Section, 1. In a just and methodical order of Tractation, the Discourse of Superstition should precede that of Will-worship, that being more general, this last a Special under it, &c.

FOr the order or method, whether of those two should have the precedence, the Doctor is not very solicitous to dispute, p. 41. n. 1. [Though it be certain, (sayes he) that I am not of his mind, that Will-worship, is a species of Superstition, yet I shall not engage in a dispute thereof, &c.] It is hard, that the Doctor and I cannot be of one mind, almost in any thing; whether it be, because one of us are oft out of the way of truth; or that one of us, loves to have his hand against every man, that dif­fers from him in opinion; let others judge, and which of the two, it is. Sure I am, the Doctor hath engaged sometimes, in a dispute, in a lesser matter then this is, in opposition (as one would think) to his adversary, not of his own judgement. I shall not debate it with him, but onely shew my judgement, and the reason of it, to clear what I first asserted. True it is, that Divines, and Interpreters, do ren­der both the Greek words, [...], and [...], by this one word Superstitie; Because (as I take it) they thought, Will-worship [Page 63]to be Superstition: But whether they thought all Superstition to be Will-worship, is a question; which is some do, the reconciliation may perhaps be thus made by a distinction. The whole first Table of the Decalogue, being granted by all, to be the onely Rule of worship, (as contradistinct to Justice or Charity in the second Table) any way of worshipping God, or any Circumstance, made a part of worship by men, may be called Will-wor­ship, as well as Superstition; and in that larger sense, are both one. But if we speak distinctly of the matter of instituted Worship, as distinct from the Object, Manner, Time; then Will-worship, that is, worship devised and added by the will of man, in regard of the Materials of it, may, more strictly taken, be a species of Superstition; because Superstition may be found in those other Circum­stances named which is not in that strict sense, cal­led Will-worship: But I shall not be bound to per­swade the Doctor to be of my minde, let him enjoy his owne thoughts.

That which he replies to, n. 2. is the latter part of this Section, about the Inquiry, what Superstition is; not so much, by searching into the Monuments of Heathen Authors, (which is the Doctors way) as by the Judgement of Divines, &c. He sayes, [There is no better way to understand the full im­portance of words, then to examine them in their origination, and usage among the best Authors, Profane and Sacred, the Scripture, in Lactantius, and Saint Austin, &c. As competent Judges of Superstition, as his latter Divines, that have re­duced the use of all Ceremonies not commanded by God to the second Commandment, &c. Ʋnder the Title of Superstition.] Here are not many words but many miscarriages. 1. To begin at the last, and common mistake; that he charges our later [Page 64]Divines, to reduce all use of Ceremonies ( Cir­cumstances he should say) not commanded by God, to the second Commandment, as Superstitious: which they intended onely of uncommanded wor­ship; not of Ceremonies, unless they be made parts of worship. 2. For the Origination of words, and usage amongst Heathen Authors; he knowes, that usage, is often changed in succeeding generations; That which once was a good word, is degenerated, to signifie some thing ill, or clean another thing: as Latro, Tyrannus, Nebulo, with many others. And he that would now take those words in the first good sense (yet hath he Authors Ancient enough (for it) would make himself ridiculous. Suppose then, Superstitio, and [...], did primarily signifie Religion, yet in after ages they came to signifie something ill: or rather, if they did first signifie something ill, and afterwards had the hap among Heathens to get a good sense sometimes; which soever of these be true, there is no following the first Origination or usage of words; but to have respect to the several Ages, who are Masters of words. Yet if we may believe Cicero, De Nat. Deorum. the eloquent Orator, and a well-skil'd man in all Antiquities, in his time he tells us, (as I touched before) that they were first called Supersti­tiosi, who, totos dies precabantur & immolabant, ut liberi sibi Superstites essent, prayed whole dayes, and offered sacrifice, that their children might survive, and out-live them: and then addes, Ita factum est, &c. [So it came to pass, that the word Superstitious, was a name of a vice; and Religi­ous, of a virtue.] Whence it is observable from him; first, That Superstition was the name of a vice, in it's first Origination. 2. That the true Etymologie of it, is not from Superstitum cultus, but, Superstites esse. 3. That the notion of Su­perstition, [Page 65]Postea pateit latius, was further en­larged; for so he sayes; that is, to signifie more, that Superstites esse, viz. Superstitum cultus, and other things beside: and 4. That Superstitiosus and Religiosus differed very much, the one a vice, the other a virtue, which we shall have occasion to make use of again hereafter. But, thirdly, for the sense of those words, in Sacred Scripture, (no Hea­then Authour, as he floutingly speakes) they are now under debate, and must be Interpreted by other Scriptures; 4. For Lactantius, and S. Austin, though both of them, do refuse Cicero's Etymology of Religio and Religiosus, à relegendo; fetching it rather à religando; and of Superstitio, from Superstites esse; yet Ludovicus vives, a Learned Critick labours to reconcile them and Cicero, in the latter: For upon S. Austin, lib. 4. ad Mar­cellinum, c. 30. he hath these words, [Cicero does not onely say, that they were Superstitious, who prayed so for their children, for he addes, that Name was afterwards enlarged, that is, accommodated to many other things:] Cicero speaking of it in the first Origination of it, and Lactantius in a second usage; denominating them Superstitious, qui fal­sam religionem colerent, Superstitemque defuncto­rum memoriam: who did set up a false Religion, and Celebrated the memory of the deceased; so he: Yea, Lactantius himself so speaks, l. 4. c. 28. Qui novos sibi ritus assumebant ut in Deorum vicem, mortuos honorarent, hos superstiosos vocabant. Nimirum Religio, veri cultus, Superstitio falsi: Where he enlarges Superstition to all False-worship; as well as Superstitum cultus. But of the difference be­tween Religious, and Superstitious, we shall have occasion to speak again.

Section, 2. Superstition in the general notion of it, is not un­fitly defined by the learned School-man, A vice contrary to Religion in the excess, &c.

HE begins here with a mistake, [That I took Aquinas his definition out of Doctor Ames;] (who hath it not at all) which I took out of Aqui­nas himself, p. 42. n. 1. setting the place in the Margine, where I had it: and after explain'd it, partly by the words of Amesius, and partly out of Aquinas him­self, because it may seem a paradox, that a man can be too Religious. Why the Doctor should thus impose upon me, I know not, except it were to make his Reader believe, that I took up my Divi­nity, or trust, from some modern Casuist, having never read Aquinas, my self. But let that go with the rest of his secret flouts. But we are beholden to him, that he agrees with Aquinas (not in his defi­nition of Superstition, to be an excess in Religion, for that he hath disputed against, and refused to say any thing to it, when it was objected to him, in my Preface; but) in [making the Worship of all but God, and the Worship of God, in any forbidden, or abolisht manner to be species of Superstition.] First I would demand, why he added, the word (abolisht.) If that be the same with forbidden, it was a needless addition; if it differ from it, then there is another species of Superstition, viz. To re­vive Abolished-worship: which yet is contrary to another notion of the Willwor. s. 3. p. 19. n. 32. Rites of the old Law are not onely not com­manded, but for­bidden un­der Christ. Doctor; [when these absti­nences (touch not, taste not, &c.) are imposed and taught as Divine obliging precepts, this is an abuse of them, (which were otherwise innocent things, &c.] Yet now sayes, he makes the Wor­ship [Page 67]of God, [ in any abolisht manner, to be a spe­cies of Superstition.] By those words out of Aqui­nas, prout non debet, in that manner which he ought not; I understood not, uncommanded Cir­cumstances, but Worship, as I have often said. Nor did Aquinas, or Amesius own any such sense of those words; but meant it, the one of Illegitime­worwip, (that's the title of that Question in Aqui­nas,) the other of Ʋndue-worship, those are Do­ctor Ames his words. Yet the Doctor taking that to be our sense, flies out in this manner; [ If Ame­sius have owned that sense, then he was one of the Gasuists, which I forementioned, as the derivers of this prejudice into the Diatribist, and if Ursine, Doctor Fulk, Master Perkins are rightly cited, in his margine, &c. then we have perhaps, the full catalogue of them, and the Diatribist is now of age to consider, whether they have proved, or onely dictated in this matter.] Upon a meer mistake, for they all four, (no Contemptible Authors) with many more, mean the same with Aquinas, Worship not commanded, but Added by the will of man.

My distribution of the Subject of the four first Commandments, into, 1. the Object, 2. the Matter, 3. the Manner, 4. the Time of Wor­ship: he sayes, p. 43. n, 2. [They are no way qualified for such a structure, to conclude all excess in any of these, to be Superstition, there being scarce any one minute part of sound Doctrine in all this.] I am sorry to see the Doctor so poor a Catechist, as no better to understand the difference of those four Command­ments. Not any one minute part of sound Do­ctrine in all this? Then sure most of our reform­ed Divines are very unsound, who make the same distinction, in sense, that I do, as I could easily prove, and shall make appear in all the [Page 68]particulars; when we hear what he sayes to them.

[In the first, n. 3. which hath most of truth, yet this failing there is, that the right object of Worship, is not the principal matter of that Commandment, but the worship it self, &c.] There is then this minute part of sound Doctrine, in my words; that the right object of worship, though it be not the principal, yet it is some part of that first Com­mandment: Yea, this is the principal matter, or object of the Commandment, in the express words; God alone, is to be worshipped; without any ri­vals to, or in that worship: For the Command­hath two parts, a Negative, no other Gods; an Af­firmative, but Me, or before My face; and both concern the object of our worship; and not one word of the worship it self: but that followes by way of Consequence, If we have a God, natural reason tells us, he must be worshipped: he must be treated with, addressed to, &c. as the Doctor speaks; which are not properly worship, but the manner how we must come to him, to tender our worship; neither is there the least mention of parts of worship, there, neither can any man reduce Instituted-worship thither. Will it follow, because I must have the Lord for my God, therefore, I must Worship him, with Sacrifices, as of old; or with Sacraments, as now? Indeed Natural-worship belongs to this Commandment, to love, fear, trust in our God, &c. but as the matter of it, flowing from the principal object, [God alone for our God:] and thus Divines distinguishing of Wor­ship, into natural and instituted, do reduce the first sort, to the first Commandment, the latter to the second; but still making the first Comandment principally to respect a Right object. Hear some of them speak their own sense; [ The first Com­mandment [Page 69]hath three things in it. 1. We must have a God. 2. Him for our God. 3. Him a­lone, and none else.] Sure this is some new Casuist, and Ordinary Divinity, as the Doctor calls all but his own: No it is the Learned, Renowned Bishop of Winchester, in his Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, on the first Commandment. pag. 141. I shall adde to him, another very Pious & Learned, (in the Doctors own Judgement) the Archbishop of Armach; [Here is commanded, 1. The having of a God. 2. One onely God. 3. The true God and no other for our God, &c.] Body of Divinity. p. 214. But hear his own gloss: What is the general importance of that (1.) Precept? That we must acknowledge the God of Israel to be God, and re­solve there is no other God before, or beside him.

But see the force of Truth, Dr. Ham­mond, Pract. Catech. Append. on, 1. Command. compelling her adver­saries to confute themselves. Hear what the Do­ctor sayes here; [The Superstition forbidden in that Commandment, is not any extreme or excess of worshipping the true God, but the taking in, other rivals to that Worship, which belongs to the true God incommunicably, and so is the matter of the Negative part, not the nimiety of the Affirma­tive.] Is not this to confess, 1. That the princi­pal matter of the first Commandment, is a right object, God alone, without any rivals? 2. That there may be Superstition and excess in that Com­mandment, if not in the Affirmative part, yet in the Negative part, there may; yet the Doctor would acknowledge no excess to be Superstition, or Su­perstition to be excess in Religion.

