The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 13
Sect. 13. A third reaſon is, becauſe the Greek Fathers, &c.
THe Doctor here begins with ſome of his flowers of Rhetorick, a ſcoff and a jeer, (much learning puffing him up.) p. 140. n. 2.[Here truly it is not to be reprehended, but cheriſhed in the Diatribiſt, that he is ſo very much rejoyced, to hear the newes, that the Greek Fathers and he are of a minde, in any the leaſt particular; I hope it will engage him to a more familiar converſation with them; and then I am perſwaded no body will have reaſon to repent of it.] This hath been the Doctors language formerly; not onelyonly in ſlighting all our Modern Divines not of his opinion; Of Superſt. ſ. 32. [Thoſe Authors which come home to the point in hand, are ſo few, or ſo Modern, and of ſo ſmall authority, that they would be ſcarce worth producing:] But alſo to undervalue their learning and reading; witneſs that ſpeech of his, VVill-wor. ſect. 19. [The words in Latine (which is the language, which thoſe that are moſt ſubject to be abuſed in this matter, will be moſt likely to read it in.] A pretty piece of ſcorn caſt upon his Adverſaries, as though none that were of a different judgement from him, in this particular, were able to read a Greek Father, or a piece of Philoſtorgius in Greek, but muſt onelyonly be beholden to the Latine Tranſlation. Macte virtute. All I ſhall return, is but this, that if the Doctor had, either leſs converſation with the Greek Fathers, or made better uſe of them, then to follow them in their errours, and *See p. 145. n. 19. How he throws off Theodor. and p. 165 n. 6. Clemens. Alex. and Ambroſ. p. 145. n. 18. p. 140. n. 3. See p. 146. n. 21. Specimen (which is more then Speciem, or bare ſhew, ſome real evidence.)forſake them in their true interpretations; I am perſwaded, no body (nor himſelf) would have reaſon to repent of it. For let it be obſerved once again, (ſeeing it comes ſo often) that though the Doctor durſt not well contradict the Fathers ſenſe of foreign, for a ſhew, not reality of Wiſdom; yet how glad he would be, if the latter might, but by head and ſhoulders (as we ſay) be drawn in, to be the ſenſe of the word; thus he ſays, [If foreign, ſhould be there taken for ratio, the argument for the good ſenſe would proceed most irreſiſtibly:] which is proved above, irreſiſtibly falſe. And once more, [If ſpecies ſhould prove a true one, then, &c.] pag. 147. n. 25. Other like ſentences are noted above, after he had diſclaimed this ſenſe of truth or reality; which I leave to his conſideration, and go on.
The Greek Fathers, rendred the word, a ſhew, without power and truth; whereupon I asked, [Can that which hath neither power nor truth, in the Worſhip of God, be taken in a good ſenſe?] He asks again, n. 4.[what it is, of which the Fathers ſay, that it hath neither power nor truth? ſure the Doctrines of Abſtinence, and not the VVill-worſhip:] This is a common Fallacy, with the Doctor to ſay, it is ſpoken of but one, when it is ſpoken of both: yea, here both are one; the will-worſhip, is meant of thoſe (Gnoſtick) Abſtinences; and thoſe Abſtinences were this will-worſhip: theſe had a ſhew, but neither power nor truth of Wiſdom; and (ſaid I) can that be taken in a good ſenſe? Here I produced the Interpretation of the word, foreign, by the Latine Fathers; Ambr. Simulatam Religionem; Hierom. Superſtitionem: ſo vulg. and all Popiſh Interpreters: what was it that theſe Authours ſay, was Superſtition, counterfeit Religion? Sure it was thoſe Abſtinences: and ſo they were both one, that will-worſhip, in Abſtinences, &c. had neither power nor truth. Yet hear what he ſays, [will-worſhip is rendred by Piety, and unleſs Piety it ſelf can be taken there in an ill ſenſe, will-worſhip muſt be taken in a good ſenſe.] He had ſaid before, n. 3.[The Gnoſtick Doctrines cannot have ſo much as a ſhew of Piety in will-worſhip, unleſs will-worſhip real, be Piety real; and appearance of will-worſhip, a foundation of an appearace of Piety.] But did not the Doctor ſay juſt now, [That the Fathers ſaid it of the Doctrines of Abſtinence, That they had neither power nor truth of Piety.] Now he ſayes, [VVillworſhip is rendred by Piety, not the Abſtinences.] The truth is, thoſe Abſtinences had a ſhew of Wiſdom or Piety, but were but Superſtition, ſo the word is moſt commonly rendred, or [Voluntary Religion, which a man forges out of his own brain, willing to ſeem Religious,] as Eſtius hath it; that is, (ſay I) will worſhip: If then Superſtition and ſuch voluntary Religion, cannot be taken in a good ſenſe, no more can will-worſhip, which is the very ſame thing. And the Doctor does but beg the queſtion all along this debate, [That there is any real or true will-worſhip.] There is indeed a real (ſalſe) will-worſhip in thoſe Abſtinences; together with an appearance of Piety or wiſdom. I end this, as he does; certainly I need adde no more ('tis pitty I ſhould be required to ſay ſo much) of this matter.
