Baal or as Tertullian saith if there were conceived more Gods then one cultura ejus in anceps deduceretur he should not know whom to worship whether one onely or both adv Marc l. 1. c. 5. or he also that fears or worships daemons as the Assyrians in Samaria that feared the Lord and served their own Gods And so still this is as contrary to the Diatribists pretensions as might be And so much for that Section Sect. 8. Superstition always ill but not always excess Probations from the use of words among heathens The Quaere of Divorce vindicated Superstitions not reprocht in the Romans by Polybius Ignorance not presently Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. The Israelites worshipping the Calfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstitiosus noting excess THe 22d. § makes a leap from the 14th to the 27th over 12. not very brief Sections I suppose it is because he hath no least objection to make against them being not else very sparing in this kind and yet in them is contained my enumeration of all the notions wherein the word Superstition is or can be taken in the antient heathens Scriptures and Christian glossaries and the premises on which the subsequent conclusions are founded and cannot be denyed while the premisses are granted and the whole matter made clear that none of the notions of the word is applicable to the benefit of the Diatribist's pretensions Now in § 27. it seems some flawes are to be found as 1. When I say t is inconsequent that Superstition simply and absolutely taken should be resolved in all Authors to signifie somewhat that is ill particularly false worship this saith he is not the question but whether in Scripture and orthodox Divines it do not always signifie something evill particularly excessive and false worship To this the answer is easie that I am far from doubting that Superstition is an ill thing and therefore never meant to make that the question This appears of me because I every where acknowledge the word Greek and Latine to signifie the worship of daemons or false Gods onely I could not but observe in the first place that the heathens who are known to worship such daemons and not to think that a fault in themselves did mean no new ill by that word whether excess or other the like either more or worse then they ordinarily meant by Religion this being indeed their Religion to worship many Gods This they must have done if they had by that word understood an excess of Religion and by their taking it in a good sense as Synonymous with Religion it appears that this of excess was not esteemed the due notion of it This I thought usefull to be said that the very title of Superstition might not defame every thing as an excess in Religion and criminous to which it was affixt unless it might otherwise appear that there was really any such evill in it and this I said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew the absurdness of their concluding who taking the word Superstition for a word of an universal ill savour as signifying excess of Religion first affixe it to innocent ceremonies and institutions to which it no way belongs and then infer them nocent as being Superstitions without proving any charge of malignity against them and as preparative to the discovery of the following mistakes rather then that I ever imagined Superstition truely so called to have no ill in it And therefore of this any otherwise then as I now say and then meant I shall make no question and on condition he will never apply the word Superstition any otherwise then the Scripture and antient Christian writers apply it i. e. to daemon worship or to undue worship of the true God in the notion of indebitus or illegitimus cultus in Aquinas not to each such Super statutum as he will call an excess the using of each uncommanded ceremonie and the like I shall acknowledge the word always to signifie that among all good writers heathen or Christian which we Christians justly deem evil and that was clearly the Etymologist's meaning as we shewed in the last Sect. and against that there is no colour of argument offered in all this long Sect. For what if the vulgar translation which he sets as the onely instance of Popish Commentators render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Superstitio what if the Papists pretend it not to be taken in a good sense whom I suppose far enough from yielding themselves to be Superstitious doth that prove that Festus meant any excess by that word or indeed any more then Religion Next when he makes his observation that in all my large discourse I bring onely heathens to shew the meaning of the word and not one Divine Greek or Latine Father c. who take it in a good sense this is neither true in the affirmation for I bring the Scripture and the Christian glossaries to testifie all that I pretend to nor yet in the application for I do not pretend the word to signifie that which a Christian counts good but among the heathen the worship of many Gods which none but heathens can think to have no ill in it and consequently I pretend it onely of them and of those that set down the use of words among them and of S. Paul when he is not a finding that fault in them Act. 17. 22. and so still this is sufficient to prove that the word originally signifies not any excess of Religion or any other evil abstracted from that of the Daemon worship c. which was all that I had in design to conclude And in making this use of heathen Authors sure I have done nothing which I ever blamed in any man else as the Diatrihist's margent accuseth me citing the Quaere of Divorce § 58. where I thought it unreasonable that all the antient Christian writers should not be as competent to give us the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Demosthenes and Philo and yet made no scruple to acquiesce in the notion which either Demosthenes or Philo gave us § 57. For if he pleased to mark there is here no difference between the heathen writers and others Scripture and antient Christians concerning the meaning of the word Superstition all yeelding it 〈◊〉 to signifie the worship of many Gods whereas there that other person whom I opposed profest a contrariety and then preferred the one before the other To which yet it is necessarily consequent that in another inquiry whether Superstition were among Authors taken in a good sense some difference should be observed between Authors heathen and Christian because it is certain the heathen worship is by us Christians most justly lookt on as an ill thing being the worship of creatures but by the heathens thought well of as the Diatribist here confesseth practised and commended and so not lookt on any otherwise then Religion it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Etymologist used for a
Diatribist it is most evident that Religion and Superstition were by them who were guilty of daemon worship or when used of them by others taken as exactly Synonyma words importing the same thing But against this the Diatribist conceives himself out of these very Sections to have gained somewhat to object It seems saith he the heathens did oft take the word in an ill sense and branded Religions which they did not like by that name Plutarch taxes the Jewes for their Superstition in two things remarkable 1. That when invaded they would not rise from their seats on the Sabbath day which was excess against the 4th Commandment and gross Superstition 2. Their killing and sacrificing their children to Moloch which being an horrid Superstition was as the former intended as a worship to the true God and yet was interpreted no better then sacrificing to devils Psal 106. 37. which though in other respects it was against the first Commandment gross Idolatry so in making it a worship of the true God when he commanded it not neither came it into his heart as somewhere he sayes it was a kind of Superstition against the 2d Commandment concluding in a word that the Etymologist speaks fully his sense the word among the heathen is taken for a good thing but among Christians for impiety How solid this way of objecting is will now soon be discerned 1. By remembring in the general that at the beginning of the § the testimonies brought by me in those Sections were judged to be to little purpose but to cloud the business and lead men away in a mist and yet now he can express kindness to some of the testimonies as thinking they may be usefull to his pretensions which assures me all the other might have been capable of the like favour and friendly reception from him if they could any way have been perswaded to do him service 2dly To the heathens taking the word in an ill sense the answer is most obvious so they did Religion too and indifferently either when either they that spake were Epicureans enemies to all Religion or when the Religions they spake of were disliked by them and so sure that proves nothing for the Diatribist 3dly This is the answer also to what is observed from Plutarch for he speaks of the religions which he disliked the Jewish was one of them and particularly their observation of Sabbatick rests to the ruining their City which he thought their Religion had bound them to and never dreamt that they had mistaken their Religion or that their 4th Commandment allowed them greater liberty 4thly That Plutarch mentions the killing and sacrificing of children he took that also for a part of some mens Religion and thought he had reason to be dissatisfied with it and to make it an instance of the Quantum Religio potuit how much evil Religion did in the world still making no distinction betwixt Religion and Superstition But here by the way the Diatribist hath a little mistaken in thinking that this bloody worship in sacrificing their children to Moloch was as the former i. e. as that of the strict Judaical rest in time of invasion intended as a worship to the true God Certainly Moloch was no true God but a false the abomination of the children of Ammon 1 Kin. 11. 7. and 2 Kin. 23. 13. thought by learned men to be a deified King of the Aegyptians and so a daemon placed among the starres the same that others make the planet Mars see Kircheri Prodromus Coptic 1. 5. and that sacrifice was the giving their seed to Moloch that false God Lev. 20. 2 3 4. or the making their sonnes and daughters pass through the fire to Moloch Jer. 32. 45. and so no way intended to the true God And whereas he saith this was interpreted no better then sacrificing to devils Psal 106. 37. t is strange he should not see or acknowledge that it was a downright sacrificing to Moloch a Daemon and not as to the true God but then he could have had no pretense to make it an act of uncommanded worship and so such a kind of Superstition as is chargeable on our Christmas Festival and then he had lost all the advantage which this instance was to bring in to him Toward this he thought to reap some benefit by that text of Scripture He commanded it not neither came it into his heart as he somewhere sayes But why did he not tell us where God saith this If his memory had failed his Concordance would soon have helpt him to set down the place But it was not for his turn it should be examined The place is Jer. 32. 