[In the second, p. 43. n. 4. there is not (sayes he) a word to determine the matter of it to Commanded worship, as hath been evidenced beyond all question.] Let him look back, to what I have said already to it, [Page 70]and he will finde his evidence to be very question­able, if not, none at all: ad pag. 34. n. 10. Ha­ving there glossed that Commandment thus, [God must be worshipped in a manner, peculiar to him, and appointed by him.] I suppose the Doctor intended it of instituted Worship; whereof God himself must appoint the Materials; and is not that to de­termine in general the matter of that Command­ment? But if that be not, what is the Subject of the 2. Commandment, in the Doctors new Divinity? [It is the prohibition of Idol-worship; and bend­ing the knee to the true God, and none else, obser­ving of Christmas, &c. are remote enough from that guilt.] Oh! how Jealous is the Doctor, lest his Christmas should suffer, as superstitious, by the second Commandment! Truly he needed not to fear it, if he do not make it a part of instituted Worship by the will of man. But let that pass: Is the prohibition of Idol-worship onely, the Subject of that Commandment? that he must say, or he says nothing; yet that he cannot well say, without con­tradiction to what he said afore; that part of the sense and scope of that Commandment, was, [That God must appoint his own Worship.] which sure is not onely, in prohibition of Idol-worship. And yet, [see the luck of it,] his own words; the Doctor askes, n. 8. p. 44. [what is the Affirmative part of the second Commandment, or how can it be evidenced that there is any, or any more indeed, than a probi­bition of Idol-worship, appendant to the, no other Gods, in the first Commandment, &c.] But, first, the Doctor gave us the Affirmative part of it just now; [God must appoint his own worship.] And 2. if there be no more in it, then a prohibition of Idol-worship; let the Doctor do himself so much favour, as to reconcile himself to himself, for they are at a vast distance: For the Affirmative part, he [Page 71]hath found it, upon a second reveiw; [If an affir­mative part be to be understood, must it not be, how­ing down to the true God? &c.] Be it so, (though that, as part of natural Worship, may fall into the first Commandment) yet that's not all; but also that God must appoint every part of his own Wor­ship, as is confessed. But 3. One thing must not be forgotten; That he makes Idol worship, here for­bidden, [An appendant to (the first Command­ment) no other Gods.] And if so, the Doctor hath lost the second Commandment, (as well as Papists have) by joyning it to the first, as an appendant to it. For he told us, but a little afore, num 3. [The Su­perstition forbidden in that Commandment is— the taking in other rivals to that worship &c.] And now he sayes, [The Prohibition of Idol-wor­ship, is an appendant to that, no other Gods, in the first Commandment.] But say I, an Idol or Image worshipped, is a rival to that Worship, which be­longs to the true God incommunicably: ergo, Idol-worship is forbidden in the first Command­ment, and so our Catechist hath joyned with Pa­pists, and lost the second Commandment. I adde; for a close of this: The Doctor hath assigned the Affirmative part of the second Commandment, to be, [That God must appoint his own worship.] Now I demand (as a Disciple or Learner, of the Do­ctor,) what is the Negative part that answers to that Affirmative? must it not be this? [No man must prescribe, or Worship God, by any kind of Worship, but what he hath appointed?] That very gloss of the Doctors, I put in my Margine; in Will-worship. sect. 1. p. 45. I turned to the place in this Account, to see what he said to it: and he wisely waves it; infra, pag. 99. n. 15. Onely he forgot what he had said here, and contradicts him­self, by yielding an Affirmative and Negative part [Page 72]of that Commandment, which he here denied: but of that more, when we come at it. But because this Divinity of mine, is too old, or too new for the Doctor; [That the Subject of the second Command­ment, is, a right matter of Worship.] Of which the Doctor cannot see one word there; I shall gra­tifie him with two eminent Catechists Judgements, of the sum and scope of that Commandment; whom, I hope, he will not undervalue. The first is, the Bishop of Winchester: who thus instructs his Catechumene in the sense of this Command­ment: Pattern of Ca [...]e Chist doct. p. 196. on 2. Com­mandment [ The precept prescribeth, two things 1. That for his honour, in outward Worship, he will have modum à se praescriptum; The special thing here forbidden, is the not making of Images, but a fur­ther thing is set down, Col. 2.23. Invented-wor­ship: for (to make) in this place signifieth to in­vent: The general thing here commanded, is, that we should Worship God, after the Order, that he hath prescribed, Heb. 8.5. Exod. 25.40. Acts 3.22. Deut. 12.32. Jer. 2.11. Deut. 5.32. For as Chrysost. saith, Non est honor, se dedecus, si vel contra, vel praeter mandatum fiat.] Here the Do­ctor may finde, the general sum of this Precept, and the Affirmative and Negative parts; what is for­bidden, what is commanded. If this be not clear, and home enough, I shall pleasure him with another as learned as he; Body of Divinity. p. 222, 223 Vide Zanch. in 2. praecept. Alsted. compend. Theolog. Til. Syst. Theol. disp. 4. de 2. praecept. Virel in his Grounds. the renowned Archbishop of Armach: whose words are these, on the second Command­ment. [ What is the scope and meaning of this Commandment? To binde all men to that solemn form of Religious worship, which God in his word prescribeth, that we serve him according to his will, Deut. 12.32. What is forbidden? every form of Worship, though of the true God, contrary [Page 73]to, or diverse from the prescript of his word, Matth. 15.9. called by the Apostle, Will-worship, (mark that) Col. 2.23.] And as if he had not said enough, he goes over it again; [ What is re­quired to Worship God? 1. That we give unto God, that Worship, which he himself hath pre­scribed. 2. That alone, without addition, or al­teration. What is forbidden? 1. The neglect of his ordinances. 2. Dr. Featly Handmaid to Devot. In confes. of sin a­gainst the 2 Com. And who not. The adding any thing unto that pure Worship, when we serve him, by any other meanes, then himself hath commanded.] I hope now, the Doctor will be satisfied with these Authorities, and take notice, where I learned my Divinity, in this, and other points. Yet some­thing I have learned from the Doctors own Cate­chisme, (I will confess, by whom I have profited.) Besides what I have produced from him, ad p. 34. n. 8. I have been further instructed by him, in the senfe of the second Commandment. Of Idola­try, s. 13. p. 6. [ The word Idol signifies an Image, Sculpture, &c. But be­sides, these two things, 1. The Heathen Gods, under the notion of false (together with the Tem­ples, wherein they were worshipped.) 2. The same again, and their Worships, That vileness and filthi­ness, which was wont to be used in their Idol Feasts, is here for­bidden. Append. on 2. Com. under the notions of filt by, unclean, and abominable.] Now hence I observed, 1. That the Heathen Gods, as false Gods, as they were forbidden rather in the first Commandment, as rivals to that Worship; so they might be worshipped without an Idol, or Image, and so were not forbidden in this second Command­ment, which prohibits (sayes the Doctor) onely Idol-worship. This confounds and jumbles the two first Commandments together, 2. If the Tem­ples wherein, and the filthy, unclean services, wherewith they served their Gods, were forbidden under the second Commandment; I would say, this cannot be, as Idols or Images, but as parts of [Page 74]Worship, and then the Commandment may, by the same reason, forbid any other kinde or sort of Worship, tendered to the true God: as it com­mands all Worship prescribed by Him: which is the same, that those other Divines hold out, and which the Doctor hath so much declined, as so much pre­judicial to his opinion, and main cause. But enough of that Commandment.

For the third Commandment, that the Subject of it, is a right manner, he cannot assent to, be­cause he hath in his Catechisme, glossed it another way. He sayes therefore; [ I had thought our Sa­viour, p. 43. n. 5. Matth. 6. ( it should be, 5.) had given us the sum of it, Thou shalt not forswear thy self but perform thy oaths; the Negative, and Affirmative parts of it, &c.] But other Divines think other­wise; and perhaps the Doctor himself sometimes: I know how he hath expounded this Command­ment to his Disciples in his Catechisme; and I am loath to be lead into a new Controversie; yet to rescue oppressed truth, I shall say something to his New-found gloss. 1. It is the judgement of the best Interpreters, that our Saviour here corrected the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees, put upon the Laws of God; and in special here, upon the third Commandment: which is by several men, understood in a double sense. 1. That our Savi­our, first, layes down the false Interpretation of the Pharisees, See Dr. Andr. Serm. on 2 Com. p. 40. as if nothing were meant by [Taking of Gods Name in vain] but forswearing and perju­ry: So that Learned and Pious Perkins on the place. 2. Others think (and very probably) that he especially looks at these words, Levit. 19.12. [Thou shalt not forswear thy self, &c.] Which were not the words of the Pharisees, but of God, by Moses; which they glossed and corrupted di­vers wayes: as 1. That it was lawful, for a man to [Page 75] swear in ordinary discourse, if they did not for­swear themselves; against this our Saviour oppo­ses, [Swear not at all.] 2. That they allowed swearing by other things, the heavens, earth, tem­ple, &c. Even to esteem it no perjury, though false, to which our Saviour opposes; [Swear not by hea­vens, &c. nor any thing,] but by the Name of God, when just occasion to swear. Let your yea, be yea, &c. Thus the Judicious Chemnitius in­terprets the words: so that our Saviour had no respect directly to the third Commandment, but as swearing and forswearing, were particular bran­ches of sins there forbidden, and of Taking Gods Name in vain. Pract. Catech. p. 120. But the Doctor sayes peremptori­ly; [Thou shalt not take the Name of God in vain, is undoubtedly, no more then, thou shalt not forswear thy self; swearing, simply taken, is not reduced to this Commandment.] I shall not enter the debate with the Doctor my self, for I have none, but new and Ordinary Divinity. I shall therefore go to School to those Learned Catechists, before cited, who undoubtedly have found another meaning of the third Commandment. Patt. of Catech. doctr. p. 221. The Bishop of Win­chester: thus Paraphrases it. [The object of this Commandment, is the Name of God: The thing commanded, is praise, and this praise must be to his Name—The Name is that, whereby we know a man, or thing, &c. So whatsoever God is known by, is meant by his Name in this place.] The other, Body of Divin. p. 236. the Archbishop is more express and full. [ What is the sum of this Commandment? That we impeach not, but by all means advance the glorious Name of God, in all things he makes himself known to men: 1. His Titles, Jehovah, &c. 2. His Properties and Attributes. 3. His Works and Actions. 4. His Word. 5. Sacraments. 6. Censures. 7. Pray­er. 8. The whole Worship of God, in all his Or­dinances, [Page 76]&c.] I spare to produce any more, of our Divines, and return to the Doctor: He says, 1. [ Thou shalt not take the Name, &c. is un­doubtedly, no more, then thou shalt not forswear thy self. 2. Swearing simply, is not reduced to this Commandment.] I demand then, to what Commandment, was common, rash, ordinary swearing reduced? or were the Jewes indulged swearing? (as some of the Fathers seem to hold;) and to swear by the creatures also? The Law Deut. 6.13. &c. [Thou shalt swear by his Name,] imports two things, 1. That swearing there was not meant of Ordinary swearing in common discourse, but upon just occasions, before a Magistrate, &c. 2. That when they did swear, they must swear by the Name of God, that is, by God himself, and no other creature, or thing. That Law of Moses, was not a permission, (as the Doctor calls it) but a pre­cept. What then does the Doctor mean, by swear­ing, simply taken, &c. That it was sometimes law­ful to swear upon just occasions. That's allowed also in the Gospel: our Saviour came not to void that Law; or that See p. 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all, is forbidden (by Christ, [...],) in the 3. Com. As if it were al­lowed by the Law before. simple swearing, either without perjury, or ordinarily, by the Name of God, was permitted the Seep. 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all, is forbidden (by Christ, [...],) in the 3. Com. As if it were al­lowed by the Law before. Jewes by Moses? This I suppose, he will not say. Yet faintly sayes the contrary. [Perhaps foolish, wanton (sure, prophane, blasphe­mous) using of Gods Name, may be resolved, to be there forbidden by reduction.] Is it but perhaps, foolish and wanton using of Gods Name may be resolved to be there forbidden? It's well he will yield that profane, and blasphemous using of Gods Name is there forbidden. Yet I would be bold to ask my Catechist one question more: How can (I say not, foolish and wanton) profane and blasphe­mous using of Gods Name be forbidden in that Commandment, so much, as by reduction, if the [Page 77]taking Gods Name in vain, be undoubtedly, no more, then thou shalt not forswear thy self? Can­not men profane and blaspheme Gods Name, but onely when they forswear themselves? or have foolish and wanton using Gods Name, by common swearing, any thing to do with perjury? I would but propound this argument; [ To use the Name of God, unreverently, was ever a Sin, against some moral Law; but to use the Name of God foolishly, wantonly, (much more, profanely, blasphe­mously) is to use the Name of God, unreverently, and vainly: ergo,] If against a Moral-law, I ask again, Against which Commandment, if not against the third? To shut up this: the Doctor sayes, Pract. Cat. p. 121. [Swearing by other inferior things, are now utterly unlawful:] What now onely? were they not so, in the Old-law? It seemes not, by the Doctor; for he sayes, this is something, that Christ hath added to perfect the Law; [ A Christian must not use any of those Oaths.] Belike a Jew might: But why not a Christian now? Hear his reason: [Because every of these are Creatures of God (whose whole being consists in reference to him) & not to be subjected to their lust, to be tost & defamed, by their unnecessary oaths.] Will not the same reason serve against the Jewes, swearing by inferior Creatures? were they not then the Creatures of God, and the rest? Why might not the Doctor have given this reason, be­cause it is a taking of Gods Name in vain, (which is much made known by the Creatures) and against the Commandment, which requires, that when men do swear, they swear onely by his Name. But these would have marred his new gloss. I leave it to him.

And now we are come to consider the subject of the fourth Commandment, the right time, his own [Page 78]appointed day: Which he does not, cannot deny, for he hath granted it elsewhere; but yet hath somewhat to say. p. 44. n. 6. 1. [Sure not so, as to prohibit all others, there were other, Fast and Feasts ap­pointed, besides the weekly rest, &c.] 'Tis true; but then they were of Gods own appointment, (who may dispense with his own Lawes) and if appointed by men, they were but Circumstances, not parts of Worship, as the Doctor confesses: But I was speak­ing of Worship, he knows. In Religion or Wor­ship of God, four things are considerable, the last whereof is, a right Time, his own appointed Day, viz. as a part of Worship: and so all other Days are forbidden. But then, secondly, he hath ano­ther elusion, [Under the New Testament, the first day of the week, certainly was not the last, which the Decalogue prescribed, &c.] This will prove the Doctors mistake, common to him with others: [That the fourth Commandment, prescribed, no­thing, but the seventh or last day of the week:] Which if it be true, the fourth Commandment is as fully void, as that Commandment which pre­scribed the seventh year Sabbath, or any other par­ticular Holy-day. The Doctor himself hath grant­ed, that the fourth commandment requires, that we give God, not less then one day in seven: which if it be true, the principal matter of the fourth Commandment, was not that seventh day; for that is void, sayes he, say all; but one day in seven, but still of Divine appointment, as being a part of Wor­ship. The Lords day then, being one of seven, and confessedly of Divine Institution by the Apostles, whose appointments were Divine. There is no asking, [why the Apostles should not (either they or their successors) institute other dayes] (as parts of Worship, that must be minded:) the reason is, because the Apostles had Divine Authority, to in­stitute [Page 79]the Lords day, according to the fourth Com­mandment, one day of seven, but neither they, much less their successors, can produce any Com­mission, to institute other dayes, I say still, as parts of Worship: if as Circumstances onely of Worship, it is nothing to the purpose, as I have often said. And now, for all that is said, the Subjects of the four first Commandments, are distinct, and clear, as I have propounded them; and will be a ground sufficient to build that on, which is intended, p. 44. n. 7. [That Superstition may extend, to the whole first Table, when there is a nimiety or excess in any one of them.] To the further confirming whereof, I now proceed.

