in reſpect to Gods command, and yet done voluntarily in reſpect to mans will, I hope the Doctor need not learn of me. The word foreign, ſurely, ſignifies ſuch a willingneſs ſometimes: as foreign, a willing ſervant; not with reſpect to the ſervice of his maſter, but to his own will; doing willingly what is commanded. Eph. 6.7. foreign, with good will. n. 14.For ſure the Doctor will not allow a ſervant a will and choice, to appoint his maſters ſervice, of his own head, and call that willing ſervice, in a good ſenſe, but will-ſervice, in a bad ſenſe. And that's the ſecond part of my diſtinction: to which he ſays, [It hath many improprieties in it, and this great fallacy, plurium Interrogationum, confounding and putting together things most deſperate, &c.] But I appeal all Readers, if there be any thing but plainneſs, in the ſecond part of my diſtinction. Are not thoſe two ſenſes given, the onelyonly poſſible ones to be given of the firſt part of the word foreign? Let the Doctor finde a third if he can. As for his fourfold diſtinction, there is not one of them almoſt to the purpoſe, as hath been ſhewed above: Neither do they at all diſtinguiſh the ſenſe of the word will; but the ſeveral objects of the will: clean beſide the buſineſs. And if I have diſtributed will-worſhip into but one part (I diſtributed onelyonly the ſenſe of the word will) as he flours me, in the end of n. 13. I may more truly ſay, he hath diſtributed will-worſhip into no parts; for none of them in his ſenſe are proper to the buſineſs in hand, as I ſhew'd afore. It's better to diſtinguiſh into one part, then into nothing. n. 15.Let the Reader judge. In his laſt number I cannot but obſerve briefly ſome things. 1. I cited in my firſt Section a ſaying of S. Auſtin, as the ſum of the ſecond Commandment, in the affirmative part. [That God must be worſhipped, with his own preſcribed worſhip,] and another of the Doctors own gloſſes of that Commandment in the margine; [God is to be worſhipped, in a manner pecular to him, and appointed by him.] What ſays he to it? handſomly puts it off, with ſaying, [It appears already how little force it hath againſt my pretenſions, it being evident that the words cited, belong to eſſential parts of Gods worſhip, not to each Circumſtance, &c.] But this is a prevarication. For nothing appears before concerning either of thoſe ſentences, but the Doctor hath peremptorily affirmed, See p. 43. n. 4.[That in the ſecond Commandment, there is not a word to determine the matter of it, to commanded worſhip: nothing but the prohibition of Idol worſhip.] Which if it be not a contradiction to what St. Auſtin and himſelf ſaid above, let all reaſonable men judge. And now, when they are clearly laid before him, in a proper place, to ſhuffle them off, with a diſtinction of Eſſential parts of Worſhip, and Circumſtances, &c. is a very poor evaſion, to hide his ſelf-contradiction, and to wink againſt the light. 2. Here alſo, he grants, an Affirmative and Negative part of the ſecond Commandment, which before he denyed, or doubted of: But I refer to what is ſaid above, onelyonly adding, that eſſential parts of VVorſhip, may import theſe Ceremonies he ſpeaks of, are accidental parts of VVorſhip: and ſo they are made to be by many.
Sect. 2. How oft, or ſeldom the Greek word is uſed in other Authors, or the Tranſlators of the Old Teſtament, we ſhall not trouble our ſelves, &c.
TO this Section, little or nothing is ſaid, that is material; I ſhall therefore briefly diſpatch it. And I cannot but take notice, that the Dr. waves the ſtating of the queſtion, upon the two ſenſes of the word, before by me given; and my fixing it upon the latter, ſaying, [The thing ſignified by it (in the ſecond ſenſe, in which the Reverend Doctor muſt take it, or he hath no adverſary,) viz. Worſhip deviſed and impoſed, by the will of man, is ſo much decryed, &c.] The Doctor leaves out thoſe words in the Parentheſis, and will ſay, neither I, nor no; which he ought to have done: For thus I argue; The Doctor muſt take Will-worſhip, either for willingneſs, in commanded Worſhip, (but that he diſclaimes) or will-deviſed Worſhip, for non datur tertium; there can no other ſenſe rationally be given: If he take it in this latter ſenſe, (as he muſt or he hath no adverſary) let him ſpeak out and ſay ſo, and the queſtion is fully ſtated. Yet though this be the ſenſe of the word, in his own opinion and practice; he will not be ſo liberall, as to ſay ſo: For what means he by will-worſhip? why voluntary, ſpontaneous, uncommanded VVorſhip, as he ſpeaks hereafter, which ſhould have been ſaid here: This he muſt maintain to be lawfull, or he comes not near the queſtion. To diſlike my diſtinction, and to ſay, p. 100. n. 5.[There may be many acts of worſhip, many Circumſtances of worſhip, which may bear proportion with worſhip, that are not under obligation, &c.] is juſt nothing to the queſtion; becauſe they either are no worſhip, or not deviſed by the will of man: and then [what proportion they may bear with worſhip] is not inquirable.