35. and again Jer. 7. 31. and truely belongs to these sacrifices to Moloch but then God's not commanding c. signifies not onely uncommanded worship but by the figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinary in the Scripture worship directly forbidden under threat of excision Lev. 20. 2. Whosoever he be that giveth any of his seed to Moloch he shall surely be put to death the people of the land shall stone him with stones and I will set my face against him and cut him off from among his people v. 3. And if the people of the land do any way hide their eyes from the man when he giveth of his seed to Moloch and kill him not then will I set my face against that man and family and will cut him off and all that go a whoring after him v. 4. and accordingly we see it in the Execution Jer. 7. 31 32. The valley of Tophet where they burnt their sonnes and daughters in the fire shall be called the vally of slaughter for they shall bury in Tophet till there be no place And sure this was not the manner of proceeding against those that observed any feast or sacrifice to the true God which was not commanded or prescribed by God they that kept the Encaenia were not thus judged and therefore this was very little to the Diatribist's advantage as now appears by examining the place it is pity Mr. C. would not consider it Lastly For the words in the Etymologist which he saith are fully his sense t is again a mistake they are directly the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It must be known that the word Superstition is among the Graecians or Gentiles taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a good thing but among us Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for impiety i. e. evidently the heathens and the Christians use it for the same thing the worship of daemons but that the Gentiles commend and account good who use it but we Christians justly deem it the greatest impiety Agreeable hereto again is that of Phavorinus a Christian also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstition is the worshipping all things even those which ' are not to be worshipt and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that is dubious concerning faith as the Israelites betwixt God and
only of impiety in Idolatry And thus I hope I have at length vindicated this 2d argument for the good sense of the word from all the evasions and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and truly there have been good store of them and I believe this Section his masterpiece of dexterity and therefore I have so punctually and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insisted on it from all the subtile refuges of this Diatribist Sect. 11. The Greek Fathers acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An argument of goodness that 't is pretended by hypocrates Religion in a good sense Will-worship not worse then false worship not abominable All devised worship is not Idolatry doth not pretend to more wisdom then Gods The Latin Fathers cited by Mr. C. The vulgar Translator and the followers thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the vulgar rendred decernitis The authority of Bellarmine and Daillé for the good sense The testimonies out of Ambrose Theodoret Salmeron Estius Augustine Thomas examined MY third reason being taken from the Greek fathers understanding of the place who though they interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only of appearance yet paraphrase Will-worship by words of good savour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pious religious c. The Diatribist begins with a triumph and ovation First saith he this is well that the Greek Fathers agree with us in exposition of the first words a shew not as he somewhat real of wisdom nay they expressely oppose against it power and truth and can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worship of God be taken in a good sense And do not the Fathers imply as much Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he seems to be religious but is not so Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretending religion in worship And is there any goodnesse in hypocrisie 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 incourage and ingage him to a more familiar conversation with them and then I am perswaded no body will have reason to repent of it All that I am to complain of at the present is first that their interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shew should be deemed an agreement with him more then with me who he knowes have produced them and never exprest any dislike to that interpretation All the difference between us being but this that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being capable of two rendrings rationem and speciem I that desired to proceed on sure grounds proposed them both and which soever should be adhered to shewed the necessity of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taken in a good sense T is true indeed if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be there taken for ratio the argument for the good sense would proceed most irresistibly But supposing it with the Fathers to signifie species a bare shew or appearance yet the argument holds very firmly thus also the Gnostick doctrines cannot have so much as a shew of piety in Will-worship unlesse Will-worship real be piety real and the appearance of Will-worship a foundation of an appearance of piety And this being the sense of the Fathers which rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bare shew this sure was fit to be confronted to the Diatribist's pretensions as a third argument And is it not now a strange way of answer to this argument to ask as he here doth Can that which hath neither power nor truth in the worship of God be taken in a good sense I reply by demanding what it is of which the Fathers say that it hath neither power nor truth Sure the doctrines of abstinence and not the Will-worship And yet his answer proceeds as if they supposed it of the Will-worship and without that hath no appearance of force in it And is not this a strange perverting of plain words Chrysostome saith the false teacher seems to be pious but is not and Oecumenius that he simulates piety and from hence Mr. C. concludes that Will-worship is not taken in a good sense But I pray is not piety taken in a good sense even when the hypocrite simulates piety Nay would he pretend to it if it were not good Doth a hypocrite pretend to that which is acknowledgedly ill This were sure to appear what he is and that is contrary to his being an hypocrite The product is plain Will-worship is rendred by piety not by appearance of piety unless piety it self can be taken there in an ill sense Will-worship must be taken in a good sense Certainly I need adde no more 't is pity I should be required to say so much of this matter But on occasion of the interpreter of Clemens who renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in religione from whence I thought I might conclude it that mans sense that Will-worship signifies religion and so that it was not taken in an ill sense he is pleased to ask Why Is not religion it self of various senses The simple word signifies false religion as well as true but the composition makes it worse and alters the sense because it addes the work of mans will to worship which is abominable to God What depth there is in this question will soon appear For 1. What if both religio and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be of various senses and signifie false religion as well as true heathen or Judaical as well as Christian Is there any appearance of reason to determine it to the former in this place or in that interpreters acception of it If there be then there is an account of the words being taken in an ill sense without any influence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mans will upon it if there be not as he is obliged to affirm there is not saying p. 69 that the Apostle brands them as destructive because they are but Will-worship not because they are outdated or Judaical much lesse then because they are any more dangerous sort of false worship such as was used among the heathens then what matters it what in other places it signifie whensoever the adjuncts or context so determine it unlesse it do or can be pretended to do so here This being premised that which follows is yet more strange that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying false religion as well as true the composition makes it worse worse then what then false religion This is fairly to resolve that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of the true God is worse then false religion indefinitely i. e. then Idolatry or Superstition and the reason annext is of the same temper adding the work of mans will is abominable to God Here indeed is a foundation of charge of Idolatry or whatever is most abominable on this poor Church of ours for the bare using of any most innnocent ceremony
more immediately lead into vitious practice I shall never willingly contend with any man or make reply to the contentious But in Doctrines which have immediate influence upon practice t is obligation of charity to indevour the disabusing of all and not to permit or suffer any such fruitfull and noxious error upon my neighbour 8. Under which head because I cannot but place the rejecting of Children from Baptisme and find some objections offered by Mr. Tombes to what I have written on that subject I have therefore drawn a short defence of that Apostolical practice and vindicated my former discourse from his answers and exceptions which being offered to the Reader as soon as the Printer will permit I shall not doubt of his leave to shut up the Palaestra at this time having sufficiently cloyed him with these Spectacles 9. And it is my wish for him that he may continue to have the ease at least of a Spectator that it may be his lot though for some moneths it hath not been mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to live peaceably and quietly with all men a felicity of which we are all to be ambitious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a grace that we are all not in prayer onely but by real indevours to contend for and to hold it fast untill it be violently wrested from us 10. As it is I have with patience fortified my self for the present undertaking and to make it also as supportable as may be to others abstained from transcribing the entire severall Sections of his Diatribae and onely repeated as much as exacts answer from me not omitting as far as my wit would serve me any the least particular which can be thought to have energy against any of those things that are asserted by me in those Tracts save only when the same things once answered have again whether in words or sense been repeated by him THE Contents of the severall CHAPTERS and Sections contained herein CHAPTER I. OF Mr. C. his Title Pages page 1 Sect. 1. Philosophy Col. 2. 