But first, the Doctor is willing to expose me, to the scorn of all Readers, for want of Ingenuity, or Charity, to make the best construction of my words: He sayes, n. 8. [to perswade (that assertion afore) he commends one observation to us, but such, as I think, never slipt from any man before him.] Surely the Doctor hath met with some Errata's, in some Authors Printed, which are as unreasonable, or as much non-sense, as these of mine are. He might have said; either it may be the Printers fault; or some Inadvertency in the Author; or else have looked forward, how I improved my no­tion (which he does at last, when he hath suffici­ently flouted me.) Any of these had becom'd him better, then to make himself mirth, by others (un­deserved) shame. I shall not blush, to confess, there was an Inadvertency in me in passing those words. For those words (the Commandments of God ha­ving a Negative and Affirmative part) were need­less and impertinent here: It had been sufficient to have said, the duties of Religion do stand in the midst, between two extremes, as vertues do; as my application shewes my meaning to be: Or [Page 80]thus, In stead of those first words, I should have said; In or against every Commandment of God, here are sins of omission in the defect, (against the Affirmative part) and of Commission in the ex­cess, (against the Negative part) and the duties of Religion do stand in the midst (between those two sorts of sins) as vertues between two extremes: or thus we must observe, 1. That the Command­ments of God have every one of them, a Negative & an Affirmative part, expressed or understood; the omission being a sin against the Affirmative part, the commission being a sin against the Negative; and then 2. The duties of Religion stand in the midst (between those two sorts of sins) as vertues, between two extremes. Are not both these true and good sense? But taking the advantage, to abuse his Adversary, he goes on: First, to question the Corner-stone; [What is the Affirmative part of the second Commandment, or can it be evidenced it hath any?] Where of we have given him a full account above, Ad p. 43. n. 4. p. 45. n. 9. Then, [he will suppose with me, that every Commandment hath it's Negative and Affirmative part: he demands onely, how he could think, that the duties of Religion, stand in the midst? What's the Antecedant, to which, in the midst relates? there is no other in the period, but the Affirmative and Negative part: but do duties of Religion stand in the midst between them two?] And then he goes on to make himself merry, and me a scorn: But letting that pass; might he not in the second part of the Period, have found, two extremes, between which (as virtues do) the duties of Religion stand? p. 45. n. 10. This he stumbles on at length; and would (gladly no doubt) affix that possible meaning to my words. [But then to what purpose was the mention of the two parts, Affirmative and Negative: for this, he is still to seek; and his [Page 81]Plaister not so fit for the malady as he could have wished, and yet hath no better, &c.] Yes, there was a better at hand, and he at last findes it; [The best of it is, he hath not pursued this observation, in the exemplification thereof.] Why, the exemplifi­cations, might have suggested my meaning to him, in all the four Commandments. [In the first, a double errour; one in the defect, that's Atheism; having no God at all: the other in the excess, that's Polytheisme, having too many:] and so of the rest: the duty of Religion stands in the midst, to have God, and him alone to Worship; this is plain enough to be my meaning. Yet the Doctor an­swers his own question, n. 11. [To what purpose was this observation?] Uncharitably enough; [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 second Commandment, &c.] God deal so with my soul, as I had no defign, but to search out and settle the truth: which I think will now appear, though the Doctor would fain cloud it, by saying, (as if it were my conclusion) All Additions to the rule of Worship, are excesses against the second Commandment;] Whereas I meant, all Additions of Worship, (not, of Cir­cumstances) are excess against that Command­ment: as I have proved.

Upon this mistake, are all those questions of the Doctor: p. 46. n. 12. [All worship of Idols is forbidden in the second Commandment, but how come all uncom­manded rites to be Idols? &c.] The Doctor varies the question, and then multiplies his questi­ons: He hath oft enough been told, it is not about uncommanded Rites, (unless made parts of Wor­ship,) but uncommanded Worship: A Rite or Ce­remony made a part of Worship, by men, is an Idol [Page 82]or Image: as, supra on the second Command­ment.

[ All perjury, p. 46. n. 12. (and (by Christs, [...],) voluntary swearing at all) is forbidden in the third Commandment, but how come Rites and Ceremo­nies, and Gestures, though never so ridiculous, to be either oaths or perjuries? &c.] True it is, first, that perjury, (as it is the grossest taking of Gods Name in vain, to call him to witness a lie) is for­bidden in the third Commandment: but so was all voluntary swearing by the Name of God, or Creatures, forbidden in the same Commandment: on the same reason, in the Judgement of the best Divines: 2. The Doctors question, [How come ridiculous Rites and Ceremonies, &c. (in the worship of God) to be perjury?] is it self ridicu­lous: for though they be not perjury, yet are they, Takings of Gods Name in vain. His question is grounded upon a double false Supposition: first, That the third Commandment did forbid onely perjury: 2. That voluntary swearing, was not forbidden in that Commandment, by Moses, but is part of Christs, [...], or perfection added to the Law, before imperfect; both which are proved false. The like may be said to the next question, about the fourth Commandment. [What words of that Commandment, conclude against in­stituting of other Holy-dayes, &c. as an excess? &c.] Those words, six dayes for labor, and one onely for rest in a week, at Gods appointment, as an Holy day, do conclude against all mens in­stituting other Holy-dayes: as is proved else­where.

I gave an instance of an excess in the fourth Com­mandment, n. 14. [In Jeroboams Feast, Instituted by himself, like unto the Feast which was in Judea,] of Gods institution: what was it, that made that [Page 83]criminous? Let the Doctor tell us; [This sure was the sin of Jeroboam, to set up Calves in Dan and Bethel, and so in like manner, a Feast, like that in Judea; and sacrificing there; contrary to the command of making Jerusalem the onely place of sacrifice. &c.] So the crime was onely, with respect to the place. n. 15. [Had that Feast been separated from that appendant sin, of sacrificing elsewhere, then God had appointed, &c. I shall desire to know, why that might not have been as blameless, as the Reubenites erecting an Altar by Jordan.] Belike then, if the King of Judah, had altered Gods appointed Feast, at Jerusalem, of his own head, that had been no sin. For the Reu­benites Altar, there are Learned men, that say, they did ill in erecting of it, and the rest in allowing it: So the ever Honoured and Judicious Calvin, upon Josh. 22. Duae tribus, &c. [The two Tribes and half did very ill, &c.] But the Doctor respects not his judgement. What thinks he of the Learned and Renowned Doctor Fulk; [The two Tribes and half, Josh. 22. Made not an Image, but an Altar, for a memorial; and yet their fact was not commendable, &c.] Against Sanders of Images; See Joseph. Antiq. l. 5. c. 1. It was not for Worship, &c. p. 47. n. 17. p. 649. However the difference between that Feast of Jeroboam, and the Altar at Jordan, is visible; The one was made a part of Worship, by Jeroboam, as the Chappels, and Sacrifices and Priests were; but the other a Monument onely of a civil thing.

[And why may not a Christian Festival, as a Memorial, not to draw off any mans heart, from any part of Gods prescribed Worship, be as innocent, as that?] True, if onely as a Memorial; a Circum­stance of Worship, and not as a part of Worship; an Holy-day, equal with the Lords-day, &c. that's it that makes it a crime. And we know, that his Christmas Festival was so made and accounted; [Page 84]and did draw away many mens hearts from some part of Gods prescribed worship, by putting more ho­nor on it, and less on the Lords-Sabbath; as we have shewed: Otherwise, I shall use his own words, [Why might not our Jealous brethren, the Doctor and those of his perswasion, that came out to dispute against us, imitate the Israelites, and lay down that design, and go back to their houses in peace?]

[We know (sayes he) Naaman built him an Altar in his own Countrey, n. 18. and there offered unto the God of Heaven.] What he knowes I cannot tell, but I know no such thing, by that story. For, first, the text sayes not the Prophet granted his re­quest, to let him carry away two mules burden of the earth from (not Jerusalem, but) Samaria. 2. Much less, that he built him an Altar in his own Countrey; though he pretended so much: 3. And yet less, that he offered sacrifice there to the God of Heaven. For, first, Jerusalem was the place appointed for Worship, John 4. and therefore Proselytes came thither to worship: 2. For sa­crifice, himself sayes, [ It was contrary to the ex­press word of God, which had commanded, that all sacrifice, should be offered at Jerusalem, n. 14.] 3. If he offered it, in his own Countrey; who was then and their his Priest? Sacrifices were tied as well to be offered by a Levitical Priest, as at the Altar at Jerusalem: But if some of this were granted him, that the Prophet granted him (which is most improbable upon the former considerati­ons) and he carried away some of that earth, and with it, built an Altar, yet it might be, as the Reu­benites, not for sacrifice, but as a Memorial, to put others in mind, what God he now served. This is but a by-business, and I needed not to have follow­ed him in it, but onely to take down his confi­dence, [Page 85]in interpreting Scripture; and to discover the grounds of his mistakes, in setting up Festi­vals, as Dayes more holy, and as parts of Worship: as this Altar, if erected to the end of sacrificing to the God of Heaven, would have been.

But my conclusion, will not yet down, p. 48. n. 19. [That there may be Superstition in a general sense, in or against all the Commandments of the first Table, in the excessive part, &c.] Or if it were so; [Yet (sayes the Doctor) I hope the observing of a few blameless, decent, Ceremonies, instituting a Chri­stian Festival, &c. will not prove to be any of those excesses.] We have answered twenty times I think; it is not uncommanded Circum­stances, but uncommanded Worship, that is proved guilty of excess.

But soft and fair; The Doctor sayes, n. 20. [By the way, I am not sure that in every Commandment of the ten, there are such excesses: I shall sup­pose Chastity the duty of the seventh Command­ment: Fornication, &c. the The Dr. hath gi­ven us both the ex­tremes. Quest. of Divorce, s. 31. A double Adultery, one in ta­king a new wife whilest the former liveth, the other in deserting (and denying the duty of marriage to) the rejected wife. There Adultery, taking another wife, or woman, was made the excess, in the seventh Commandment, here he makes it the defect. extreme on one side, take which he will, excess or defect; I demand what is the other extreme, and whether placed by those Divines named, under the head of Supersti­tion, &c.] This is a meer perverting of the que­stion, which is not of the ten; but of the four Commandments of the first Table: And there­fore his instance of the seventh Commandment, is beside the business. To be sure, Superstition is not to be looked for, in the second Table, but in the first, which hath respect to Worship: And he [Page 86]should make himself ridiculous, that would ima­gine any man so simple, as to place the extreme of the seventh Commandment, under the Head of Superstition: Yet of some Commandments of the second Table, it's apparent, there may be ex­tremes, and so one in the defect, another in the ex­cess. Though not under the Head of Superstition: ergo, In the fifth Commandment: Not to honour our Parents, is the defect: to honour them above God, is an excess. In the sixth, neglect of our own, or others life, is a defect; to violate it, is an ex­cess; say the same of the 7.8.9. Command­ments: But this is a needless quarrel; onely to make some sport. Does not the Doctor know that moral virtues stand between two vices, in the ex­tremes, one in the excess, the other in the defect: Suppose it be, Fortitude, Justice, Chastity (by him named) and the rest: shall I need to send him to his Ethicks, to finde out the extremes, to every vertue? To conclude, are there not sius of Omissi­on, and Commission, in every Commandment? the one against the Affirmative part of the Command, leaving undone what is commanded, the other against the Negative part thereof, doing what is forbidden; and are not, doing too much, and lea­ving undone, what is commanded, (which is doing too little) the two extremes, in the excess and de­fect? And because all this discourse, is with respect to the main question, [That Superstition is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess.] I shall shew him a learned heathen, that gives him both the extremes in Religion, Plutarc. in vit. Camilli. [...]. Plutarch, by name; who bewails [the [Page 87]weakness and infirmity of men, not keeping with­in due bounds; but running one while into Super­stition and vanity, another while into neglect and contempt of Divine thing:] Where, [...], and [...], are op­posed, as the excess and defect, and presently after, [...], Religion set up in the midst, as the vertue, between those two extremes? I hope this old learning will please the Doctor I leave it to him.

Section, 3. [And hence it may appear, that some are too short, in defigning the Species, or kindes of Supersti­tion, &c. First, the learned School-man, who makes but three kindes of it, &c.]

HEre I am first charged, for wronging Aquinas, [saying, p. 49. n. 7. he makes but three kindes of Super­stition, whereas it's evident, he makes four:] It's true, in the conclusion, he makes four, but in the body of that Article, he reduces them all to three; or rather, he makes but two, 1. when worship is given to the true God, but in an undue manner; 2. When it is given to a Creature; and that (sayes he) may be divided into many species, and he reduces them to three; Idolatry, Divina­tion, and vain Observations, Ligatures, &c. Now it's evident, that the School-man is confused enough, in designing the Species of Superstition; and the last, of Ligatures, spells and vain observations, &c. may very well be reduced to Divination, as done by assistance of the Divel: as the Doctor (if I mi­stake not) hath somewhere refer'd them. But this is but a strife of words; certain it is, he is not di­stinct enough in this designation, nor hath disco­covered [Page 88]all the Species of Superstition, which the Doctor himself hath yielded, some whereof, will not fall well under any of those which Aquinas hath assigned, unless, they may be referred to his cultus indebitus; For thus they may be ranged; Superstition is of two sorts; first, when Worship is given to a creature, which is due onely to the Creator; or, second, When Worship is tendered to the true God, but, non prout debet, indebito mo­do; in an undue manner; and of this, there are many Species, as Aquinas confesses: Now that Aquinas is short in his distribution, I prove thus from himself; [ If Superstition be a vice contrary to Religion in general in the excess; then accord­ing to the general Rules of Religion, there may be so many kindes of Superstition; But the first is his own definition: ergo,] The consequence is proved, because Superstition may extend as far as Religion: Now Religion in general, considers, either the right object, to whom Worship ought to be tendered, God alone, in the first Command­ment: or the right way, how God will be worship­ped, and that is, in there particulars: first, The right meanes, (as some call instituted Worship) in the second Commandment, his own prescribed Wor­ship: or, 2. The right manner of tendering it, with all reverence: or, 3. The right Time espe­cially, his own designed Day: and so the kindes of Superstition vary, according to these Rules of Re­ligion. Aquinas himself; Art. 1. there in Corp. thus concludes, it, [Superstition is a vice opposite to Religion in the excess, not because it exhibites more to the Worship of God, then true Religion, but because it exhibites Divine worship, to whom it ought not, or in that manner it ought not.] And that manner is threefold as I have said. But it's no heeding what Aquinas sayes, in designing the kinds [Page 89]of Superstition, who was himself drowned in the Romish Superstition, which he would be tender to touch upon.

