The Account Audited and Discounted, Exercitation 2 · Section 7
Sect. 7. And now we are come to the 23. verſe, &c.
NOt to trouble my ſelf, or Reader, with every minute exception, and his flaſhes of wit, I ſhall ſpeak onelyonly to the main differences: And, 1. a word in vindication of thoſe pious men that oppoſed ſome (not all) Ceremonies of our Church, upon theſe two premiſes, p. 114. n. 1.[1. That will-worſhip is a ſin. 2. That the uſing of Ceremonies, not commanded by God, was will-worſhip.] For the firſt of theſe, that will-worſhip, that is, worſhip deviſed by men, is a ſin, and a great one; I know none, Proteſtant or Papiſt, that deny it, except the Doctor; and perhaps not he. For the other, thoſe men that ſaid, [Ceremonies not commanded by God, are will-worſhip,] they meant it onelyonly of ſuch, as they thought were made parts of Gods Worſhip: and in this ſenſe I believe the Doctor will call them ſuperſtitious, though he will not allow them to be Willworſhip. 2. He oppoſes onelyonly the poſſibility of the word, (uſed onelyonly in this text) to be taken in a good ſenſe; The task lies upon me the opponent (he ſayes) [to prove my Affirmative, that Willworſhip is criminous.] But I having made it viſible, that the word is not taken in a good ſenſe here, both by the judgement of almoſt all Divines, and ſome reaſons beſide; I may now at leaſt charge him with begging the queſtion; ſtill to plead for a good ſenſe. This diſcourſe will make it more improbable, if not impoſſible to be taken in a good ſenſe, in due time. 3. In the mean time we ſhall conſider his Interpretation of the verſe. [Which things have ſome true, at least appearing notion of wiſdom in them;] I proved, that foreign, here ſignified not a reality, but a ſhew of wiſdom by the Authority of all Interpreters; and I believe the Doctor in his own conſcience, did believe, or now doth, that it doth not ſignifie any reality or truth of wiſdom, yet how willingly would he have it ſo ſignifie: Hear firſt his confeſſions; p. 111 n. 10. p. 117. n. 10. See p. 120. n. 19. Will wor. ſ. 7.12. p. 103. n. 3. ſhew, or reality, &c p. 115. n. 3.He ſayes it twice, [It was but a ſhew, it was but a ſhew, no reality of wiſdom.] And hereafter p. 117. n. 10. [I acknowledge, it was but a ſhew of wiſdom.] And in other places the like: why then did he put in, (ſome true?) We have his excuſe, and his willingneſs yet to have it ſo, the better to make Will-worſhip ſeem to be taken in a good ſenſe. In caſe it ſhould here ſignifie the former, (ſome true notion of wiſdom) then 'tis unavoidably evident, that Will-worſhip, muſt be taken in a good, not ill ſenſe.] But what if it ſignifie the latter, as he ſayes, he acknowledges it does? To what purpoſe then, does he amuſe his Reader, with a ſenſe acknowledged falſe? yet the ſame he does again hereafter. p. 140. n. 3. If foreign ſhould, &cBut in caſe it ſhould ſignifie truth of wiſdom; he makes the Apostle to ſpeak non-ſenſe; to commend thoſe doctrines of Abſtinencies, from meats (and marriage too, by the Gnoſticks, ſayes he) which he declaimed againſt, [Thoſe things, have ſome truth of wiſdom in them.] Why are you burthened with them, or ſubject to them? Well, yeild it taken for a ſhew of wiſdom; [yet then the Will-worſhip there, is capable of a good notion; for how can thoſe abſtinencies or doctrines, have ſo much as a ſhew of wiſdom, in Will-worſhip, &c. if Will-worſhip hath nothing of wiſe, or good, but onelyonly of wickedneſs, in it, which is folly.] This is fully anſwered in my 12. Sect. (of which more ad p. 135. n. 25.) I ſhall anſwer, by asking him theſe queſtions: 1. The worſhipping of Angels, was a doctrine and practice of ſome; had not this a ſhew of wiſdom in it? 2. Had it any thing of wiſe or good in it? was it not groſs Idolatry? 3. Now ask one more, in his words; How can that doctrine of worſhipping Angels have ſo much as a ſhew of wiſdom, in a Will-worſhip, will-deviſed Worſhip, if this kinde of Worſhip ha's nothing of good, but onelyonly of wickedneſs in it? anſwer one, and both: But let him but look back, at the abstinences here condemned; from meats (and marriage) this was the ſpecial thing wherein they placed falſe Worſhip: now ask, as he, [how can theſe abſtinencies have ſo much as a ſhew of wiſdom, in that falſe worſhip, if falſe worſhip hath nothing of wiſe or good in it?] Muſt falſe Worſhip, therefore be taken in a good notion? But he will ſay, Will worſhip is good or bad; ſo is not falſe Worſhip. I anſwer, that then he begs the queſtion, to ſay Will-worſhip is good, and taken here in a good ſenſe, which is the queſtion: If he ſay, ſo do I, taking of it, in an illſenſe; I anſwer, the advantage lies on my ſide, who have the concurrent judgement of moſt Interpreters; and he is alone and ſingular in his ſenſe. But more of this anon.