8. Fables and endless Genealogies 1 Tim. 1. 4. Tit. 3. 9. The propriety of that Text Col. 2. to Mr. C. his discourse 1 Sect. 2. Mat. 15. 8 9. Gal. 4. 9 10. Deum sic colere quomodo scipsum colendum praecepit Christmass no irrational custome 3 CHAP. II. Of Mr. C. his Preface p. 4 Sect. 1. His discourse of the causes of my mistakes Comparing of Superstition and Wil-worship to Heresie Accounting Superstition our virtue 4 Sect. 2. Of being too Religious of the intension or degree The Messalians Neglect of Charity of particular callings Eccl. 7. 16. Of multitude of Ceremonies Too many Ceremonies no argument of too much but of too little Religion 6 Sect. 3. Mr. C. his distinctions of being too religious multiplied unnecessarily Frequency of duty if secured from other neglects no excess nor criminous Prayer a branch of Natural worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excess in trust c. as well as in Prayer The Species of worship and the circumstances thereof The wide difference between these Times of Prayer not limited by Scripture Set days of worship Gestures Prostration Mr. C. his 3. proofs examined Deut. 4. 2. considering Apoc. 22. 19. A view of Aquinas's doctrine in this matter 8 Sect. 4. Excess of Religion Super statutum Addition to the Rule Doctrines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. Act. 25. 29. Six concessions Superstitiosus Worshipping of Angels Superstitum cultus Slavish fear Religion in Epicurus Fear of punishment in sons in wicked men The necessity thereof Dogmatizing Placing more virtue in things then belongs to them 20 Sect. 5. The innocence of Wil-worship Analogie with voluntary oblationsunder the law Seeming Contradiction The authority of Chrysostome and Theophylact. The 2d. Commandment Reducing all sins to the Decalogue Addition to the rule Worship of Angels Other sins beside that of Dogmatizing 32 Sect. 6. The Lawfulness of instituting the Christmass Festival Of Church Laws 38 CHAP. III. Of Superstition peculiarly And first of his Prolegomenon on that Subject p. 41 Sect. 1. Answer to § 1. The method used to find the meaning of the word 41 Sect. 2. Answer to § 2. Amesius's definition The matter of the 4 first Commandments The affirmative part of the 2d. Commandment The Diatribist's misadventure about Duty in the midst No prohibition of either holy days in the 4th Commandment Jeroboams act 1 Kin. 12. 32. The Rubenites altar Josh 22. Naaman's altar Christmass Festival parallel to it The excesses in each Commandment 42 Sect. 3. The species of Superstition Idolatrie belongs to the 2d. Commandment Superstition to the first It differs from Wil-worship The meaning of Illegitimate worship in Aquinas His opinion of Ecclesiastical rites Barbarous ceremonies of Baals worship belong not to the 2d. Commandment Holy days before Popery Two antient Testimonies for them The Jews scrupulosity in not resisting on the Sabbath day 49 Sect. 4. The Diatribist's method and caution in setting down the species of Superstition 53 CHAP. IV. Of the particular exceptions of the Diatribist to the Tract of Superstition p. 55 Sect. 1. Confidence of innocence no argument of guilt 55 Sect. 2. The nature of the word Excess of fear among the Epicureans Superstitio from Super and sto not statuo Aquinas misreported 56 Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the heathens for Religion so in Hesychius and Phavorinus 58 Sect. 4. False worship is not Wil-worship Imposition of hands 59 Sect. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. The Athenians the most devout of all the Greeks 60 Sect. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 25. Festus's scorn fals on the Jews not on Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own not theirs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accusation Jesus put under the notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Festus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken for a daemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Diatribists objections answered Superstition for Religion simply 62 Sect. 7. The method of search for the original notion of the word Mr. Cawdries collections from the heathens Among them Superstition all one with Religion Plutarch of the Sabbatick rest Sacrificing children to Moloch was not to the true God Jer. 32. 35. Lev. 20. 2. nor a bare uncommanded worship The glosses of the Etymologist and Phavorinus 66 Sect. 8. Superstition always ill but not always excess Probations from the use of words among heathens The Quaere of Divorce vindicated Superstitions not reprocht in the Romans by Polybius Ignorance not presently Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. The Israelites worshipping the Calfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstitiosus noting excess 70 Sect. 9. The Diatribist's concession of the innocence of unprescribed ceremonies and so of all that is demanded His censure of himself and Chamier Authority in a Church to institute Ceremonies Abstaining from ceremonies because commanded by men or abused by Papists 77 Sect. 10. Strictures on some particulars in the remaining Sections
kneeling any or all of these or any fourth superadded to these If the Rule have prescribed none then according to his doctrine again any of these must be criminous additions to the Rule abominable c. If the rule have prescribed some one then all others beside that one must fall under the same severity that that one had done if it had not been prescribed and if all three are under several precepts and so the whole Rule obeyed by retaining these three then still I shall mention a fourth that of prostration whether will the old penitents in the porch or on the pavement every man in his closet and recesse and still the question returns whether this be criminous and by what part of the rule of worship it appears to be so Necdum finitus the enumeration of the Diatribists inextricable difficulties is not yet at an end but infinitely multipliable by every act of Religious Fast and of Almsgiving the two other sorts of Gods worship as Aquinas owned here by the Diatribist hath defined from the sixt of Matthew the proportions or degrees of each of which are yet no where defined in the Scripture But I suppose it cannot now be necessary that I farther confirm what is so evident already Else I might yet farther proceed from the duties of the first to the second Table and demand whether any thing that is done out of the service of God for which there is no command be a criminous excess Certainly the Analogy will hold God having given the Rule for justice and charity as well as worship and then whatsoever of any kind is not under precept must by this argument be under interdict and so there will be nothing left indifferent in the world A conclusion that some men which have held Mr. C. his hypothesis have rationally inlarged to finding it necessary and unavoidably deduced from thence But I discern not yet that Mr. C. hath thus improved his principle though sure whensoever it is for his turn it is thus improvable But Mr. C. hath added three proofs to his affirmation and how unreconcileable soever with common notions that is yet those must deserve to be heeded And his first proof is this If a man or Church may adde to the Rules of Religion then be or they may be too Religious But Ergo. Here it must be remembred that the thing which he had proposed to himself to prove was this that in uncommanded worship the least addition to the rule of worship is too much and such a man may be said to be too religious And this saith he I prove 1. If a man or Church may adde to the rule of religion c. Of this 1. I desire to be told whether it be not a meer idem per idem a proving a thing by it self and whether that be not contrary to all rules of syllogizing where the medium of probation is never to enter the conclusion as here most evidently it doth Having said this to the form t is not needfull that I say any thing to the matter of this proof it being the very thing that I have spoken to all this while and by that distinction of the sorts and circumstances of worship I have competently shewed that it hath no force against me that indeed he that introduces any new part of divine worship is a presumptuous assumer doth more then he should because that which he should not do and so that the Major is false instead of clear he that thus addes and imposeth on God and his word is not hereby too religious but too bold and was never pleaded for in the least by my treatise of Superstition The inconsequence of this Major will more appear by considering the proof of the Assumption which he annexes The assumption saith he is proved by Deut. 4. 2. where all additions to the word are prohibited But I pray doth he that prostrates himself in prayer adde to the word of God then sure he that walks in the garden doth so too much more he that makes any such deductions from Scripture as this Diatribist here doth for not onely the analogie enforceth this but it is also to be remembred that the laws which had here been given by Moses were all sorts of duties of common life towards our selves and our brethren as well as of worship toward God and so this Text must exclude all other uncommanded actions as well as worships The words in Deuteronomy are these Ye shall not adde to the word that I command you neither shall ye diminish from it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad custodiendum and in the same sense the Targum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to observe or that ye may observe that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you The meaning is most evident that they were to perform uniform obedience to God not to make any change in Gods commands either to pretend more liberties or fewer obligations or again more obligations and fewer liberties to be delivered them by God then those which he had then delivered by Moses but to set themselves humbly to the performance of his precepts and accordingly the Septuagint renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to keep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye shall keep the Latine custodite keep and the Syriack sed observate but keep the commandments by that opposition shewing that to be the meaning of not adding or diminishing viz. paying an obedience to Gods commands And the same sense in the like words we have again Apoc. 22. 18 19. to shut up the great prophecy in the New Testament And then I pray is he that offends against either of these two texts too Religious Is it not more true on the contrary that he is a false Prophet and a sacrilegious person that pretends the word of the Lord for that which God hath not spoken to him But this crime I hope every man is not guilty of that bowes or kneeles or prostrates himself in prayer by such outward gestures both signifying and inflaming the inward fervor of the heart but not inserting any precept of doing thus either into the book of Deuteronomy or the Apocalyps And this may suffice for his first proof His second proof is from the saying of the great School man that Religion is a moral virtue or very like it and stands between two extremes Ergo a man may be too much religious as well as too little First I answer to the antecedent that if it be remembred what the two extremes are between which religion in Aquinas stands the consequent will never be inferred from it The extremes are on one side Superstition on the other irreligion superstition is again saith he of two sorts either 1. the worshiping of a creature of false Gods or more Gods then one as in Tertullian adv Marc. l. 1. c. 5. speaking of the worshiping of two Gods Vererer saith he ne abundantia officii superstitio potiùs quà m