A second mistake charged upon me, is, in refer­ring Idolatry to the first Commandment, as some Divines do; p. 49. n. 2. But (sayes he) [Those Divines must needs be those, that put the first and second Com­mandments into one (as Aquinas did, and I hoped the Diatribist had not been of his perswasion) else those words, Thou shalt not make to thy self, &c. being supposed to make a second Commandment, no Divine can be so irrational, as to deny Idolatry to be prohibited there.] I could answer, first, That the Doctor may well be placed among those Di­vines, who put the first and second Commandment into one, as was shewed above. But I say further, this will prove but a strife of words: For if Ido­latry be taken strictly, for the worshipping of an Idol, or Image, so it belongs to the second Com­mandment: but if it be taken, for the Worship of Heathen Gods, &c. as often it is, then I hope the Doctor will not deny but Idolatry may be found in the first Commandment. Is not Polytheisme Idolatry? is not, [...], the worshipping of Daemons, or Angels, Idolatry? not against the second Commandment, for that prohibites onely Idol, or Image-worship, (sayes the Doctor;) but Angels and Daemons may be Worshipped, without any Image. Shall we take the Doctors own for­mer thoughts of this matter; He told us, a good while ago, [That the Heathen Idolatry, Of Idola­try, Sect. 65. p. 42. was the worshipping of the many false Gods first, and then of the Images of them.] Mark here, two sorts of Idolatry, whereof the first, is not the second, and therefore not in the second Commandment, but in the first, or none. And when I said Divination, (which is a consulting with the Divel) is the worst [Page 90]kinde of Idolatry, as worshipping the Divel, the worst of Creatures, instead of God; I hope the Doctor will not deny it to be Idolatry bad enough; I demand, against what Commandment? not the second, for that he sayes) prohibites onely Image­worship; but those that use Divination, do not alwayes Worship the Divel in an Image: and therefore that Idolatry is not forbidden in the se­cond, but in the first Commandment. I suppose then, the Doctor doth mistake, with Aquinas, (ra­ther then speak truth with me) when he sayes, [ He supposes Aquinas was in the right in this, that made it a Species of Superstition, not of Ido­lotry; and so it must more fitly belong to the first Commandment, and so must Illegitimate Worship, be­ing an offence against the due maner of Gods Wor­ship.] But, first, Divination, may be a Species of Idolatry, and of Superstition too, if Idolatry be (as it is) a species of Superstition; 2. How he can say, [So it must more fitly belong to the the first So he says, n. 3. Commandment,] I do not well understand, for he said just before, [If Divination be Idolatry, sure that must be forbidden under the second Command­ment.] Unless he will have it belong to both Com­mandments, the first, as it is Superstition, the se­cond, as it is Idolatry; which I see not how he can well say; thirdly, [ That Illegitimate Worship, be­ing an offence against the due manner of Gods Worship, must also belong to the first Command­ment,] is neither agreeable with the truth, nor with with Aquinas, who makes the Species of Supersti­tion, to respect the To wor­ship the true God by an I­mage is it not a sin against the manner of his Wor­ship. Object of Worship, cui non de­bet; and 2. the mode or manner of Worship, to the right Object: the first whereof must needs belong to the first Commandment, and the other, to other Commandments. These are indeed but niceties, but such as the Doctor is pleased to exercise [Page 91]us with; and do not a little concern himself.

It is confessed by the Doctor, p. 49 n. 3. [That it was an error in Amesius, to understand by the word Su­perstition, no more but the tendering of undue Worship to God, and also that he confined it to the second Commandment, when in all reason it be­longed to the first.] But is it not as bad an Error in the Doctor to confine it to the first, when sure, it may be extended to the second? Is it not Super­stition, to Worship the true God, by an I­mage? then Superstition belongs to two Com­mandements: But is it not Superstition to use ridiculous Ceremonies in Gods Worship? that's against the third Commandment. And is it not Superstition, to be scrupulous to defend a mans self against his enemies on the Sabbath? that's against the fourth Commandment. Then it is equally an Error in the Doctor to confine Super­stition to the first, as in Amesius to confine it to the second Commandment; and the Truth is, it ex­tends to many, even all the four first Command­ments. Quod erat demonstrandum.

The next of my mistakes is,] p. 50. n 4. That I affirm of that Species of Superstition, undue Worship tender­ed to God, that it is, properly Will-worship;] Which is but one Species of Superstition. Sure I am, Amesius understood it so, of new kindes of Worship instituted by men, against the scope of the 2. Commandment; and this most of our Divines call (in a strict sense) Will-worship. But I rather agreed with Aquinas here, that undue or Illegiti­mate-worship may refer to more Commandments; the third and fourth: it being possible, and too frequent for men, to Worship God unduely, in those Commandmets: But if we restrain the se­cond Commandment to the matter of Worship; then that Worship which is materially of mens [Page 92] addition, may more properly (with the Scripture, and best Divines) be called Will-worship, and is but one Species of Superstition; as was said above.

Yet another injury is done by me; that of Aqui­nas, his Illegitimate-worship, I give this gloss, [Not commanded of God, p. 50. n. 5. but instituted and ap­pointed by men.] But how will this appear? By the words of Aquinas himself, which having cited at large, he says, [nothing is more destructive to my pre­tensions, had it been considered.] Let's hear his four­fold gloss upon them, n. 6. (that I may never cite Aqui­nas more in this matter) thus he sayes, [1. That Illegitimate-worship, is, in Aquinas Vitiated-worship, and so more then uncommanded, that is, prohibited; Illegitimate signifies, not without, but against Law.] And here he empties his Note-book about that word: But I say, let it signifie that which is forbidden by Law; so say I, is all Ʋn­commanded Worship; as was proved afore by the Doctors own Confession; therefore Illegitimate-Worship, and uncommanded, are all one; and that in Aquinas his sense, is Vitiated-worship: secondly, [ The superfluity of Worship (says Aquinas) Viti­ates the Worship of God, when any thing is assu­med, which neither by Divine, nor Ecclesiastical appointment, belongs to the glory of God, &c.] The Doctors gloss is this, That the Superfluity of it consists not, in being Super-added to Gods com­mands onely, but to the Churches appointment also; and so that which is ordained by the Church, though not by God, comes not under the stile of Superfluous or Illegitimate.] By this I see, where the Doctor learned his old Divinity, even in the Romish Schools (wherein most of his Size, spend their first studies, scorning all our own Common­place men, medulla's, and models of Divinity.) For [Page 93]how readily does he shake hands with Aquinas in the Authority, of the Churches appointment, as in other things not a few: But will the Doctor stand to this, [ That the Churches appointments of Worship ( of that Aquinas and we speak) are not Superfluous, nor Illegitimate?] De Illegi­time cul­tu: Tit. Articuli. I hope he will not joyn with Aquinas and the Church of Rome in this; yet he dare go far with them, even to call Ec­clesiastical appointments, Semi-divine at least, as shall appear hereafter: see p. 83. n. 4. Divinarum Sanctionem, &c. But thirdly, [That what tends to the glory of God, or subjecting a man to God, is neither superfluous nor Illegitimate, so it be or­dained by the Church,] It's one thing what men intend by their appointments (who doth not pre­tend the glory of God and that subjection? Papists and Heathens doe so, sometimes) and another to tend really to those ends. Now certain it is, no ap­pointments of Worship by men, can tend to the glory of God, &c. Which he hath peremptorily for­bidden: And one thing more; The Doctor seemes to restrain this Lawfulness, [To the Ordi­nation of the Church,] as if private or particular persons appointments, to those ends, were superflu­ous and Illegitimate; which I suppose he will not grant, viderit ipse, yet Aquinas restraines it onely to the Church, the holy Church of Rome. 4. The School-man makes Worship of God Illegitimate, as well by the pravity, as the superfluity of it: How may that be? Two wayes, one whereof is (which the Doctor takes notice of.) That the Mi­nisters publike using any Ceremony, contrary to the custome of the Church (such is his sitting at the Sacrament, and the like) is a pravity, and that's worse then a superfluity in the Worship of God.] Here is scarce any minute part of sound Doctrine, in this, (to return him his own words.) For, first, [Page 94]It savours rankly of the Romish usurpation, that no Ceremony may be used publickly by a Minister contrary to the Custome of the Church: second, That it is a pravity, so to do; which may rather go for a Superfluity at most. 3. That it is a pravity, worse then superfluity of Worship, to use a Ceremo­ny in publique; whereas Super-added Worship, is far worse, then using a new Ceremony, not ordained by the Church: 4. That he charges this pravity upon me, or others for sitting at the Sacrament; But, first, we are speaking of Wor­ship, not of a rite or gesture of Worship, such is sitting at the Sacrament. 2. How does he know, that I sit at the Sacrament? I may perhaps stand, or kneel, for ought he knows, according to the custome of the places where I come; and may defend my practise, by the Authority of Saint Ambrose, cited to me, p. 232. But thirdly, suppose I do sit; I shall not fear to profess my Judgement, that I think it neerer to the first Institution of the Supper, then his kneeling; and why people should not conform rather to Christ himself and his Apo­stles, then to the custome of a Church, I know no reason, but, [The Statutes of Omri are kept,] and the like. But this I will say, if the Doctor or his Church, institute and command kneeling, as a special, more special and better Worship of God, then sitting, I believe, they would be Superstitious enough; and injurious to Jesus Christ, as preferring themselves before him, as if he were less humble, or less devout in his sit­ting, then they in their kneeling, And now I hope, the Doctor will never cite Aquinas more, in this matter.

That the barbarous Ceremonies of Baals Priests, &c. should be an excess against the third Com­mandment, a taking Gods name in vain; he can­not [Page 95]yet digest, [Because it is by Christ rendered, p. 51. n. 7. forswearing ones self.] But that is proved the Do­ctors mistake, against the stream of the best Inter­pretors: [ Nor did Baals Priests, ever use the name of God at all, and so, not in vain.] Sure those Priests accounted Baal for a God (they cal­led the true God, Baali sometimes, but God for­bids it) and Elias bad them call upon their God; Then, those Ceremonies used, were part of their Worship (ridiculous enough if they had been offer­ed to the true God) and being in Worship, and false, they must be against some Commandment: Not the first, that forbids other Objects of Worship, be­side God. Not the second, that forbids onely Idol or Image Worship (says he.) Not the fourth, that respects onely the Due Time of Worship; ergo, against the third or none. The Doctor passes by the ridiculous rites and gestures of Papists in their Worship, as loath to offend them, with charge of excess, or Superstition; though not bold enough to defend them. p. 52. n. 8. As for dedicating of Holy-dayes to Saints by Papists, and comparing it with Jero­boams Feast, he does not like it; [They are, he says, neither fitly paralleld, nor appropriated to Pa­pists, when such dayes were dedicated to the me­mory of Martyrs, long before the name or errors of Papists were in the World.] But on which side is the wrong, in this charge of dedicating of dayes? Jeroboams? or Papists? Jeroboams, I hope he will not say, for that is proved Superstitious above. If he think I have wronged Papists in that parallel: Let him stand out and justifie their Superstition, in that matter, which all, even the Church of England did condemne. 1. That dedicated to This is the Do­ctors Language here: dedicating holy dayes to Saints: and dedication of Holy-dayes. n. 8, &. 11. the Saints, [Page 96]and to their Worship, and not to God. 2. That made parts of Worship. 3. That some were no Saints, but wicked men, and some no men at all. 4. Their Number, &c. Jeroboam was a Saint to them. And now I hope it might well be appropria­ted to Papists? For those dayes dedicated to the memorial of Martyrs, were nothing like these of Papists; they were but occasions, or Circumstan­ces of Worship; but Papists (as the Doctor his Christmas) make them parts of Worship, &c. And this may satisfie, what is largely said, in num. 9.10, 11. Onely this may be added to the num. 11. That I do not charge the Doctor with that excess, of the Jews scrupulosity on their Sabbath: but onely bring it as an instance of Superstition in the fourth Commandment.

Section, 4. [Superstition then, in this general notion, as an excess in Religion, hath as many Species, or kindes, as there are Commandments of the first Table. But it is no easie matter to discover all, &c.]