I had ſaid, the ſimple word, foreign, ſometimes ſignifies falſe Religion; the compoſition of foreign, or will of man, with it, makes it worſe: He asks, [worſe then what? then falſe Religion? p. 142. n. 7.This is fairly to reſolve, that the uſe of any thing uncommanded in the ſervice of the true God, is worſe then falſe Religion; i. e. then Idolatry or Superſtition.] I will not queſtion the Doctors Learning here, foreign, Superſtitioſe Deo colo. Suidas, on the word, foreign, from the Thracians.but his Ingenuity, I do, and that twice: 1. That I meant worſe, then falſe Religion, when I meant the foreign, or will, made the word worſe; which he could not but ſee, had not prejudice, and a deſire to ſlur or ſlander me, blinded his eyes; which appears more in the ſecond. 2. That I muſt fairly reſolve, that the uſe of any thing uncommanded in the ſervice of God, is worſe then falſe Religion, &c. When as his conſcience knows, and his pen hath often teſtified for me, that I underſtand the queſtion (not of any thing, n. 8.as he, but) of uncommanded Worſhip, not of Circumſtances of worſhip; as kneeling in Prayer, &c. as he moſt injuriouſly, would make his Reader believe. Hence I do not conclude, ſo abſurdly, as he would make me, n. 9.[All Inventions of men are Idolatry, and worſe then Idolatry;] but all invented Worſhip, by men, is Idolatry or Superſtition: and then this propoſition is convertible; I dolatry or Superſtition is invented Worſhip; and Invented Worſhip is Idolatry or Superſtition: Now Will-worſhip and Superſtition being both one, in ſome ſenſe it will follow, (in ſpite of all gain-ſaying) that all Will-worſhip is Idolatrous or Superstitious. And he ſtill begs, that there is any Willworſhip, not Idolatrous or Superſtitious: And this may ſatifie that which follows; n. 10.he that uſeth an uncommanded Ceremony in the Service of God, (provided it be not made a part of Worſhip) doth not take upon him to be wiſer then God; but he that uſeth an uncommanded Worſhip. As for his acts of uncommanded Devotion, we ſhall ſpeak to them in due time; let him in the mean time conſider how weakly he hath vindicated his third Argument, and ſee if he can ſtrengthen it better.
Here are ſome other things yet conſiderable, but very briefly: As firſt, that he would fain get the learned Daille to be of his minde, (who is an enemy (I believe) to all Will-worſhip:) whereas his Interpretation is the ſame with our Divines.) He ſayes, p. 144. n. 15.[The falſe teachers had a threefold colour of Wiſdome. 1. Will-worſhip. 2. Humility. 3. Auſterity to the body, for which three things they admire theſe doctrines of men.] But I pray, what Interpreter, Papiſt or Protestant, does not ſo expound it? (By the way, note, he calls them, doctrines of men, not Commandments of God.) So had the worſhipper of Angels a double colour of wiſdom. 1. Of Humility, voluntary humility. 2. Of Worſhip, voluntary Worſhip, will worſhip; yet his practice was never the better for that; and that Humility and will worſhip, falſe and impious, (as hath been confeſſed.) But (ſayes the Doctor) [he defines, foreign, cultum ſponte, & voluntariè aſſumptum; nulla cogente Dei lege:] Why, ſo does Beza, Biſhop Davenant, and many of our own, yet take voluntary worſhip, in an ill ſenſe; as the learned Chamier, his countrey-man, alſo does; whoſe ſenſe, no doubt Monſ. Daille knew well enough. What more? He ſayes, [They were voluntarily undertaken out of abundance of zeal and Holineſs. And ſo in his opinion, if abundance of zeal and holineſs were taken in a good ſenſe, will worſhip muſt be reſolved to be ſo takens] As if all Idolaters, the worſhippers of Angels, and Saints (as Papiſts, &c.) did not undertake their ſuperſtitious Worſhips, out of abundant (pretended) zeal and Holineſs? Thoſe Abſtinences ſpoken of, (granted to be Gnoſtical and abominable) were they not undertaken out of abundant pretended zeal and Holineſs? Thus Daille is eaſily vindicated.