and service of God yet neither is that excess of religion nor indeed excess of fear or of service of God but the meaning is apparently this that in fearing God and serving God he is guilty of some other excess not an excess of fear of God but fearing somewhat else which he phansies to come from God when it doth not this fear of that something else is an excessive fear more then religion suggests to him and yet the unhappiness of it is this interposeth it self in religion This will be more evident by an example suppose a man to phansie that by Gods law he ought to kill his Father and fears Gods wrath if he doth not this mans fear is excessive but his religion is not he is an exceeder in the service of God if he do that in Gods service which is no part of it but quite contrary to it but doth not mean-while serve God too much but too little doth not exceed but fall short and so is farre from being too religious There was certainly great need of Arguments when this was thought sit to be produced to me who sure knew my own meaning when I thus spake and was likely enough to be able to give this account of it As it is I have done with his first discovery of causes of my miscarriages and shall now hasten to the second Sect. 4. Excess of Religion Super statutum Addition to the Rule Doctrines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 17. 22. Act. 25. 29. Six concessions Superstitiosus Worshipping of Angels Superstitum cultus Slavish fear Religion in Epicurus Fear of punishment in sons in wicked men The necessity thereof Dogmatizing Placing more virtue in things then belongs to them THe second cause of the Doctors miscarriages saith he is his misprision That excess in Religion is not well called Superstition or that Superstition is not excess of Religion Sect. 27 c. To this I answer 1. That my memorie not suggesting unto me that I was at all guilty of this misprision thus unlimitedly charged on me I therefore read over that 27. and the two following Sections to discern what it was that had given him occasion to affirm this and there I find no such thing The subject of Section 27. being the improperness of their expressions who resolve Superstition simply and abstractly taken in all Authors to signifie evil of Sect. 28. a second inconsequence that the use of Ceremonies not prescribed by Christ should first be called Superstition then condemned for deserving that title of the 29. a third inconsequent that men should abstain from some indifferent Ceremonies as Superstitious and not expect to be counted superstitious for obliging themselves to do the contrary But sure none of these nor all together do at all yield any ground for that conclusion which he hath here misreported from them and that one would think were a competent answer to this second discovery of causes But then 2. till the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be explained and agreed on what is meant by excess of religion t is not possible for me to affirm or deny to acknowledge or disclaim universally what I am said to affirm To deal plainly then and without all ambiguity If by excess of Religion he understand the doing of any thing in the worship of God which Gods word doth not command which is the onely thing which is of controversie betwixt us as hath already been manifested then I stick not to deny that this is Superstition or that superstition in any authentick notion or in the origination of the word whether Greek or Latine doth import or comporhend this and if he shall flie to any other sort of excess and contend that to be it of which he speaks this will be then the fallacie or lying hid in ambiguities which I took care to deprive him of in the last Section 4. But he expresses sufficiently what excess in religion he means by the proof which he first offers to confirm his affirmative For for this he brings three proofs and the first is this because it is an addition to the rule of worship and so an excess as super statutum 5. Here though it be very hard to reduce this to any formal or legal proof of the proposition for which it was designed and besides it must be observed in passing that the medium here used is no fitter for the proving of this then of the last proposition for it is the same to both and so indeed it is equally proper for both or for what else he please yet thus much is clear from it that by excess in Religion he means addition to the Rule and that we formerly discern'd to signifie with him the doing any thing uncommanded in the service of God and to that we have replyed abundantly in the last Section But he adds for the confirmation of his proof one thing not said before that all such addition to the Rule must be superstition forsooth because it is super statutum above what is commanded supposing it seems that that is the notation of the word superstition And then I desire the Diatribist's leave that it may for once be my turn to make discoveries of causes to propose to him at least for consideration whether this may not be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fundamental procreative mistake the having inconsiderately in his youth swallowed this etymologie of the word superstition I am unwilling to phansie the Diatribist to be the inventer of it as if it were so called from supra statutum above what is commanded If this be not a right conjecture I shall profess to be at an end of my search of causes But if it be I desire him to allow me the favour once to disabuse him by exacting this justice from him to himself to consider whether any Laws of derivation composition or analogie can permit him seriously to believe that statutum is ingredient in compounding Superstition or that it can be by any Rules deduced from any word in the Latine tongue but superstes superstitis and the rather because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is resolved to be the parallel Greek to the Latine superstition and is visibly so if it be allowed to be deduced from superstitum cultus hath nothing to do with super statutum but is in plain words a worshipping of Demons Of this sure I have said enough in the Treatise of Superstition to satisfie any Scholar that knows in the least what belongs to the use or the nature of words and so much it seems that Mr. C. confesses that the original of the word was Heathenish to signifie superstitum cultus and only adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in civility or fidelity to his cause that though this be true yet 't is well applied by Divines to those additions made to the Rule of worship But I pray what is this but to grant the premises and deny the conclusion T is certain and by him acknowledged that
the original of the word is another thing not super statutum what then can he tolerably mean by t is well applied by Divines can Divines do well to apply superstitio to super statutum when that is no way the nature of the word Or can any proof be brought from hence to conclude superstition an excess or addition to the rule because it is super statutum when there is no affinity between super statutum and superstition what is or can be unreasonable if this be not And so it appears how little truth there is in that which shuts up this first reason That which the Old Testament calls addition to the word the New calls doctrines traditions of men wil-worship superstition In which few words as there be many infirm parts 1. That additions to the word are in the N. T. called Doctrines I suppose he means teaching somewhat else for doctrines Mat. 15 9. assuming them to be such when they are not So again Mar. 7. 7. where yet the word Doctrines signifies the Scripture or Doctrine of God and so the teaching their own traditions for doctrines is adding them to the Scripture Doctrines there simply signifying not that addition but that to which the addition is made and 2. that they are called wil-worship the contrary of which is proved in the Treatise of wil-worship and here to suppose it is a begging of the question so sure this is a third that additions to the rule of worship are any where in the New T. called superstition I desire he will shew me one such place for my Concordance will not afford it me T is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only twice there used First Act. 17. 22. by St. Paul of the Athenians whom he perceived to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more superstitious then others But these sure never medled with and so added not to the true rule of worship any otherwise then as all that abandon it adde to it live by some other false rule and minde not that and if they are for so doing to be styled adders to the rule of Worship adulterers are so in like manner and so by that measure or standard every sin in the world is superstition Secondly the word is used Act. 25. 