HEre I am charged with a designe, p. 53. n. 1, 2 [becoming humble in stead of Magisterial; because I implore the Readers pardon, if I be not so Logically accurate, in setting down the particular kindes of Superstition, as I would.] I profess sincerely, against all designes, but searching out of truth; and what may my designe be herein? Why this, [To leave the word Superstition in the Clouds,—that it may be useful for him, as a Mormo, to affright men out of their obedience to the Church; and to make sure of a reserve, to adde more, when he hath need of them.] Truly to me it seemes strange, that [Page 97]I had a designe, to cloud the word Superstition, ha­ving, in that afore, been driving away those foggie mists, which himself and others, have put upon it: I know no better way, to clear the word or thing then to give the definition of it first, and then the division of it, into species; which is all I have hi­therto done: onely confessing now, the particulars may be more, then I can easily reduce to the four Commandments; wherein that Superstition may be found. I therefore in this and the following Sections, did enumerate such and so many, as I thought sufficient for my purpose: which being proved to be so in Thesi, might be as so many prin­ciples, or propositions, to conclude the Doctor in Hypothesi, to be Superstitious, in his observation of his Festival. And now the Doctor hath my full de­signe, in this performance; which belike, he su­specting, is willing to pass by, no less then ten Sections at once; lest his Reader, p. 54. n. 2. taking notice of those particular instances of Superstition, might be ready to make up the Syllogisme, and conclude him Superstitious. The Doctor might have done me, and the truth this favour, to say to the several kindes by me alledged, I assent, or dissent, that this is Superstition; some of them indeed, he hath elsewhere set down, as excesses in Religion, and kindes of Superstition; but why does he not ac­knowledge, or deny them here? If I may guess, one reason, I think, is, because he, having given forth his description of Superstition, to be clearly, Su­perstitum cultus; as if it had no other proper sense, was not willing the Reader should know him so imprudent as afterwards, to contradict, or at least countermine himself, by giving other kindes there­of. And if Superstition were no more but the worshipping of Daemons, he were very injurious, that would charge the Church of England, or him­self, [Page 98]with this crime of Superstition. For example, the Doctor grants a Negative Superstition, Sect. 29. of Superst. [Placing Piety in the Negative, in not kneeling, &c.] Hence the diligent Reader, would be ready to say; this is far from Supersti­tum cultus, and yet granted by the Doctor, to be a kind of Superstition; ergo, his description was too short and narrow: The like may be said of the rest if they be truly kindes of Superstition; if not, the Doctor hath by his silence consented to them; why else did he not oppose them? for they may be of ill consequence to him, in Hypothesi. All he sayes here, is, [What follows in the ten follow­ing Sections, I shall resolvedly pass over, though there be many things fit to be noted, partly because he promises they shall soon recur again, and partly belong to other Tracts, &c. where we shall sure meet with them, &c.] But first, I finde no such promise of mine, though I knew, I should have use of them, in place convenient; nor secondly, does he desire to meet with them; for he waves most of them, when he meets them, as shall appear.

Section 5.

1. Negative, when men abstain from some thing, under a notion of Religion, &c. And so on to the end of the 14. Section.

Section 15. Having thus made way for our debate with the Doctor by shewing the nature of Superstition, &c.

THe offence taken at this Section is, p. 55. n. 2. that I say, [commonly those that are most superstitious, are [Page 99]most confident, of their Innocency and Piety, &c.] The Doctor would wish and hope to make it con­vertible; [They which are most confident of their Innocency, &c. are most Superstitious.] So to retort it upon me: Truly, what I said, was true enough, and needed not to have troubled him, un­less he were guilty: for I expresly applied it to Romish Proselytes; and of them it's too evident, the most Superstitious, are most confident: It was no great charity in him to invert the proposition, & put it slily upon me, whom he cannot charge me with any one kind of Superstition, unless it be per­haps with Negative Superstition; n. 3. which here [he allowes me for my portion.] Not that he accuses me of Negative Superstition, (for I know he can­not) but that he grants me, the first kinde of Su­perstition, viz. Negative, to be truely one kinde of Superstition: but little cause to make sport with that Concession, if he consider the consequence thereof a little above. But he sayes, n. 4. [ He shall much accuse himself, if he cannot justifie his notion of the word Superstition, to be as good, as Mr. C. his Super statutum.] Enough hath been said to Super statutum, already; I owned not that Notation of it. But if he will speak to the thing, I dare venture my skill, that he cannot justifie his notion of it, in the largest sense of it, so well as I can this, of Su­per statutum: that all Superstition is above the Statute Law of Worship: but all Superstition is not Superstitum Cultus.

Here should come in my 16. Section.

Let's hear what he sayes; first, to clear me from owning that Notation, he takes notice, p. 56. n. 1. [That I rather rested in the definition of the School-man, as afore] then in that notation of others; and yet how often would he perswade his Reader, that was my Notation? Then see how he justifies his own: [Page 100] [My second Section was not to give any compleat definition of Superstition; n. 2. but, &c.] But should he not here, or somewhere else, have given us a Complete definition of it; especially having one provided to his hand by the School-man? whom he follows at heels sometimes. Was not that defi­nition avoided on purpose, that he might cloud and cover his own Superstition, by the old Heathenish usage of the word? We enquire not so much, what it signified of old, amongst Heathens, but what in after times, amongst Christian Authors, Ancient and Moderne. None whereof (I dare confident­ly affirm it) take the word in a good sense, or use it any otherwise, then for to signifie a vice, con­trary to Religion in the excess; as shall appear anon. [...]ee his 46. and 47 s. of Su­perst. But he sayes, [I no where grant excessive fear of the Deity, to be another kinde of Supersti­tion, among the Heathens.] It's prov'd above, that Slavish fear of the Deity, is an excess in Religion, and that's Superstition in the School-mans defini­tion. And I ask whether that Fear of God which the Epicureans would have dispatched out of the world, was not that cowardly, trembling fear, dreading the Gods, as so many Tyrants, &c. if so, the Doctor may [ go herd himself among the Epi­cureans, with the famishing prodigal] which scorn­fully he puts upon me. For I do not believe the Doctor will allow such a fear in mens hearts or in the world: If it was not such a Slavish fear, but a just and moderate fear of punishment for sin, I have pleaded for it, as much as he: But [...], I said, did not signifie at first, or in the proper notation, the worshipping of Daemons, but a slavish fear of the Deity; p. 58. n. 3. dreading the Gods as so many Tyrants, &c. An irrational fear of the Gods, as he speaks; wishing there were no God; as Plutarch hath it. But this was spoken to, above, [Page 101]at large: and proved to be an excess, and super­stitious.

He charges me here again for extending Super­stition to all the four Commandments of the first Table; p. 57. n. 7. [ when I know Aquinas made it a breach peculiar to the first Commandment.] In the Do­ctors gloss, he does, but in no mans else. For Aqui­nas makes one and the first Species of Superstition to be, when Worship is given cui non debet, that is, to the Creature; and that is, referred to the first Commandment, God alone is to be worshipped. The second is prout non debet, in an undue man­ner; which may extend either to the matter of Worship, when not prescribed by himself: which the Doctor calls, p. 59. n. 3. [The giving of false. Worship to the true God:] which is specially re­duced to the second Commandment: or to the ge­sture of Worship, performed in an unreverent manner, which is refered to the third Command­ment. The third (with him) is, quando non de­bet; in regard to the unseasonableness of the time; which he exemplifies, by worshipping God now af­ter the Jewish manner, with Circumcision, Sacri­fices, &c. But these belong rather to the matter of instituted Worship, and were reduced to the second Commandment. The quando non debet, should rather have reference to the Sabbath, and Festi­vals, abolished by Christ, or now made parts of Worship by men, with respect to the fourth com­mandment. But this Aquinas durst not meddle with, not daring to touch the Romish Superstiti­ons, in this particular of Festivals: And if he had done so, he had made Superstition a breach of all the four Commandments, of the first Table, as I have done: and I think, most reasonably and just­ly. Let others judge.

What he sayes, in the following numbers of this [Page 102]Section, is a meer contention of words, and suffi­ciently answered above; as also what is found in the third, and fourth, except this Concession be taken notice of; p. 59. n. 3. [Though Superstition be the gi­ving of false Worship to the true God, as well as Worship to false Gods, Daemons, &c. (or a dread, which is not a Worship, to the true) yet this false Worship is unfitly explicated by uncommanded Worship: for certainly all such is not false, &c.] Observe here, first, He grants a Superstition, [in giving of false Worship, to the true God;] But this he never took notice of, in his Tract of Super­stion, but carried his Reader away with his old notion of Superstitum cultus: Now it concern'd him, a Christian and a Divine, to have spoken of the other notion of Superstition, as it gives false Wor­ship to the true God; which why he waved, let him now consider. 2. He yet excuses it; [This false Worship yet, is unfitly explicated by uncommanded Worship, for certainly all such, is not false.] Cer­tainly? Then are not onely all our Divines, but the Doctor himself also, See p. 12. n. 13. much deceived; who hath often granted, that uncommanded Worship is un­lawful, and so false: and then certainly, all false Worship is uncommanded: unless he will say, some false Worship is commanded, or not forbidden; which sure his learning will not suffer him to say. If onely commanded Worship be true, and onely true Worship be commanded, then all uncommand­ed Worship, is false, and all false Worship, uncom­manded, yea, forbidden. 3. He speaks of [a dread, which is not Worship, to the true God.] But first, Is not a dread of the true God, Worship, in the first Commandment? how then can he say it is not Worship? 2. Or does he mean it, a cowardly, trembling, desperate feare of the true God, counting him as a Tyrant, (which I called [Page 103] slavish fear and excessive) is not Worship? This is true in a sense; it is not true Worship or accepted, but yet it is a kinde of Worship, though false. 4. What he addes, with an especially; [If the word Worship, be extended, as this Diatribist extends it, to Rites and Observances, as well as to the substan­tiall parts of Worship.] But this is a special ca­lumny, (as he uses to phrase it) for this Diatribist hath oft professed the contrary, as this Doctor hath confessed more then once. And himself rather ex­tends the word Worship, farther then I do; for even here, he (closely) insinuates, a distinction of Wor­ship, whiles he talks of, Substantial parts of Wor­ship: that is, Substantial Worship: which may imply, there is some Accidental or Circumstantial Worship, in those Rites and Observances, he speaks of, which as they are no Worship, (or if made Wor­ship, are confessedly unlawful) so the Doctor, durst never yet call them Worship, though his practice makes them worship, and his Tract of Will-wor­ship, defends such kinde of Worship; as will ap­pear in due time. One thing more, and I have done, with this Section: He sayes, p. 60. n. 4. [The second Commandment, is spent upon the Worship of Idols (all for the interdicting of that) and cannot be properly said to consider the Worship of the true God, unless it be the external part, that of bowing down, &c.] Indeed in the Doctors Gloss, that's all, the interdicting of Idol-worship: but I hope those two learned Catechists, will teach him other­wise, cited above, ad p. 43. n. 4. That the scope of that Commandment, is to forbid all unprescri­bed Worship; and to command the observance one­ly of Commanded Worship; which is more then that of bowing down, &c.

Section, 19. But he addes, Sect. 11. when Paul tells the Athe­nians, Acts 17.22. They were, [...], &c.

ALl that he sayes to this Section of mine, is not much material to the main question between us, and indeed, a meer strife about words: what [...], signifies in that place, the Vulg. Lat. reades it Superstitiosiores, and ours, too Superstitious; The Doctor will have it signifie, [onely their worshipping of a multitude of Gods, n. 2, 3. moe then any other nation did: and the unknown God for one, as being more Pious, &c.] And for this last, that they were the most Pious, amongst Heathens, he addes three Testimonies more, You can­not Wor­ship the one God if ye im­part and lavish out that in­communi­cable pri­viledge to any other: So he said pag. 26. numb. 18. Yet now, none so Pious as these Athenians. to what was said before: But I pray was not their worshipping a multitude of Gods, Supersti­tion bad enough? when one false God, had been too much: And when they worshipped more Gods then others, were they not more superstitious, too superstitious? Nay let them take in the true, but unknown God also, and does not that still adde to their Superstition, that they joyn'd with him so many base and abominable Rivals? Nay, if they had worshipped the true and known God, and that alone, but not with Worship by him prescribed, had they deserved the name of Pious, or more pious? had they not been superstitious, in giving false Worshp to the true God? It's confessed in the last Section. Yet the Doctor here, calls it, a Pious Ethnick devotion: another contradiction, in ad­jecto, [Page 105]without a distinction. They worshipped they knew not what, nor whom, and they knew not how, with an Altar, and Sacrifices, which God never commanded, yea, forbad; and yet Pious, devout men, with the Doctor. And he sayes, the word here is [taken in a good, not ill sense, not of any uncommanded Worship of the true God, but a Pi­ous, though Ethnick devotion, toward the multi­tude of their false, supperadded to the one true God.] Or rather towards the one true God, (un­known) superadded to the multitude of their false Gods; It's like, he came in, after all the rest, so Pious they were: will the devout Doctor call this Piety? yes, with an extenuation; p. 61. [which Pious Ethnick devotion, though in a Christian scale, or judgement it cannot be approved, because it is Po­lytheisme, yet in comparison with other Heathens, &c.] Is that all the Crime? was it not, the best of it, false worship of the true God? and is that wor­thy the name of Piety, accompanied also with Po­lytheisme? I wonder not now, that some men, commend the Devotions, and Moral virtues of Heathens, as good, and pleasing to God, and pre­parations to grace, &c. when the Doctor makes this grossest Impiety, a great measure of Devotion. Their neighbour nations (he sayes) [were not guilty of so much devotion.] If he speak it seri­ously, he still applauds their Piety; If he mean it, in an improper sense (as I believe he does) they were not so devout, as the Athenians; he might better have taken it properly, they were not guilty of so much Impiety and Superstition, because they worshipped fewer false Gods, and perhaps did not bring in the true God, as a rival, amongst them: But that the Doctor should say, [ It was Pauls bu­siness, to compare them with other Heathens, and look't upon it truly, as a greater measure of devo­tion, [Page 106]than the other Just as Papists may be said to be more Pi­ous and devout, then the Prote­stants, be­cause they Worship many Saints and Angels with the true God. Heathens had,] is a strange gloss of the text; For by all Circumstances, Paul look't on it, as an aggravation of their Impiety, and grosser Superstition, rather then Pious Devo­tion; It's said verse 16. [ His Spirit was stirred in him, (with grief and indignation, ( [...], irritabatur;) [when he saw the City [...], full of Idols, or wholly given to Idolatry.] And no doubt, his scope was to work them to repentance, which would rather be done by aggravating their sin, then by way of Comparison, to applaud them, as more Pious and Devout, then other nations. They had more Idols, and so more Idolatry then others, in joyning many rivals with the true God, when one had been too much: and besides, worshipped that true God ignorantly, verse 23. and in a manner by himself forbidden. Let others judge.