As for Ambroſe, he is as much againſt him, as any man, (he had beſt queſtion the Authority of thoſe Comments, under his name.) For his words are theſe, Engliſhed by the Doctor, [Hence they think themſelves to have ſome appearance of Wiſdom, p. 145. n. 18.becauſe they apply the name of Religion to humane tradition; and it is called Religion when it is ſacriledge:] He ſpeaks this of that will worſhip, in thoſe Abſtinences, where obſerve, firſt, He renders, foreign, wiſdom, not piety, as the Dr. does.that he ſays, they gave the name of Religion to their will worſhip. 2. That this which they called Religion was but an humane tradition, not held out as a Commandment of God. 3. That this Religion, or will worſhip of theirs, was but Sacriledge: what can be ſaid worſe, of will worſhip? The vulg. Latine and others call it Superſtition; Ambr. calls it Sacriledge. But the Doctor leaves out the foregoing words, where he ſays, [they are the precepts and doctrines, not of God, but of men:] As I cited it above, ad p. 109. n. 4. As alſo the following words, why he called it Sacriledge, [becauſe what is againſt the Authour, (the Authority of God) is invented with a Sacrilegious minde.] Will the Doctor grant all this, and yet ſay, [they offended in this onelyonly, that, the will worſhip and humility were not what they pretended to be.] Let him go on to maintain himſelf by begging.
For Theodoret, the reaſon (if he will needs have it) why I cited his ſenſe of the word, amongſt the Latine Authours, was, becauſe I found it cited by a learned Divine, in Latine; But what ſayes the Doctor to his Interpretation? Firſt, he fairly rejects his ſenſe, [as not pretending that all either Greek or Latine concurred with him, in this ſenſe:] This is too favourably ſpoken for himſelf, for he might more truly have ſaid, [That few either Greek or Latine, concurred with him.] I am ſure none of our own Divines do, and therfore he is very glad of the company of Bellarmine, n. 14. and Salmeron, n. 21. and whether any more, I know not. But this he ſays he is ſure of, p. 145. n. 19.[That it's not the uncommandedneſs of the worſhip, that he findes fault with; but, firſt, their teaching thoſe for Gods commands, which are their own; (that is the meaning of foreign, their introducing their own ordinances their unſeaſonable Judaical doctrine. 2. The bare ſhew of Piety and humility, &c.] But I doubt the Doctor ſtrains his conſcience in this gloſs; for, firſt, I obſerve, that Theodoret, did not underſtand the Gnoſtick Abſtinences, but Judaical unſeaſonable doctrines, yet the Doctor will needs have it meant of them; and hath not one Interpreter for his notion, that I can finde. 2. That the Doctor interprets, foreign, to be Gods commands; which moſt properly ſignifies the contrary, their own doctrine, or Ordinances. And yet he ſayes, [By his concluſion it's evident, that the Abſtinences without the doctrines, would not have been deemed by him reproveable.] This runs upon the former falſe ſuppoſition, [That theſe Abſtinences had no fault, but onelyonly that they were held out, as Commandments of God] When as we have proved, that they were ſinful, becauſe they were made Religious, and parts of Worſhip. But enough of this afore.