29. where Festus speaks of Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own superstition but sure meant not to accuse him of adding to his or the Jews rule of worship but understood his own Religion and nothing else by that phrase And so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are as many misadventures amasst together as could well be crowded into so few words His second proof now follows thus Because as the defect in Religion is called profaneness so the excess is called superstition as standing in opposition to it Alas it seems there is great need of proofs for this again as the former was the very medium to prove the first proposition and so either the first and this second proposition of his are all one and then why was it cut in two by Lucians beetle or else these proofs are very excellent instruments fitted for all turns indifferently However it is I shall not need provide new answers to it but remand it to the former Section where it was considered to the utmost it could pretend Only if he please I shall put it in form for him thus The worship of the many false Gods or Demons is an excess opposed to Religion or worship of the one true God of heaven and earth in Aquinas's opinion and so also is the worshipping the true God after an undue or unlawfull manner ergo the using any Ceremony in the worship of the true God which the Scripture hath not commanded is superstition and superstition is that As if he should say superstition is that because it is somewhat else as extremely distant from that as that which is not God is from God or as unlawfull for so is superstition is from lawfull for such is that which is not prohibited 13. A third proof he now adds of his affirmation and that after the manner observed in his former argument from the Doctors own concessions and no less then five nay the fourth number being twice repeated no less then six of them And if I have so liberally granted it I wonder how it came to be my charge and that as the cause of my miscarriages that I denyed it But 't is strange to see what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can do phansie first and next accuse me of denying a thing grosso modo and to prove me to have erred in thus denying produce six several senses wherein I have granted it whereas there is in the whole inditement but one pretended wherein I had denyed it In all reason those six concessions might have reconciled the Diatribist to me and perswaded him that I was of his minde rather then one single appearance of dissenting have thus provoked him The Doctors Concessions such as they are are evidently reconcileable with all that he hath proposed in that Tract of Superstition and the descending to a particular view of them as they are marshalled up by the Diatribist will take away all doubt in this matter First saith he he grants that superstitions may denote such an excess Sect. 31. Here I demand what Mr. C. means by such an excess that indeed is thus far answered already that he means an excess of Religion But what excess in Religion The super statutum every addition to the rule of worship i. e. every uncommanded circumstance or Ceremony in the worship of God Thus he must mean if he be constant to himself and if the Doctors Concessions yield him any appearance of proof for his affirmative But to see the luck of it this first citation from the Doctor is so far from yielding him any such testimony that it is indeed the quite contrary for that which the Doctor there observes Sect. 31. is this that the word superstitiosus may indeed denote such excess from the force of the termination osus but this no more then the word religiosus also denotes in the opinion of Agellius out of Nigidius Figulus and consequently that 1. Superstitio and Religio were all one in that same Author's opinion and 2. that it is the animadversion of Agellius upon that Author that all such excesses are not culpable or taken in ill but good senses And then was not this a dangerous concession fit to be called out in judgement against me then which nothing could be more direct to the asserting mine and refuting the Diatribists hypothesis If this account of the word superstitiosus were not sufficient to secure my pretensions which in that place were only this that superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess I might farther adde that even when the word superstitiosus is but a bare denominative from superstitio and yet is used in an ill sense as when we Christians say a superstitious person the account is clear
that superstition there signifies Heathen-worship or somewhat proportionable to it worshipping of others beside the one true God and by analogie with that notion of the substantive the adjective fitly denotes him that acts like one of those false worshippers or agrees with them in some eminent thing which is a branch of their false worship as he that makes observations of dreams and ominous days or occurrences is said commonly to be superstitious herein i. e. to imitate the Auguries of the Heathen and many the like The 2. concession that the worship of Angels is an excess or addition to the object of worship and by him styled that crime of superstition a man would wonder to see produced by the Diatribist against me T is certain I make the worship of Angels superstition worshipping those fellow creatures which a Christian ought not to worship But is this an excess of religion or not rather of impiety worshipping of the creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides or over and above the creator T is true this is an addition to the object of worship as death is an addition to life i. e. destruction to the oneness of that which ought alone to be worshipt and admits no rival ye cannot serve God and Mammon nor worship the one God if ye impart and lavish out that incommunicable priviledge to any other and so adultery is an addition to the object of marital love and fidelity But then what is this to the prejudice of uncommanded ceremonies the using of which super statutum the Diatribist is to demonstrate to be superstition for about that onely he knowes the controversie is betwixt us The 3. concession is just parallel to this and in part the same superstitum cultus saith he the worship of the Worthies by heathens or of Saints and Angels by Papists is called superstition Sect. 3. most properly why but that it addes to the rule of worship I must not repeate what was so lately said though the Diatribist will T is evident I affirm all these to be superstition but the using of an uncommanded rite is none of these what heathen worthy Saint or Angel is worshipped or idolized by my prostrating my self in the worship of the true God by my bowing at the name of Jesus c. As for the reason why the worship of heathen Worthies and Saints and Angels by analogy is called superstition it is strange again what care of interest can do The reason one would think was visible enough to the Diatribist in the very naming of superstitum cultus these Worthies and Saints are superstites supposed to live after death sure that is the notion of superstes and so the worshipping of such is superstition and as the Angels so the souls of the Worthies that thus survive the bodies and in the heathens theology are removed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the fortunate Islands in the Christians to heaven or paradise or Abrahams bosome are solemnly styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the worshipping of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that is superstition Is not this reason enough for the justifying the propriety of the use of a word that it perfectly accords with the origination of it both in Greek and Latine and then what need of his capriccio why but that it addes to the rule of worship Certainly so doth sacriledge even when it robbes God adde to the rule of worship in this sense doing something which the rule commands not no nor permits and yet that is not superstition The 4. concession produced is yet more strange A slavish fear saith he of God is granted to be superstition because fear of God being worship commanded in the first commandment slavish fear is an excess of that and he hath adventured to cite the sections wherein t is granted by me § 24. 25. of the treatise of superstition Herein the Reader will easily satisfie himself by his own eyes In a word those sections say no syllable of slavish fear or any such matter and yet the Printer hath not mistaken his figures all that they say is this that superstitio sometimes signifies in authors any part of Divine worship which in obedience to his God or for fear of vengeance from him any worshipper doth perform a thing which every sect likes in themselves but dislikes in others of a distant worship and so either honours or defames with the title as of superstition so of Religion also Then that it also signifies a trembling fear of Gods punishments due for sinne such as the Epicureans that denyed all providence were willing to scoffe out of the world And of this notion of superstition and equally of religion among the Epicureans and Cicero that took it from them I had spoken there at large from § 14. to § 20. to which I must remit the Reader and onely adde what there I omitted that all that is there observed would probably receive much light if we could retrieve one book of Plutarch which is lost and instead of which I can now onely give him the title of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of superstition to Epicurus differing it seems both by the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently in the subject of it from that which is now extant of Plutarchs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath no considerable aspect on Epicurus or his followers and Philosophy either to defend or accuse it Of this see the learned Gassend in his life of Epicurus But to return what pretense can there be thus to change my words in an unprofitable citation when if it had been slavish fear in his notion of it of which I spake yet that had been farre enough from the using of uncommanded ceremonies or instituting of Festivals and instead of that divine worship which any performs in obedience to his God or for feare of punishment from him and which Epicurus desired to scoffe out of the world to substitute slavish fear of God or an excess of that fear of God which is prescribed as worship in the first commandment Can it enter into any Christians heart to think or say that Epicurus was in the right in that part of his Theology and consequently that it was an excess of fear which Epicurus desired to exterminate This is to say that all religion belief of hell infinite punishments apportioned to sinners in another world are excess of fear and under the title of slavish criminous and to be cast out This certainly was Epicurus's meaning and the verses in Lucretius demonstrate it where he thus argues Nam si nullum finem esse putarent Aerumnarum homines nullâ ratione valerent Religionibus atque minis obsistere vatum If men should believe endless punishments they could never resist the religions and threatnings of the Priests And who would have expected the Diatribist a favourer of this sect as he must be if this fear of God which Epicurus called Religion or Superstition