Section 20. What Festus meant by, [...], Acts. 25.19. is not much material, it's like he spake it with scorn enough, &c.

THe three questions here between us, are not much worth debating; being but about the sense of some few words. p. 62. n. 3. 1. Whether the word [...], be here taken in an ill sense, by Festus: It seemes to me and many others, to be taken in an ill sense; if the Doctor will needs think otherwise, let him enjoy his own opinion. The very Heathens (and such was Festus) branded Religion, which they did not like, by the Name of Superstition; surely, that was, in opposition to Re­ligion, their own at least, which they thought to [Page 107]be the truest. 2. p. 63. n. 5 The next is of those words ( [...],) which may be taken two wayes; either, his, or theirs; Pauls onely, or the Jews also: The Doctor is for the former, and renders the words, his Superstition: and something being said to it, in this Section, he takes no notice of it, (unless it be, to say, I give no reason of what I say) I shall therefore produce my reason there, and adde another strength to it: I said, from a paral­lel Scripture, Acts 23.29. Paul was accused of questions, [...], of their Law, not of Pauls own Religion: To which I now adde a second, Acts 18, 15. [...], a que­stion of your Law; said Gallio, one of Festus his rank. Let's see if his reason be better, then these two Scriptures, joyn'd with that, c. 25, 19. Thus he gives it, [ The Jewes accusation against Paul, is plainly mentioned in this place.] Well, so it is, p. 63. n. 6. in the other two places; what then? [How then, could their own Superstition be the matter of their charge against him?] I could blush, or pitty such argumentation; Apply it to the other Texts afore, Acts 18.15. [ If it be, [...],] That is (as the Doctor laboured to prove, numb. 5.) [An ac­cusation, or question—of your Law.] Ask now, how could their own Law, See Acts 21.28. Teaches against the people, and against the Law. be the matter of their charge against him? I forbear the other place: And I adde, (if it were worth the while) the context carries it to my sense; Those words, were spoken to Agrippa concerning Pauls case; [Against whom, when the Accusers stood up, they brought no accusation of such things as I supposed; but had certain questions against him, of their own Su­perstition,] their own Law; the words afore im­mediately, being spoken of them, not of him; And if he should say, but one part of the accusation was, about one Jesus, which was dead, &c. and so of [Page 108] Pauls Religion; the answer will be, that this is a distinct accusation from the former; and so will conclude, it was, of theirs, as well as his: The for­mer may include his, but his will not imply theirs. But too much of this. n. 7. The 3. is, [ Whether, Fe­stus put Jesus, under the notion of a Daemon, or dead Heros.] My exception to it was, [ That Paul affirmed him to be alive not in part, as those depart­ed Daemons were supposed, but in the whole man, as raised from the dead.] The Doctor makes a little retreat, as if he would yield to my reason; [I shall not, because I need not, make it a matter of controversie with any.] But it was, but to come on again with more force: [ Yet I had this considera­tion, to incline me to it, the immediate subjoyning of One Jesus, whom Paul contended to live; to be Superstes, &c.] But in citing these words, he should have looked to the other words, 1. One Jesus, [...], which was, or had been dead, so the word signifies, (sayes he, numb. 8.) Whom Paul affirmed to be alive, or live again; as the words together, do import. As for his other additi­ons, they are not to the purpose; but conjectures of his own, and I list not to follow him.

But if he yield in the least, to have mistaken, he will recriminate, and throw dirt in his Adversa­ries face; p. 64 n. 8. [That in this one proof, I have, strained more, then he, in his Criticisme.] Wherein will that appear. [1. When I read the text, they had many questions, when the word is, [...], some.] But sure that's no strain; For verse 7. I found, they laid many complaints against Paul; and in the text, there were three at least, two concerning their own Superstition, the word is plural, and another concerning one Jesus, &c. Et tria sunt omnia: we may say, many of three: 2. [ That I read, both, and also; when no such thing in the Greek, [Page 109]or English.] But I pray, if those be distinct que­stions, of their Superstition, and of one Jesus, as the word, [...], concerning, twice repeated, He leaves out the second [...], and sayes, [...] n. 8. Is this fair. does fairly suggest; may not an Interpreter (so was I there) say, questions both concerning their own Superstition, and also concerning one Jesus, &c. 3. The third is long, and I know not well how to contract it: I said, Paul was accused of Sedition, seducement, profanation of the Tem­ple, &c. he returns, [Paul had cleared himself from those: and so in Festus Judgement, Paul was not guilty of any thing, but onely of his own Religion, and one Jesus: by way of explication, (and [...],) being exegetical, &c.] But 1. what though Paul had answered some of those charges (being inno­cent in all) yet might not Festus tell Agrippa, they had many questions against him? as verse 7. it is said. 2. That Paul was not charged with any thing, but his own Superstition, and one Jesus, is a meer begging the question. 3. So is the next that, ( [...], And) is here exegetical: which is proved false by the double, [...], concerning; noted be­fore, which would have been but once, had, [...], been exegetical. And which is worse, the accusa­tion had not been in the plural, not some questi­ons, but a question, concerning one Jesus. I wish the Doctor did not here strain his wits against the light: having said at first he would not make it a controversie with any: At last, he comes of with a Charientismus: [ If all were granted, p. 65. n. 10. that I de­sire, that the Superstition spoken of was not Saint Pauls, but the Jewes; then be will say, it shall sig­nisie the Jewes Religion simply, without any Cha­racter of ill, or good laid upon it.] And why did he not save all this long vitiligation, by saying so much at first, and himself and me all this trouble? [Page 110]Yet I hope it may do good, one way or other, and then no cause to repent.

Section 21. What Epicurus doctrine was, or what Heathens thought of the word, [...], we are not much solicitous, &c.

THat the Doctors intention was, (in his large discourse, out of Heathens, concerning the word, p. 66. n. 1. &c. [...],) [To lead us away in a mist, from the true and proper sense of the word amongst Christans,] may probably be conceived by these things. 1. That having acknowledged the word Superstition, to be capable to signifie, [ the giving of false Worship to the true God, pag. 59. n. 3. as well as Worship to false Gods;] In all his discourse of Superstition afore, and his vindication now, he never exemplifies any Species of the for­mer, amongst Christians. 2. Nay professes, [ That he believes, there is onely one Special kinde of Su­perstition, whereof any Protestants are guilty, ex­cept that, of making observations of ominous things, &.] Surely, the Worship of Daemons, can­not well be charged upon any Protestants (though upon Papists.) Nor are there many Protestants, [that dogmatize, or impose as necessary such things, as the Law of Christ hath not made neces­sary.] And so it will be very hard to finde a Su­perstitious Protestant; which was the designe of the Doctor, when he took upon him, to vindicate the Church of England and himself, from the guilt of Superstition. But if there be one kinde of Su­perstition to Worship the true God, prout non de­bet, in a manner which he might not, as Aquinas; [Page 111]or with false Worship, as the Doctor sayes, surely many Protestants, (and the Doctor for one) will be found guilty of more Superstition, then he is willing yet to acknowledge: and so he may keep his wit to himself, numb. 2.

That the Heathens took the word sometimes in an ill sense, he cannot deny, but sayes, p. 67. n. 5. [So they did Religion too.] That's rather to my advantage; but I let it pass, taking his confession: I therefore did appeal to Christian Authors, and amongst them, I believe, it will trouble the Doctor for all his great reading, to finde one Greek Author, that ever used [...], in a good sense, for true Religion; or any Latine Author (excepting but some Papists) that ever used Superstitio in a good sense, for true Religion: some Etymologists, and Glossaries that speak of the word, [...], have an eye to the sense of it amongst Heathens, who took the thing in a good sense; but profess, that Christians take the word and thing, in an ill sense. The rest of this Chapter is, [...], and so I pass it by.

Section 22. From that large discourse, about the word, at last, Section, 27. the Doctor comes to apply it, to his purpose, &c.

FOr my leaping from this 14. to the 27. s. it was, p. 70, n. 1. because there was no matter of controversie in them, nothing but what I yielded to be the Hea­thens sense of the word: But that being granted, the subsequent conclusions are not firmly founded upon those premises; if the Doctor will but take in the sense of Christian Authors also (as he ought) when they speak as Christians. Amongst them, Su­perstition, [Page 112]is generally taken in an ill sense; yea some­times also amongst Heathens, Superstition is oppo­sed or contradistinguished to Religion; and conse­quently taken by them in an ill sense. I shall make this manifest, when I have onely made bold to ask the Doctor one question, why he never gives us their words, when they speak ill of it; but sets the best face upon the word, when he knows, the thing meant by it, is so bad Not only signifying Worship of Daemons, but false Worship to the true God, which here he waves, n. 2 and abominable. What chaste man, would take pains to paint a filthy strumpet? Does Superstition deserve so much from the Do­ctor, to hide, rather then to acknowledge her de­formity? but I forbear; and now shall shew him and his Reader, what he could have said, out of some Heathens, and many Christian Authors, for the word Superstitio, if he had been pleased to disgrace it. As,

1. From the Heathen Orator, the master of Ro­mane Eloquence, and well skill'd in their Antiqui­ties; who hath these words, (noted, no doubt, in the Doctors Common-place book) distinguishing Superstition from Religion; Lib. 2. de nat. Deo­rum. Non enim Phisophi solùm, verùm etiam Majores nostri, Superstitio­nem à Religionem seperaverunt, &c. And by and by after, Ita factum est, in superstitioso, & religio­so, alterum vitii nomen, alterum laudis. And in another place; Lib. 2. de Divinat. ad f. Nec verò (id enim diligenter in­telligi volo) superstitione sublata, Religio tolli­tur.

2. From that learned Philosopher, and Moralist, Seneca; whose words are these: Superstitio error insanus est, amandos timet, quos colit, probat. Quid enim interest, Epist. 1 24. utrum Deos neges, an infa­mes? that is, by dreading them, as so many cruel Tyrants; as the Doctor expressed it, from others: But these sentences of Seneca, were not then produced, yet are now set in his Margine, [Page 113]pag. 28. As a testimony against himself.

3. From Plutarch (a Greek Author) who not onely distinguishes, [...], from [...], Superstition from Religion, but also makes it a vice contrary to Religion, in the excesss: Some of his words to this purpose, were cited above, ad p. 47. n. 20 But Plutarch writ a whole book of Superstition, which the Doctor cited once or twice in his Tract. of Superst. But to hide the ugliness of Supersti­tion, in that Heathens Judgement, tells us onely this, s. 18. [It goes indefinitely for Religion, but particularly for some fearful apprehensions of the Gods.] (Therefore not onely for Superstitum cultus.) But this is a palpable disguise of Plutarchs notion of it, as any that read that Tract, will quickly discover. For 1. From the beginning, he opposes Superstition to Atheisme, as the two ex­tremes of Religion: one in the excess, the other in the defect: for so he sayes; [...], &c. I wonder at those that say, Atheisme is irreligion, and say not the same of Superstition: 2. He describes the su­perstitious person, with such black Characters, that no man can well speak for it; such as these beside others, [...], &c. [It must needs be, that the Superstitious person both hate and fear the Gods,] In the 2. Com­mandment they that Worship the true God, with any but his own pre­scribed Worship, (which is Supersti­tion) are said to hate him. And a little after; [ Hating and fearing the Gods, he is an enemy: 3. [...], &c. There is nothing of Superstition in an Atheist; but the superstitious is, [...], an Atheist by choice. 4. To omit much more there spoken, he concludes as he began, but more plainly; making Atheisme and Superstition the two Extremes, and placing true Religion in the midst: [...], &c. [Many flying Superstition, fall into Atheisme, passing over Religion lying in [Page 114]the midst.] Did not the Doctor know all this? shall a Christian, a Divine, Learned and Pious, de­fend or palliate that, which an Heathen so con­demnes? see what he sayes for it, Infra ad p. 72. n. 7, 9. &c.

4. De Orati­one. From Tertullian, one of our ancientest La­tine Christian Authors; who speaks fully the Lan­guage of our Reformed Divines; Siquidem quae sine ullius, aut Dominici, aut Apostolici praeceptae authoritate fiunt, ea non Religioni, sed Supersti­tioni deputantur, affectata, & coacta, & curiosi potius, quam rationalis officii: Where he gives an example of such Superstition. There were in the Church at that time, certain, that contrary to the custome of the Church, would Sure this was not Su­perstitum cultus. put off their cloaks, when they went to prayer, placing some Religion in that Ceremony; (as Heathens used to do) to whom he answers, Quod utique si fieri oporteret, Apostoli qui, quae de habitu orandi docent, com­prehendissent; And comes off with an elegant Charientismus, Nisi, sequi putant Paulum, penulam suam, Adv. Marci. l. 1. c. 5. in oratione penes Carpum reliquisse. And the Doctor himself, hath cited another like place out of Tertullian, p. 16. n. 28. to put a difference between Superstition and Religion, speaking of worshipping of two Gods; Vererer nè abundantja officit, Superstitio potius, quam Religio crederetur. Where abundantia officii, may well signifie an ex­cess in Religion.

5. From Lactantius; who, (in the place cited above, upon another occasion) though he approve not the notation Superstition, nor yet of Religion, given by Cicero, à Relegendo; yet clearly put's the difference, between Religion and Superstition; Quid ergo est? Nimirum Religio, veri cultus; Superstitio falsi— Religiosos se putant, cum sint Superstitiosi.