The Ancient Fathers then, are not for him, but rather againſt him; he muſt now ſeek for aſſiſtance from ſome Modern Authors; not amongſt our own, or forraign Proteſtant Divines, they are all againſt him. To Papiſts then he muſt go, Bellarmine he hath cloſed with above, [as one whoſe authority were alone conſiderable enough, if there were not ſome others, n. 14.] But he is not alone; Salmeron another Jeſuite, hath the very ſame notions of this text, as if the Doctor had learned his Interpretation from him; p. 146. n. 21.this learned Jeſuite, renders, foreign, not by Speciem, (that might poſſibly ſignifie, a bare ſhew,) but by Specimen, which is more, ſome real evidence of Wiſdom: which ſenſe the Doctor hath oftentimes renounced, yet fain would have it ſo. 2. The word foreign, (ſayes the Jeſuite) ſignifies cultum ſpontaneum, ſive voluntariam Religionem, pro arbitrio cujuſvis abſtinendi à cibis: juſt ſo the Doctor, only with this difference, that the Doctor takes in the Gnoſtick Abstinence from marriage alſo, which Salmeron thought not of. 3. Alluding by this word, to the voluntary oblations of the Law, called Nedaboth, Free will offerings. How ſweetly all correſpond! n. 22.But yet Salmeron is not thorow-paced with the Doctor; [For Salmeron conceives the words to allude to ver. 18. In voluntary humility and worſhip, &c. And ſo goes along with Eſtius, and others in that miſtake.] Truly if Salmeron take the words in alluſion to the 18 ver. he confutes his own Interpretation of this 23. ver. For ſurely, that Worſhip of Angels, and Impious humility, is nothing of time with the Free will offerings. And I rather take him and Eſtius to be in the right in this alluſion, then in his former Interpretation with the Doctor upon that reaſon. But they will differ yet further, (unleſs the Doctor will turn Papiſt, in the Divine Authority of the Church) in that which follows: p. 147. n. 24.[Omnis ritus, &c. Every rite of Worſhipping God, that is not delivered from God, but is invented by the will of man, is ſuperſtitious.] I never ſaid ſo much, of every rite, if rite ſignifie a circumſtance of worſhip, or a ceremony, if not made a part of Worſhip. But will the Doctor ſay, Amen, to this of Salmeron? I much fear it. He will rather evade, and tell me, I leave out ſome of Salmerons words; [Not delivered from God, nor the Spirit of God, by the Church.] I did ſo, but not to conceal them; for I would ask the Doctor whether he agrees with Salmeron, in this notion, [That what is delivered by the Church, is from the holy Ghoſt; i. e. is of Divine Authority.] If he do not, why does he cite it, ſeeing it is as falſe to him as to me. And yet I ſee a reaſon for this, it would ſerve to blinde his Reader, and to jear me; for thus he ſayes, [Where it ſeemes, that which is delivered by the Church, being by him ſuppoſed to be from the holy Ghoſt, doth in no degree fall under this cenſure: and then the Diatribist hath free leave to make his beſt advantage of this citation.] And ſo would the Doctor ſuppoſe, and ſay too, if it were not for open ſhame, that the Traditions of the Church, are from the holy Ghoſt, and ſo not ſuperſtitious: But of this afore, and anon again, ad p. 162.10. As for Eſtius, he ſayes indeed, that foreign, is here taken for Species in genere, ſive vera ſive falſa; but yet addes, licet verificatio fiat pro ſpecie, & imagine falſa: And he cannot take it otherwiſe, in his ſenſe of foreign, which is [an affected and fained Religion, or Worſhip, and an affected and fained humility, joyned to an affected Religion.] And now the Doctor hath free leave to make his beſt advantage of this citation of Eſtius. n. 26.Whether Auguſtine and Thomas gave him authority to pretend their accord with him, let them agree among themſelves, and the Doctor with them. Yet that which the Doctor cites from Auguſt. [Non ſit Religio, &c. Let not our Religion be placed in our fantaſmes, &c.] is little for his advantage; for ſure the Church of Rome, (and our Doctor with her) doth place much Religion in her own fantaſmes. p. 148. n. 27.And yet we have the Doctors full conſent to this, [That all fictitious falſe worſhip, is to be avoided, &c.] If I liſt to pick quarrels, I would ask why the Doctor added falſe, to fictious Worſhip; ſome would ſuſpect, there may be ſome fictitious true Worſhip; as he makes Will-worſhip to be true or falſe: But I let it paſs, and hear what he ſayes: [So is not the Commemorating the Birth of Chriſt, I hope, nor any Ceremony in uſe, in our Church.] He knowes ſome Ceremonies of our Church, have been charged with the guilt of fictitious falſe Worſhip; and the obſervation of Chirſtmas, as made a part of Worſhip, with the guilt of Superſtition; not as intended to be ſo uſed by the Church, but as uſed by ſome of her raſh Sons; and the Doctor hath not yet waſht his hands from this charge. I ſhall only ſpeak to the citation out of the Gloſs on Coloſſ. p. 149. n. 29.2. [Superſtitio eſt, &c. Superſtition is when the name of Religion is applied to the Tradition of men.] But ſay I, this is done ſufficiently by the Church of Rome, and by the Doctor himſelf, if I be not much miſtaken. He thinks to evade by ſaying, [Dogmatizing is a ſin.] But ſure that's not in the ſentence of the Gloſs. Dogmatizing with the Doctor, is to hold out a thing, as the Commandment of God; but the Gloſs ſpeaks, onelyonly of the Tradition of men, in what kinde or way ſo ever held forth, under the name of Religion. And thus much to confute his third reaſon.