oathes the negative and affirmative parts of it and then with what propriety can that be said to denote the right manner of the worship with all due reverence Or if it should be extensible so far then sure all ceremonies that may express that reverence though not elsewhere prescribed will be here commanded and then sure not forbidden in the 2d Commandment Lastly for the right time God's own appointed day the Sabbath I suppose he means though that be appointed in the 4th Commandment yet sure not so as to prohibite all others we know there was a yearly Sabbatick fast the great day of expiation so called Isa 58. 13. and many other feasts beside that of the weekly rest in the 4th Commandment some of Gods own institution others as the feast of dedication of the Altar in memory of the purging by Judas Maccabaeus instituted by the Jewes themselves and never mentioned in the Canon of the old Testament and so the fasts of the fift and seventh moneth Zac. 7. 5. And under the new Testament the first day of the week that certainly was not the last which the Decalogue prescribed and why the Apostles that instituted that proportionably to the weekly Sabbath should not either they or their successors institute other days festival or fasting proportionable to the like among the Jewes sure there is no manner of prohibition in the 4th Commandment which commanding one day to be hallowed and allowing the rest for their ordinary labour doth not yet interdict all others or bind his own or his peoples and all Christians hands from prescribing or setting a part any other And there being so little solidity in the grounds how can it be expected there should be any in the conclusion as he saith answerably erected on them that Superstition may extend to the whole first Table or that every excess which he will phansie reducible to any of these shall straightway commence Superstition That he may farther perswade this one observation he commends to us fundamental to this discovery but such as I think never slipt from any man before him His words are these The Commandments of God having every of them a negative and affirmative part expressed or understood the duties of Religion do stand in the midst as virtues between two extremes Here I shall not question the corner stone of this foundation else I might demand what is the affirmative part of the 2d Commandment or how can it be evidenced that there is any or indeed any more then a prohibition of idol-worship appendant to the no other Gods in the first Commandment which still is but a negative or an interdict or if an affirmative be to be understood must it not be bowing down to the true God and so that will not prejudge but justifie all outward decent gestures of adoration assist not oppugne our pretentions But in stead of this nicer inquirie and supposing with him that every of the Commandments hath its negative and affirmative part I onely demand how he could think that the duties of Religion stand in the midst what I pray is the antecedent to which in the midst relates there is no other in the period but an affirmative and negative part of each Commandment But do the duties of Religion stand in the midst of the affirmative and the negative part of each Commandment as virtues between two extremes Then sure the affirmative part of the command is one extreme and the negative is the other then what is commanded in the affirmative part to that which is under precept is an extreme and so a vice as far removed from virtue as that which is forbidden in the negative the worship of one God a vice as well as the worshipping of many paying to God our oathes a vice as well as perjurie perfect chastity a vice as well as the most prostitute adultery and so in the rest of them what could have been said more unluckily then this I would fain believe that the Diatribist did not mean thus and therefore would attempt to affixe some other possible meaning to his words as thus without any retrospect toward the former part of the period that the duties of Religion stand in the midst between two extremes as virtues stand in the midst between two extremes But then to what purpose was the ment on of the two parts affirmative and negative of the Commandments premised for this I am still to seek and therefore must misdoubt my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is not so fit for the malady as I could have wisht and yet I have no better to succeed it The best of it is he hath not pursued this observation nor made this Superstructure in his exemplification thereof the grosseness of it would not permit that But then to what purpose was his observation sure but to amuse the reader and say somewhat demurely which should pretend to be a ground of his beloved conclusions that all additions to the rule of worship are excess against the 2d Commandment additions of ridiculous ceremonies or gestures an excess against the 3d men's instituting other holy days and times an excess against the 4th And truly what else he please with as much appearance of truth or solidity of argument as these are inferred from either the letter of those Commandments or from the solemne observation concerning the affirmative and negative parts of them and the duties of Religion in the midst T is true all worshipping of Idols is forbidden in the 2d Commandment but how come all uncommanded rites to be Idols All perjury and by Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntarie swearing at all is forbidden in the 3d Commandment but how come rites and ceremonies and gestures though never so ridiculous to be either oaths or perjuries or to bear any analogie with or by that means to be reducible to them In the 4th Commandment the not observing Gods designed Sabbath was a defect but what words of that Commandment conclude against instituting other holy days and times as an excess and that criminous not admittable among Christians If any it must be six days shalt thou labour but sure that is not the meaning of them but the explication is to be fetcht from the other part of the period and do all that thou hast to do i. e. all thy labour and all that thou hast to do shall be finisht as God's was in six days and no other day must be so set apart as to take off from the seventh dayes rest or Sabbath but for such celebrations as are reconcileable with that there is no word nor appearance to the prejudging of them But the unlawfulness of this last is confirmed by the sinfulness of Jeroboams act 1 Kin. 12. 32. He ordained a feast like unto the feast that was in Judaea But the Diatribist cannot but know what it was that made that criminous in Jeroboam his appointing this feast to be kept with sacrifices at Bethel which beside the
be accusations again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7. c. Whence I suppose it will follow that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which he was charged which is the matter of the accusation or that wherein the offence consisted was his not their Superstition for how could their own Superstition be the matter of their charge against him To the 2d that what I said of Festus putting Jesus under the notion of a dead Heros though it be of that nature that I shall not because I need not make it a matter of controversie with any yet I had this consideration to incline me to it the immediate subjoyning of one Jesus whom Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contended to live to be superstes as of their Daemons Festus and those of his perswasions ordinarily affirmed To which purpose I remembred what the Athenians surmised when Paul preacht to them Jesus and the Resurrection Act. 17. 18. He seems say they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be a proclaimer of strange or new Daemons where St Chrysostome judges it so manifest that those Graecians thought Jesus to be a Daemon that he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they took also Anastasis Resurrection for some Goddess as being accustomed to worship females also And then why Festus an heathen likewise and which understood none but heathen Theologie should not thus mean in words of so neer an importance that will bear it so fitly I can yet see no reason to doubt Of this I am sure that in the one proof offered to the contrary the Diatribist hath strained more then I have in my Criticisme for 1. When he thus reads the text they had many questions that so he might make it necessary to distinguish the question concerning his Superstition from that of Jesus he hath inserted the word many there being neither in the Greek nor in our English any such word but onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some or certain accusations 2dly When on the same design he again reads both concerning their Superstition and also there is no such word nor any thing either in the Greek or our English answerable either to both or to also but onely thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning his own Superstition or daemon worship and one Jesus which was or had been dead so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies whom Paul affirmed to live and 3dly When he addes that he was accused of questions of their Law c. 23. and of sedition c. c. 24. this proves nothing which the Diatribist would have for though the Jews had thus accused him yet he had answered for himself in the latter part of c. 24. and cleared himself perfectly from those two charges from the first v. 12. and from the second v. 18. and so again c. 25. 8. and so still it remains that in Festus's judgement to which Paul appeals for the knowledge of it telling him that he knew he was guiltless from having done any wrong to the Jewes v. 10. Paul was not guilty nor stood charged of any thing but onely of his own Religion and one Jesus i. e. I suppose by way of explication as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is frequently exegetical of believing and proclaiming Jesus and the Resurrection c. 24. 15. which last also being common to him with the Jewes as there he contests could not by them duely be charged upon him and so the whole charge and that which is the characteristick distinctive note of his Religion is his contending that Jesus was alive who had dyed which how agreeable it is to Festus's notion of a Daemon I shall not need farther to declare As to the last it is evident that he that affirmes Jesus to be alive both soul and body doth to a heathen eare as much define him to be a Daemon as if he said nothing of his body However all that Festus here saith is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he affirmed him to live now after he had been dead and if to that we adde that Paul preached his ascension to heaven what could a heathen according to his perswasions conclude from thence but that he had attained his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was all that they required to his being a Daemon And so much for these objections Meanwhile if all were granted that is here desired by the Diatribist that the Superstition spoken of was not S. Pauls but the Jews this could no way incommodate me or hinder my pretensions in order to the main for then say I it shall signifie the Jews Religion simply without any character of ill or good laid on it as in Quintilian Primus Judaicae Superstitionis author the first author of the Jewish Superstition or Religion and in Vlpian that Severus and Antoninus permitted those to be capable of dignities qui Judaicam Superstitionem sequuntur who follow the Jewish Superstition or Religion and many the like Sect. 7. The method of search for the original notion of the word Mr. Cawdries collections from the heathens Among them Superstition all one with Religion Plutarch of the Sabbatick rest Sacrificing children to Moloch was not to the true God Jer. 32. 35. Lev. 20. 2. nor a bare uncommanded worship The glosses of the Etymologist and Phavorinus THe 21th § is a short dispatch of all that I had said of the use of the word among other Authors from § 14 to § 27. All which Sections though intirely designed to the discovering the true notion of the word by that norma loquendi the best rule to judge of words the use of it among writers of all sorts are shortly censured as a great deal of reading and learning to little purpose except to cloud the business to lead men away in a mist from the true and proper sense of the word among Christians It seems they which receive benefit by being in the dark are apt to mistake light for mists and the Apostle hath given the reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are reproved by the light T is certain the Christians took the word whether Greek or Latine from the heathens which were before them and accordingly to judge of the propriety of the use of it I thought my self obliged to search to the original i. e. to the use of it among the heathens and finding the Scripture use of it exactly agreeable to their acception of it from whom the Scripture had it and so likewise the Christian Glossaries that of Hesychius Suidas Phavorinus the Etymologist and others I thought this had been to some other purpose then onely to cloud the business And because I continue still in the same opinion I refer the judicious Reader for three eminent testimonies more to the same purpose out of Diod. Siculus of Imilco out of Heraclitns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of an edict of Tiberius set down by Josephus to the Annotations on Act. 17. By which and those already produced in the Sections here thought fit to be despised by the