6. From Saint Austin, cited by Aquinas (as the Doctor recites it, p. 16.) Cecidit bestia Supersti­tionis, [The beast of Superstition is destroyed, by the first Commandment of the Decalogue, prescri­bing the Worship of one God:] Tract of Superst. s. 13. He would not surely call that by the name of Religion: And Au­stin is affirmed to say, Deum à Religioso vereri, à Superstioso timeri: and consequently to that (addes the Doctor) Religio Deum colit, Superstitio vio­lat: [ as Max. Tyrius, compared a Pious man, to a friend; a Superstitious, to a flatterer: the Pious man comes to God, without fear, the Superstitious man with much fear.] This, beside much more that might be produced out of Saint Austin, is enough to shew, Austin took Superstition for a vice contrary to Religion.

7. From the great School-man (and all his fol­lowers, in the Romish School) whose definition of Superstition, we have so often heard, clearly dif­ferences Superstition from Religion; [It is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess:] making, wor­shipping of Creatures, to be but one Species of it; and Illegimate-worship in general, to be the other, which also hath several Species under it, as we have shewed. Before him, the Gloss. Interlin. gave this, Superstitio est Religio supra modum servata, on Col. 2. Which what is it, but Religion (so called) in the excess?

8. From all our Reformed Divines, Forraign and Domestick, who all generally take Supersti­tion in an ill sense, as an addition to, or excess of Religion; and never in a good sense; All this, and much more, the Doctor knew well enough; and yet shakes them all off, [as of so small authori­ty, that scarce worth producing,] as we shall hear anon.

But perhaps the Doctor will say, p. 71. n. 4. [He never [Page 116]imagined, Superstition truly so called, to have no ill in it:] But what does he truly call Superstition? nothing willingly, but, worshipping of Daemons: Hear what he sayes; See n. 7. [The thing which I contest, is not this, that the Worship of Daemons, is, or ever was true or lawful; but that beside this (adding the like of illegitimate Worship) there is nothing else, n. 9. 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.] But first, does he not say, Illegi­timate-worship is lookt upon as simply bad, as well as Worship of Daemons? what difference is there between Ʋncommanded Worship, and Illegiti­mate? Does not Illegitimate signifie Unlawful Worship? and is not Uncommanded Worship also unlawful? His meaning is, (as afore) that Ille­gitimate signifies that which is forbidden by Law, which is more, then Ʋncommanded: No, it's the very same; for what Worship soever, is not com­manded, is forbidden. 2. If this be all the contest with me, and such as I am; the controversie will soon be at an end: For I mean by Ʋncommanded Worship, nothing but forbidden Worship, and that the Doctor hath granted, or cannot deny, to be an excess, super statutum, an addition, and simply bad and unlawful. I shall therefore accept of his condition offered, and invert his own words; [Never to apply the word any otherwise, n. 5. then the Scripture and Christian writers do, for Daemon Worship, or undue, Illegitimate Worship; upon condition, that he will grant, that in that sense, the word signifies an excess in Religion, in any part of Uncommanded Worship.] I say Ʋncommanded Worship, not Uncommanded Circumstances, or Rites (unless made parts of Worship.) The [Page 117] contest not being at all, of the latter: as is con­fessed.

Yet renounced again in the following words: p. 37. n. 10. [ He must set the question, as elsewhere he doth, of excessive, as that signifies no more than Uncom­manded Worship, without the addition of being false, it being evident, that I defend not false Worship of any kinde to be good, but that Cere­monies or Institutions ( of Worship) not commanded by God, may be perfectly lawful, and that is the onely question between us.] Is not here, first, a contradiction to that he said before; that the onely matter of contest was, of excess, n. 9. as that signifies Ʋncommanded Worship? now it is onely of Cere­monies, &c. not commanded by God. 2. Is not here a second contradiction, that he defends not False Worship to be good, and yet defends Ʋncom­manded Worship, which is False Worship? And 3. Is it not a third contradiction to say, that I else­where set the question of excessive, as that signifies Uncommanded False Worship, and yet to say, I must set it, as it signifies Ceremonies, or Circumstances, &c. not commanded, which he confesses oft, I do disclaime? Here are as many mistakes, as well could be in so few words. The rest concerning, Acts 25.19. & 17.23. have sufficiently been spoken to before, and I pass it by.

Onely one thing must be taken notice of, and ex­plained, to rectifie the Doctors understanding of those words, of mine; p. 76. n. 20. [Supérstitiosus in the posi­tive signifies excess more then in the compara­tive;] which sayes he, are not very intelligible, to him at least. But the fault was none of mine, but the Printers, for want of a Comma after excess; then the sense is clear thus: n. 21. Superstitiosus in the positive signifies excess, more then, (that is much more then) in the comparative, (which ex­ceeds [Page 118]the positive) Superstitiosiores (given for the sense of [...], by the Vulg. Lat. and others) must signifie an excess. So much of that Section.

Section 23, 24. The second Inconsequence he sayes, is this, [That the use of Ceremonies or Rites in the Worship of God, if not distinctly prescribed, &c.]

THis I said, I believed was a mistake, but ra­ther thus, That what Rite, &c. is made a part of Worship, &c. is superstitious. Now sayes he; [This is brief, p. 77. n. 1. but very considerable; and might well make an end of this debate, between the Dia­tribist and me. 'Tis the yielding me the whole cause, and I have no more to contend for, but one­ly peace.] n. 3. But then, why did he say just now, [The question must be set not of Ʋncommanded Wor­ship, but of Ceremonies, &c.] And he being certi­fied of this my sense, long ago, why hath he con­tended thus long about nothing, to violate that pretended peace? Do I, or any of our Divines, say, that Ʋncommanded Rites, &c. are supersti­tious, unless they be made parts of Worship? &c. Yes, he would perswade me, that I know some, [who condemne uncommanded Rites as superstiti­ous, p. 77. n. 2. because super statutum, such as kneeling at the Eucharist, Cross in Baptisme, &c.] Truly I can safely profess I know none that do condemn those as superstitious, but that they conceived them, to be made (by some) parts of Worship. He should have done well, to name some of them. That he will by and by, but first, he askes, [Why then did he undertake the confutation of the Tract of Su­perstition, which, he must know, intended no more [Page 119]then this, &c.] But I believe, he intended more than this, in that Tract, viz. to plead secretly for some Ʋncommanded Worship; which he newly made the onely matter of contest between us. Yet if he will needs know the reasons of my underta­king that Tract; these they were. 1. To vindi­cate the truth, from his interpolutions, and obscu­rations, in Thesi, of the full sense of the word Su­perstition. 2. Because I saw, he pleaded for Ʋn­commanded Worship, as well as Circumstances, &c. 3. Because in Hypothesi, I saw, he makes some of his Rites, &c. parts of Worship; as his Festival in particular; which yet elsewhere, he calls but a Circumstance of Worship: These were some of my reasons; if I have any more, he shall hear them anon.

But though I know none, that condemne Ʋn­commanded Rites or Ceremonies as superstitious, &c. yet he may know some; p. 78. n. 5. [Who have abstained from the use of some Ceremonies, meerly upon this score, because commanded by their Civil and Ec­clesiastical Superiors.] I fear this is (as he calls such charges) a calumny; They were conscientious godly men, and gave all due Honour and obedience to their Superiors, in all Indifferent things; and that they should abstain from some Ceremonies, meerly upon this score, because Commanded, &c. is to me incredible. They might, and did abstain from some Ceremonies, as too many, and burthen­some, but especially as they esteemed them to be made parts of Worship; which they have I think, proved some of them to be. The Doctor himself condemns the number and burdensomeness of them, and as made new sorts of Worship: and so they are agreed; and pity it is, he and they should fall out again: But he will break the peace, what ever it cost him; [Instead of naming those men, with­out [Page 120]their consent, for that must now be the vilify­ing them, &c. as not understanding Christians, in the Diatribist censure; he will name one, upon whom he may pass what judgement he please; the Diatribist himself, p. 31. Where, first, he hath these words, If men may judge what are fit for number, and wholesomness, every after-comer, may think himself as wise as he that went before, till they have loaded the Christian above the Jew. 2. That the Learned Chamier, &c.] How will he hence prove his calumny, against me and learned Chamier? (glad I am, of so good company) Why thus: [If the objection be, because men are Judges of the number, &c. as they are, when they command, then they that abstain from Indifferent Ceremonies up­on this score, most abstain because commanded by lawful Authority.] Oh, the Doctors conscience! Do any men abstain from Indifferent Ceremo­nies? it is, from Uncommanded Worship, at least as they suppose. He hath therefore varied the questi­on; And if he had but looked back to the former page of mine, p. 29. he had found that, which might have silenced all this vain and false dis­course. There I say; [If men or any number of men, may be competent Judges in the Worship of God; (in the Worship, not in the Circumstances of Worship) will not the wisdom and wit of man expatiate here, and grow wanton?] But if we ex­tend it to his Ceremonies; are not my words every way true? Does not long experience of all ages, make it evident, that the Wisdome and Wit of men hath herein grown wanton? Let the Church of Rome be the instance; have not they loaded the Christian above the Jew? and the See p. 38. Greek Church, as much? And I retort it upon the Doctor. If the Judges of Ceremonies for number and wholesomness, have such large unquestionable Authority, [to appoint [Page 121]what Ceremonies, they shall judge most useful, most for edification, and most agreeable to the analogy of faith.] (As he asserts, they have, of Fest. s. 9.) Then, the Judges of the next age, having the very same power, with their predecessors, may add as ma­ny more, (and the next after them as many more) as they shall think useful to those ends; till they have made the number great, and burthen intollerable. This consequence is unavoidable, upon his Antece­dent. It therefore concerns him (as well as me) to expedite himself out of this snare: How shall this be done, to free us both? I conceive one of these wayes; 1. That the power of the Church reaches onely to Circumstances of Worship, respecting Or­der, and Decency; and then, as any Wise-man can easily determine them, by the Light of Reason, as Time, Place, Gesture in Worship; so they will be very Few, and cannot well be Multiplied, being the same or like, in all ages of the Church. And this I think, is most suitable to the Simplicity of Go­spel Worship. 2. Or else, that if the Church take upon her, to appoint new Ceremonies, above what the Scripture holds out, she makes them parts of Worship; (as the Church of Rome, does all her Ceremonies, and some did some of ours) which is unlawful. And this was the opinion of those who abstained from our Ceremonies, that they were made parts of Worship, and therefore unlawful. These things satisfie me; If they do not please the Doctor, let him take his own way to expedite him­self. Sure if he were but constant to himself, and did not confound Circumstances and Ceremonies, putting one for another, as if they were the same; he might remember, what he said afore; [That some Rites and Circumstances of time, place and gesture, are absolutely necessary to Religion;] That was his conclusion. pag. 7. n. 5. If then he means [Page 122]by Rites and Ceremonies, nothing but such Circum­stances of Worship; we grant the Church, to be Judge of them: But if he take Ceremonies, for more then Circumstances, new Rites of Worship, or new kinds of Worship (as sometimes he does.) I could easily name the man, that is superstitious, in defending and practising uncommanded Wor­ship, but shall reserve that, till a fitter time. I shall now meet the Doctor, p. 79. n. 6. at his own weapon, his own instance; [He supposes, howing when Jesus is na­med in the publique Worship, (or when Christ, or the Holy Ghost) to be in it self lawful or indiffe­rent; he supposes again, then, this and a few other such Ceremonies may safely be used by a man, with­out command: He now demands, may a few, three or four be commanded by Supreme Power? If they may, then men may be Judges, what Ceremonies are fit, for number and wholesomness, which is contrary to the words of the Diatribist.] But I demand of him, if this be not a very Sophisme? For first, will he say, bowing at the Name of Jesus, is a new Worship, or onely a new Circumstance of Worship; if the latter, it's beside the question, and impro­perly call'd a Ceremony. 2. Will he say, that any thing, in it self Indifferent may be brought into the Worship of God? hath the Church such a power, to institute Ceremonies, of what is so indifferent? will not this make them quickly to be many, to be burdensome, and bring confusion into the Church? ergo, It's indifferent (he says) to bow, at the Name of Jesus, of Christ, of the Holy Ghost; may the Church of this age command men to bow in pub­lick, when, & as often as all these three are named? If so; the name of God, Jehovah, Lord, Al­mighty, and all his Attributes, are in themselves Indifferent to be bowed at, when they are named. May not the Church of this, or the next age, com­mand [Page 123]her members to bow, when any or all these are named? what confusion would this breed? yet so she may, by the Doctors arguing. If she may not multiply Ceremonies of that kind, [then it seemes (his words) what was before lawful and in­different, is now since it was commanded, and by no other change, become unlawful:] Let him try, how he will escape.