He askes again, p. 117. n. 8.[What words are there in that verſe, to ſhew that theſe abſtinences are deſtructive becauſe no better then Will-worſhip?] It appears, becauſe the ſcope of the Apoſtle is, to beat down thoſe Abſtinences as made parts of Worſhip of God; which he doth not at all do, if Will-worſhip be taken in a good ſenſe, but rather commends them. [Theſe things, abstinence from meats (and marriage, he will needs have it ſo) in a Religious way as Worſhip of God, have a ſhew of wiſdom, in good Will-worſhip, and humility, &c. all good things.] Why then do ye not embrace thoſe doctrines? much more in caſe they had the truth or reality of wiſdom, or piety in them: onelyonly take heed of holding them to be commanded by God, and there's no danger nor deſtructiveneſs in them. Yet he thinks, his concluſion more reaſonable: n. 9.[They have ſome ſhew of wiſdom, in Will-worſhip, therefore Will-worſhip, if it be truly ſuch, hath ſome reality of Wiſdom in it: elſe that which hath but a ſhew of Wiſdom in it, cannot have that ſhew, in reſpect of Will-worſhip.] But, firſt, this begs the queſtion, that there is any truly good Will-worſhip. 2. His conſequence, is falſe, it ſhould run thus; then Will-worſhip hath ſome ſhew, not reality of Wiſdom in it; for ſure, thoſe Abſtinences, had (as Worſhip) no reality of Wiſdom in them, yet had a ſhew of it. 3. His proof is as weak; change but a word, and ſee it: Idolatry hath a ſhew of Wiſdom in it, in worſhipping of Angels; therefore it cannot have that ſhew, in reſpect of worſhipping Angels, unleſs worſhipping Angels have ſome reality of Wiſdom in it. His caſe of Adultery, is not parall I here: Nay, in the next numb. he acknowledges not onelyonly [that it was but a ſhew of Wiſdom, n. 10.but alſo it was but a ſhew of Will-worſhip and a ſhew of Humility, not true.] But here are more miſtakes. 1. Here was but a ſhew of Wiſdom indeed, but here was in thoſe Abſtinences, a reality of Will-worſhip; Whether good or bad. That it was Will-worſhip, that is, uncommanded Worſhip, is evident; and that uncommanded Worſhip is ſinful and bad, is not denied; and ſo a reality of bad will-worſhip: and then will-worſhip here is taken in an ill ſenſe. 2. There was a ſhew of Humility, in worſhipping Angels, verſ. 18. but ſure no reality of wiſdom, or Humility in it, (an impious humility, as he call'd it afore;) So there may be a ſhew of Wiſdom in will-worſhip, and yet the Worſhip impious and abominable. Hence I can grant, [that as the humility is, ſuch must be the will-worſhip:] n. 11.That is, as the humility in worſhipping Angels, and in theſe Gnoſtick Abſtinences, was impious, ſo was the will-worſhip in both. And this I can further grant, [That will-worſhip humility, and ſelf-denial, are all three in the ſame ſtate in this place;] that is, all vitious and criminal; as that will worſhip, and humility, (joyn'd with ſelf-denial thereto, See my tenth ſect.though not expreſſed) ver. 18 was a vitious and impious will-worſhip and humility. I do not acknowledge the two latter to be vertues, (as he charges me) but equally vices with will worſhip. For a man to abſtain from meats (or marriage) as it is a will-worſhip, (in the Gnoſtick way) ſo the humility and ſelf-denial pretended in it, were as vile and abominable to God, as the will-worſhip. And thus his Achilles is ſlain, his great argument anſwered.