he cites not In all reason this defect must be supplied by Salmeron who cited in the margent August lib. de verâ rel lib. 2. de doctr Christ c. 25. and Thomas 2a. 2 ae qu. 93. art 1. What place in Augustines book de vera relig it is to which he referres we have no direction and so are left to guesse that it is cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio in phantasmatibus nostris Melius est enim qualecumque verum quà m omne quicquid pro arbitrio fingi potest Let not our religion be placed in our fantasmes for any thing which is true is better then whatsoever can be feigned at our own pleasure And as to the truth of this position I give full consent that all fictitious false worship is to be avoided not only as he contents himself to say unfit to compare with true so I no where undertake to be advocate for any false or fictitious or fantastick religion The commemorating the birth of Christ on the 25th of December I hope is not such nor any Ceremony admitted into use in our Church The other place out of the 2d de doctr Christ c. 55. stands thus Having at the 20th Chapter defined Superstitiosum superstitious to be whatsoever was instituted by men for the making or worshipping of Idols and that either belonging to the worshipping any Creature or part of a Creature as God or to consulting or making any pacts with Devils c. and having fallen on the several sorts of divinations c. 20 21 22 23 24. he begins his 25th ch quibus ampuâ—atis atque eradicatis ab animo Christiano deinceps videndae sunt institutiones hominum non superstitiosae i. e. non cum daemonibus sed cum ipsis hominibus institutae the former being lopt off and eradicated from a Christians minde let us farther view such institutions of men as are not superstitious i. e. are not made with Devils but with men themselves And having added somewhat of such vain institutions which sure no way concern the matter now in hand he comes to those which are useful to humane society and resolves that such are not to be avoided by a Christian imò etiam quantum satis est intuenda memoriaeque retinenda but in a competent manner to be observed and retained and this how little it belongs to the present purpose to the proving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be here used in an ill sense is already so apparent that I need adde no word more to the clearing of it As for the place of Aquinas 2a. 2 ae qu. 93. art 1. It is the very same which long ago we considered in the former part of this Tract ch 3. § 3. n. 5. and to the view of it there presented I refer the reader finding nothing more in that whole place art 1. which was not there punctually considered unlesse it be a citation out of the Glosse Col. 2. quòd superstitio est quando traditioni humanae religionis nomen applicatur that it is superstition when the name of religion is applied to the tradition of men which words have nothing in them which I am not ready to acknowledge being sufficiently assured that dogmatizing is a sin and consequently that so good a name as religion ought not to be pretended for or applied to it What he addes by way of answer to my fourth reason hath I think nothing of moment in it but what hath oft been spoken to already unlesse it be that he saith he hath not observed any such difficulty or obscurity in that text Col 2. 20. c. but dares say the Doctors exposition makes the greatest obscurity that ever he met with But of this there is no disputing I must not expect that he shall acknowledge my interpretation to be clear when he dislikes it or discern the involutions or difficulties of that other which he hath espoused when if he did he were obliged to forsake it Sect. 12. The fifth reason vindicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius corrected twise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverbially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius's Glossary concordant to th Scripture use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5. 4. TO my fifth reason taken from Hesychius's rendring it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary piety or worship and the notion which he had of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in composition to signifie that which a man did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntarily and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his own accord agreeably to which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freewill-offerings are rendred by the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary performances his answer is brief that this is no advantage to my cause for the words may both signifie well-devised worship in an ill sense And though in humane authors the derivatives and compounds of this word expresse the Freewillingnesse of the person yet that will not help the Doctor who doth not understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect to the willingnesse of the person in a commanded worship of God but voluntary worship i. e. worship not commanded by God but offered to him by the free will of man To this I reply 1. that I willingly confesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as capable of an ill sense as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that when the worship is forbidden or false then being ill the voluntarinesse of it can infuse no goodnesse into it as when it is of it self good the uncommandednesse cannot make it ill And therefore 2dly this was not it on which I laid the weight only I thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not been so likely to hear ill with gainsayers as this other which I saw was fallen under great prejudice with some but rather that which followed of the other compounds of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie no more but doing somewhat voluntarily or of their own accord without any necessity to doe it 3dly Then I say that acknowledging it my notion of the word to signifie worship not commanded by God the authority of Hesychius and the other Greek Glossaries which concur with or follow him is clear and home to confirm that to be the meaning of it If that which is said already be not sufficient to lay the parallel directly betwixt Will-worship and voluntary oblations or performances of things not commanded then adde 1. from Hesychius again that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntary proceeding from his own will and that sure is distant enough from the will or command of another The words in Hesychius are certainly false printed as much of that book is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must questionlesse thus be mended either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverbially for so Suidas fetcheth that word out of approved authors and which way soever it is the sense
in him I will onely demand whether St Augustine be of any better account with him Haer. 53. he knew what heresie was and what Aërius was guilty of and whether elsewhere he may deserve to be believed when in consort with himself and with Epiphanius he saith Rectè festa Ecclesiae colunt qui se Ecclesiae filios recognoscunt they that profess themselves sons of the Church do duely observe the feasts of the Church setting this of the nativity in the front of such where surely those that do not observe them must disclaim their sonship and that is but a paraphrase to express those whom Epiphanius styles hereticks If he shall bring any so fair evidences that they that observe feasts are superstitious I shall think my self obliged to do more then deny the accusation For the festivities of martyrs mentioned by me in the same § he acknowledges they began betimes as superstition saith he ever attends religion and devotion adding that though they were intended for good ends yet they produced in time much superstition But sure thi answer is very unsufficient and inconstant Vnsufficient for what if it were granted that in a processe of time these festivities did occasionally produce some evil so Christianity it self so all things that should have been most for our wealth may through the vices of men be perverted into occasions of falling But what is that to the antiquity of Festivals which is the only thing that these instances were required to testifie And 2dly inconstant for at first these festivities are lookt on as superstition attending religion and devotion and by the way if that be applicable to these festivities that will be a competent character of their antiquity for religion and devotion were brought in with Christianity and if the Festivities were the superstition that attended that they will be pretty ancient and yet in the latter part t is said of them that they produced in time much superstition which latter if it be true then the former which was contrary is not true and that is sufficient to be replied to that answer As for his return to § 33. which is of the same matter that I presume too much upon my own reason in concluding from the testimony of the Church of Smyrna that the days of the death of the Apostles themselves were solemnized thus early i. e. before Polycarps death Sure his censure is not over reasonable For when by those expresse words of that Churches Epistle it is first apparent that Polycarps death was thus celebrated 2. That this Polycarp was immediate successor to the Apostles and lived in the same time with them 3 That this commemoration of Martyrs was before this time used in the Church and no new thing now to be done to Polycarp what reason of doubting can there be but that at this time the Apostles having received many of them this crown