The following numbers, 12, 13, 14. are but a ſtrife about words, and ſo I paſs them by; but take notice of what he ſayes in the next: p. 119. n. 15.[That the abſtinences from meats (and marriages) abſtracted from the error of dogmatizing, have indeed a ſhew of Piety in thoſe two reſpects, that he which abſtains voluntarily ſhall ſeem to practice a ſpecial piece of ſelf-denial, and to offer to God a free-will-offering of abſtinence from meats and marriage.] But, firſt, what's become of Humility, that's in the text, and they are ſaid to have a ſhew of wiſdom, in humility, as in the other: He that abſtains voluntarily may ſeem to practiſe a piece of Piety, in Humility. 2. Do thoſe two named, but ſeem to practiſe ſelf-denial, and offering to God a free-will-offering, that is, a will-worſhip, See ſupra ad p. 113. n. 6.abſtracted from the error of dogmatizing? I had thought they that abſtain'd from meats and marriage, had more then a ſhew of Piety, and did more then ſeem to practiſe thoſe duties (if they did not dogmatize,) that is, had a reality of Piety, and did really practice ſelf-denial; For theſe are part of the Doctors will-worſhip, which he defends, and applauds as acts of higheſt Piety: as we ſhall hear. 3. Theſe practices of Abſtinence, &c. abſtracted from the errour of dogmatizing, but yet made a part of Worſhip (as by Papiſts they are) have they not a ſhew of Wiſdom in them? and yet are odious to God? The Doctor ſtill layes all the crime upon dogmatizing, which may be abſtracted from them, and yet the things ſinful and unlawful, as now we ſee. n. 16.[The worſhipping of Angels (ſuppoſed now a corolary of the Philoſophy, ver. 8. ſaid to be all one and the ſame, Superſt. ſ. 7) that alſo hath a ſhew of Piety in humility.] Now ſuppoſe this abſtracted from the error of dogmatizing; will the Doctor ſay this man practiſes a ſpecial piece of humility? And hath not this humility, thus impious (as he ſaid) an influence upon the Abſtinences following? Does not he, that (with the Gnoſticks) abſtains religiouſly from meats and marriage, practice humility as well as ſelf-denial? and may not the humility, in both, be equally vitious, in a will-deviſed Worſhip? ſure the placing of Religion, or worſhip in thoſe Abſtinences, is as criminal, as the worſhipping of Angels; both being forbidden by God. There is only one *Ʋnleſs, that the n. 19. is twice. p. 121. n. 20.thing more in this Section worth taking notice of (the reſt being but a contention about words.) 1. That he is by me charged with preſumption in changing the text, from foreign, to foreign; which though he deſire my pardon for, (which is not uſuall) yet he ſeemes not to take it well. All I ſhall ſay to it, is but this; That as it is preſumtion in an Interpreter to alter the reading of the Scripture text, having no ancient Copy to favour it; ſo it may ſeem an itch of ſingularity, to make a Criticiſme, to help to confirm that, which he believes to be falſe; (as he does Will-worſhip Sect. 12.) and which will not advantage his cauſe, if it were granted to be the true reading; Yet ſtill he is at it. Again, [If they had the leaſt degree of Piety in them (reading ſomewhat of Piety;) then that was in this reſpect, &c.] p. 123. n. 3. when he hath of acknowledged, they had onelyonly a ſhew, as above; and being nothing but the Gnoſtick Abſtinences, (as he will have it) he cannot imagine them to have the leaſt degree of Piety in them. As for the particle, p. 121. n. 21.foreign, omitted by him, his defence is eaſily broken; I know not why he ſhould neglect it, in his paraphraſe (for to that place my exception lies) unleſs it were, to colour his reading the better, [Which things have ſome true, &c.] For it were no good ſenſe, regarding the Apoſtles ſcope, to ſay, which things have indeed ſome true notion of Wiſdom or Piety, &c. This were to commend them, and the, foreign, to be, not an extenuating, but an amplyfying particle. But enough of this.