of martyrdome should be thus commemorated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in joy and exultation i. e. with a festivity when this appears so expressely of Polycarp and that in accord to former practice especially when to that is added the instance perfectly parallel of Ignatius yet more ancient then Polycarp and the day of his death precisely observed by those that were present on this very purpose say they ut secundum tempus martyrii ejus congregati communicemus athletae that they might assemble at the day of his martyrdome and communicate with this champion That I produce not more or more express testimonies for the festivals of the Apostles need not seem strange the records being so few which remain of those times and my reading being so small For the present these two may be considered being testimonies of competent antiquity and force to prove what I pretend to prove that Festivities were observed by the Church next succeeding the Apostles and why Polycarp and Ignatius should have that honour when Peter and Paul were not allowed it I still professe not to discern reason nor consequently to make any doubt of it Mean while when the Diatribist is willing to form an argument from my not bringing of testimonies § 33. it is remarkeable that § 34. is wholly past over in silence by him which yet produceth the authorities of Gregorius Thaumaturgus of Cyprian of Tertullian ex majorum traditione and so of those that were much more ancient then he and so intirely made up of testimonies of the first antiquity concerning the memories of the Martyrs which must sure include the Apostles as many of them as were thus crowned before any Churches were built wherein to assemble and celebrate their Festivals This shewes that the Diatribist had little reason to complain of want at that very time when he was thus overcharged with plenty of testimonies and hath not a word to return to any one of them any more then he doth § 35. to the mentions of Origen Cyprian and Chrysostome deducing the Christmass festivity from the first antiquity Sect. 20. Strictures on §. 35. The author of the Constitutions a competent testifier when in accord with others Justinus 's edict for Festivals reconcileable with the Apostolical usage of them The 20000 slain by Diocletian on Christmass day Objections against the 25th of December answered The controversie in Chrysostome about the day not the Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His words full for the Apostolicalness of both WHat now followes § 35 is so far from having weight in it that I must not allot any solemn answers to it the lightest strictures will be more proportionable As when of my mention of the Author of the Constitutions he saith this will weaken my cause the more because they are generally accounted spurious This sure must be very unjust that what was confirmed so newly from Origen Cyprian and Chrysostome should not only not gain but lose strength by the addition of the Constitutions which besides that they are acknowledged ancient by all which least believe them Apostolical are known to be designed to imitate that antiquity they pretend to and are never justly rejected but when that which they affirm is found discordant to the affirmations of other writings of undoubted antiquity which having no place here there is as little room for the Diatribists censure So what he concludes from Justinus's edict which I mentioned that it was a proof that the Apostles did not institute it is already answered by saying that the Apostles practice being all that is pretended for the institution the edict of the Emperour for the Vniversal observation of it is very reconcileable with that and so also with the usage of the first ages after the Apostles in case it be divolved no higher then these as the several decrees of Magistrates Civil and Ecclesiastical for an universal observation of the Lords day are sure perfectly reconcileable with the Apostolical original thereof And this was there evidenced by the 20000 Christians that were burnt by Diocletian on this day sure long
good thing consequently the thing which I contest is not this that the worship of daemons is or ever was true or lawfull but that beside this supposed by Christians but denyed by heathens to be evill adding the like of illegitimate worship there is nothing else which hath been lookt on as simply bad in Superstition particularly not the excess as that signifies unprescribed uncommanded worship which is the onely matter of the present contest with such as the Diatribist And he doth but perplex and disturbe the matter when he saith the question is whether it doth not always in Scripture and Orthodox Divines signifie excessive and false worship for he must set the question as elsewhere he doth of excessive as that signifies no more then uncommanded worship without the addition of being false it being evident that I defend not false worship of any kind to be good but that ceremonies or institutions not commanded by God may yet be perfectly lawfull and blameless and that that is the onely question between us For the text of the Act. c. 25. 19. I have answered already and evidenced that Festus meant nothing ill by Superstition and the Drs. words cited from Sect. 24. of the ordinary practise of every Sect to dislike the distant worship of others and defame it under the title of Religion doth no way prejudge this because it is certain Festus was no way factious for the Jewes against Pauls Religion No more doth the marginal citation from § 22. where I have said that Superstition was made matter of reproach to the Romans where 1. It was not Superstition simply but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not coming short of excess of which that was said that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reproached by others and yet as much commended by the Author Polybius in that place and 2. That the old rule in Logick will always hold there is no syllogizing from particulars nor can this ever be formed into a regular syllogisme or valid probation some there were that reproacht the Romans Superstition therefore Festus reproacht Paul's Act. 25. 19. or spake of it by way of defamation What remains of this Sect. belongs to the place Act. 17. 23. of which I had said 1. That the Apostle speaking of those whom he cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more Superstitious then other men tels them that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship the true God though ignorantly 2. That he styles them more religious then other men meerly in relation to their worshipping the unknown which was the true God which others worshipt not and so meant no more by that phrase then that they were more religious then other men no way appearing to accuse them of that as of their fault but preparing thereby to declare to them that true God whom they worshipt ignorantly To this many things are here objected 1. That their worshipping the true God ignorantly with their own devised worship was a Superstition justly to be condemned It being gross Idolatry and sinful Superstition in the Israelites to worship the true God in the golden Calfe I answer their ignorance of the true God was justly to be condemned according to that of Minutius Felix Non minoris est sceleris Deum ignorare quà m laedere it is as great wickedness to be ignorant of God as to hurt him or that of Trismegistus as I remember 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignorance of God is a species of madness and in another of the antients style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kind of drunkenness of the soul But that being granted 1. This ignorance was not the thing that denominated them Superstitious but their worshipping many Gods 2. Their worshipping the true God though they knew him not was no new species of Superstition wherein they exceeded others 3. Their worshipping him with their own devised worship was not it which is meant by their worshipping him ignorantly the words in the original are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literally whom ye not knowing or being ignorant of him worship i. e. worship him whilest ye know him not which no way refers to the manner of their worship as devised by themselves but onely to their ignorance of the God whom they thus worshipt which therefore the Apostle applies himself to cure and accordingly it follows him declare I unto you Lastly their worshipping him as dwelling in Temples made with hands i. e. in little Chaplets or Shrines or Images c. v. 24. is not their Superstition but Idol-worship and is very much more then the uncommanded ceremonies will amount to and so cannot be a proper instance of their own devised worship in the Diatribists notion of the phrase for all uncommanded worship and sure the Israelites woshipping the true God in a golden Calf is as little pertinent to that business for if it be true that they worshipt none but the true God then was that only Idolatry against the 2d Commandment not Superstition or daemon worship against the first or if they worshipt the Gods of the Aegyptians or any one of them Apis in that figure then what was that to the worshipping of the true God in an ignorant or by themselves devised manner 2dly He saith my rendring the place more religious then other men in relation to their worshipping the unknown God which others worshipt not is my gloss begges the question is against the text it self I perceive that in all things yee are too Superstitious both in their worshipping many false Gods and in their ignorant worship of the true and in their vitious rites of worship adding that this sense the Dr. himself gave § 11. I consider and behold you in all things or in all that I see of you as men more Superstitious then others Here I perceive my words are mistaken and therefore shall first answer to that then to the former parts of the objection The Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literally in all things or in all respects I look upon you as more Superstitious i. e. I take it and I thought I had sufficiently exprest it before considering all the altars and inscriptions i. e. the names of your deities which I see or behold I conclude that you are more Superstitious or religious worship more Gods or daemons then other men That this is the sense I am inclined to believe by the reason of his speech rendred in the next 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for passing through and contemplating your worâ—…ps i. e. the Gods which you worship I found also an altar on which was inscribed To the unknown God The summe of which is that in the survey of their altars which contained the names of their Gods he found one altar remarkably more then is usuall among other people that to the unknown God the true God of heaven which others in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or worship of many Gods did not worship which being the proof or reason exprest by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