I had said, they abstained, because they were thought not indifferent, but obtruded on them as parts of Worship: p. 30. n. 8. [These words are either a ca­lumnie against the Governors of the Church, or else they assert what he disclaims so solemnly.] Neither of these is true; 1. n. 9. Not a calumy against the the Church, [as if they thought the Ceremonies simply necessary, by Divine Law, though she had not commanded them.] This is none of my meaning (whatever some might think) but because the Re­fusers, thought they were so obtruded, or being ob­truded, were by themselves thought to be not In­different, but parts of Worship. Suppose they did erre, in so thinking; yet they did not abstain meerly because they were commanded (which is the Doctors calumny) by lawful Authority; they rather thought the Authority unlawful, that ob­truded on them things perhaps indifferent, as parts of Worship. 2. Nor do I mean, that being in themselves indifferent, they became necessary, by the Churches command; and so made parts of Worship, as that may possibly signifie parts of obedience, to Superiors, by Gods command: For neither do I ever call that obedience to Superiors, in the second Table a part of Worship, nor ever say, that the Churches command, can truly make them so, and necessary: But I meant (as before) they that abstained, did it upon this ground, because they thought them to be made parts of Worship, and so [Page 124]not, upon his, because they were commanded by Su­periors. n. 11. And that I may take in the next; [be­cause used and abused by Papists, and by them made parts of Worship:] It's evident that Papists do make all or most of their Ceremonies parts of Wor­ship; Hear what favor he shews to Papists that he may lave himself from guilt: [Truly I cannot with truth thus affirm of the Papists, that any of the Ceremonies which we use from them, were ever by them accounted parts of Worship, but onely as vseful wholesome Ceremonies appointed by the Church.] Cannot he say this of them, when he knows, they place the Worship of God in them? Are not their Holy-days made and accounted parts of Worship? Is not Caelibate, and vowed Virginity, Poverty, &c. made a part of Worship? Is not the cross in Baptisme so esteemed by them? Truly if the Papists do not make those Ceremonies parts of Worship; our men (that have borrowed them from them) are the more to blame, who (what ever they say against it) do practically make and observe some of them as parts of Worship, well nigh as much, as those that were instituted by Christ, or his Apostles, as shall appear hereafter.

Hence, the Doctors Apology for himself, by miscensuring of me, is the more blameable; [That all his skill lies in mannaging that one fallacy; put­ting all Ceremonies and institutions of the Church, under that one ambiguous phrase of uncommanded Worship, perswading himself, or others, that we re­troduce new parts of Worship.] I know no fallacy here at all; For that it is untrue, that I put all Ce­remonies under that ambiguous phrase, appears, by my profession often, and one newly cited here; from my 28. sect. [Some Rites and Ceremonies of Wor­ship, are rather called Circumstances of Worship, time, place, gesture, which are common Adjuncts [Page 125]of religious and civil affairs, then parts of Wor­ship.] Where it's evident, both that I take Cere­monies onely for Circumstances of Worship, and also oppose them, to parts of Worship. And the Doctor himself hath as fully and plainly professed against all Ʋncommanded Worship (such is all Will­devised, and false, imposed Worship) as I have done; I hope without Ambiguity. Let's hear what he asserts; p. 81. n. 12. [All that we say in asserting whe­ther of Ceremonies, or Festivals, is no more but this, that each of these, not as parts of Worship, but as decent attendants of it, though not instituted of God, have yet been lawful, &c.] If this were all he said, we might well agree; But I fear the Do­ctors skill lies in mannaging that one fallacy, under that one ambiguous phrase, of Ʋncommanded Wor­ship. See ad p. 73. n. 10. For he does allow of some Ʋncommanded Worship, (he calls it after, Will-worship, not com­manded Worship) and makes it more acceptable, and rewardable, then Commanded Worship: as we shall hear in due place: And I shall conclude with his own words, [If he would really and in earnest clear himself, these debates were certainly conclu­ded.]

Sect. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. We acknowledge this assertion, that, [Superstition may and doth in some Authentick Writers, Sa­cred especially, signifie a Nimiety, or Excess in Religion, &c.

THere is nothing said to these Sections, p. 82. n. 1. but what hath been said many times heretofore; and therefore I lightly pass them by. Onely desiring the Reader, to take notice, that the Doctor having given three reasons against my Assertion, [That [Page 126]Superstition signifies an excess,] and I having spoken to them all, he replies not a word to them; but seemes to yield all, and yet upon my Preface, denies, that ever he denied Superstition to be an excess; See ad p. 20. n. 2. His onely evasion is, That those Divines condemn Superstition, but mean not by it, every excess in Worship not pre­scribed, as that comprehends all Ceremonies, and Festivals not commanded by God; and those are the men, he meant, when he said, [They are so few & mo­dern, & of so small authority, that scarce worth pro­ducing.] But first, I am confident the Doctor cannot produce one modern Divine of note, that ever sim­ply condemned all Ceremonies, and Festivals, &c. for themselves did observe some Ceremonies and Festivals, taking occasion to preach upon them, &c. they onely condemn'd them as they were made parts of Worship, equally holy, with the Lords Day, &c. 2. I provoked the Doctor to give us the names of those many, Ancient, Authentick Fa­thers, &c. that take Superstition, in a good sense; He uses not to be so sparing, &c. and yet not one produced. Whereas I have given him many, that take it in an ill sense, p. 82. n. 2. for excess in Religion. [All Divines condemn Superstition, but mean not by it every excess in Worship not prescribed, as that phrase comprehends all Ceremonies and Festivals not commanded by God.] But first, all Divines do condemn Superstition, for this reason, because it is an excess, or addition of Worship not pre­scribed, according to the School-mans definition of it, before given; and therefore must necessarily mean it of every excess in Worship not prescribed. 2. If Ceremonies and Festivals not commanded by God, be made parts of Worship, by men, as they are by Papists and the Doctor himself, they mean by that phrase, to comprehend all Ceremo­nies [Page 127]and Festivals not commanded by God. And these Divines, are many, and of no small Autho­rity; though the Doctor slights and contemns them. And I might ask the Doctor, Why is Dae­monum cultus called Superstition, but because it is an excess in Worship; adding the Daemons or false Gods, to the object or Rule of Worship, in the first Commandment: Just so it is in all the other three Commandments, the Superstition in them is an excess, in the matter, manner, or time of Wor­ship, not prescribed by God.

Section 30. Of this kinde are those three sort of significant Ce­remonies, &c.

I Expected here, n. 4. p. 83. that the Doctor would have shewed his opinion of significant Ceremonies, (not those mentioned by me and him, but) used in our Church, as Cross in Baptisme, Surplice, &c. & have declared his Judgement, whether such signi­fications put upon them by men, do not make them Religious Ceremonies, and so parts of Worship, and consequently superstitious: But he wisely waves the debate, and falls upon the observation of De­cency, Ʋniformity, and Obedience to Superiors; which he must mean, of Circumstances of Worship, not of new sorts or kindes of Worship. No Obe­dience is due to Superiors, when they command such: But he as wisely lets go the rest; [when they are taught, as making the observers more Religi­ous, then others, or more acceptable to God, &c.] I ask now, if a man should put Religion That a man is heard, non said it. in a gesture, in a place, &c. Or think that it will make quia precatur, sed quia ibi. He knows what B. [Page 128]him more acceptable to God: Whether this would not make them parts of Worship, and so supersti­tious? ergo, If a man should place more Religion, Holiness, acceptation, &c. in praying in a Church privately, in kneeling at the Supper, then in sitting or standing (all being left indifferent) let the Do­ctor say, whether this be Superstition, or no: I be­lieve many of our Ignorant, and Formal Prote­stants do so, though the Doctor himself perhaps, will say, he looks onely at the command of his Su­periors, enjoyning that gesture.

Sect. 31.32. But herein the Doctor is again mistaken, that he sayes, &c.

THe Doctor confesses, That [ in the Church of Rome, p. 84. n. 6. there is a great multitude of Ceremo­nies and Festivals, which may be capable of the title of weight and yoke, but the Church of Eng­land, is far more sparing.] As if he had said, the Church of England laid a weight and yoke upon her members, but not so great and heavy, as Rome layes upon hers: This is but little for her Commendation. Fatemur Ceremo­nias non esse nimis multipli­candas: Bellar. de effect. Sacr. c. 30. But were not the Ceremonies in the Church of England, many in themselves, and compared with other Reformed Churches? Besides the old ones, of Cross in Baptisme, Surplice, bow­ing as oft as Jesus was named, kneeling at Sacra­ment, &c. and all those many Holy-dayes, (which some people found to be a heavy yoke:) the New ones that were, by some well affected to Rome, even near upon imposing; as bowings and cringings, at Church door, in the midst, and Chancel, and at the Altar, and what else, God knows: would not these be a reasonable number to deserve the name of [Page 129]a multitude? And then I would know, what num­ber of Ceremonies will make a burden and a yoke; will 20. or 30. or more do it? and if under 10. will that be no yoke? let the Doctor state and set­tle his number. Then I ask again, why are 30. or 20. a yoke? is it because of their number? why then, 10. is number sufficient, to make a lesser yoke: But if the reason be, (as indeed it is) because they are but Traditions of men, Gal. 5.1. prejudicious to Gospel simplicity, and to Christian liberty, where Christ hath left us free; then any one such Ceremony (I say not, necessary Circumstance) is a little yoke, Who made them judges or dividers of tasks to their brethren? p. 111. n. 8. p. 85. n. 7. and why should any Church assume a power, to yoke and burden those, whom Christ hath left free? And this was Chamiers reason against Bellarmine; though the Doctor thought good to take no notice of it, to give it any answer. He says, [I ask a subtle question; Whether if a Jew had observed some Jewish Ceremony, not foreshewing Christ to come, or had devised any new Rites or Ceremonies, &c. would not the Apostle have blamed them for that as superstitious?] He must remember, we are speaking of Ceremonies, made parts of Worship, (as those Jewish were before) what sayes he to the question? He answers confidently, to both the parts; [No, Yet of­ten hath said, that those rites of the old law, are forbidden under Christ. p. 19. n. 32. and just now, that they were interdicted Christians. p. 84. n. 5. n. 8. he would not: and to the last first; in asking the question, I beg the question, which is (sayes he) whether every devised Rite or Cere­mony, not commanded of God, be superstitious.] No such matter, the question is, of Ʋncommanded Worship, not of Circumstances of Worship; no nor of Rites and Ceremonies, if not made parts of Worship; And is it probable that the Apostle would cry down the old Ceremonies, appointed by [Page 130]God, and parts of Worship, and give them leave to set up new ones, of their own Head? To the former part of a Jewes observing a Jewish Cere­mony, &c. he answers as confidently, by a que­stion; n. 8. [What thinks be of the abstinence from strangled and blood, a Jewish Ceremony, and obser­ved by Christians? yet not blamed as Superstiti­ous.] I say this, first, as it was observed by Chri­stians, so it was ordered by the Apostles, who might do more then any Jew or Christian. 2. It was not made now, a part of Worship (as before it was) but onely to prevent a scandal to the weaker Jews: which is evident by this, besides other rea­sons, that after the Jewes were better instructed or hardened, the custome ceased. And if the Do­ctor had a mind to plead for a Ceremony, he might better have pleaded for continuance of this, both for the Antiquity of it, before the Law, under the Law, and under the first plantation of the Gospel, observed by Christians, many ages, (says the Do­ctor) and also for the Authority of it, from the Apostles themselves. He cannot produce so much for his beloved Festival. His other instance of the old Sabbath, is just the same; [ He hath the pra­ctice of the Christian Church, of the Apostles, and purest time, who continued the observation of it, with the Lords day, for some hundreds of years.] But I would say further, 1. The Apo­stles did not observe the Sabbath day, as now a part of Worship, as afore; but to take occasion to preach the Gospel, at their Assemblies, which they could not have on other dayes. 2. The following Churches, finding it in being amongst the Jewes, continued it a while to gratifie them. 3. If they continued it, as a part of worship, I would ask the Doctor whether they did well, or he would justifie them, seeing it was before annul'd, and inter­dicted [Page 131](as he sayes.) 4. I must profess, there is much more to be said for the observation of the old Sabbath, by the Jewish Sabbatarians, than can be said for any of the Doctors Festivals; the An­tiquity of it, the Authority of it, the Apostoli­cal practice, (sayes the Doctor) and the Churches observation of it for many ages) clearly manifested in stories. Whereas, the Festivals, (especially his darling Christmas) have no Apostolical Authori­ty, or Practice, nor of the two first Ages of the Church, that can be made appear. I leave these to his consideration.

The 32. Section of mine, p. 86. n. 9. he overlooks most of it, that most concern'd him to have answered, a­bout his number of wholsome Ceremonies; of the efficacy put in them by some, to procure grace, &c. and who shall be the Judge of their number and wholesomness. All this is waved, but a flaw or fault is found in my words, which takes him wholly up: that I affirm him to say, [If Ceremonies be but harmless, or negatively wholsom, there cannot be too much of them.] Truly, he that reades the words in his 41. Section, might easily be mistaken, if he attend not heedfully to them: thus they are, [Ceremonies must be few and wholsom; yet if they be wholsom, not onely negatively, but positively; not onely harmless, but tending to edification, (for so salubrity imports) then there will be little rea­son, to accuse them of excess.] Would not a man at first sight take the meaning to be that which I have given? If they be wholesom, negatively, harmlesly, though not onely so, but positively, and tending to edification, &c. especially if he eyed not the parenthesis following, which, all know, may be left out, and the sense be still entire. But I shall freely acknowledge my Inadvertency, and beg his pardon; I am sure he needs mine much more, in [Page 132] mislating of the question, so often (I say not, willingly) as if the controversie was only, [ Whe­ther every Rite or Circumstance, not commanded by God, be Superstition. n. 7.] when he knows, it is about Uncommanded Worship.

Sect. 33. This question of a competent Judge, &c.

THe Sophisme charged upon me, n. 10. will rather re­flect upon himself: I said, what is Supersti­tion but folly and vanity, in the Worship of God: In vain do they Worship me, &c. [This is (says he) a pa­rologisme, supposing things to be convertible which are not: every Superstition is folly and vanity, but e­very folly and vanity even in the Worship of God, is not Superstition.] Duplex superstitio pernicio­sa, & vana seu super­flua. Filuc. Trat. 24. c. 2. Foolish and vain Ceremo­nies or supersti­tious. But that's the Doctors mistake; I dare maintain, that every folly and vainty in the Worship of God, is Superstition: which I prove from the definition of Superstition: [Every excess in Religion, of mens devising, is folly, (as proceeding from mans Wisdom, which is folly with God) and vanity, as wanting ground of it's performance; but every folly and vanity in Religion, of mens de­vising is an excess in Religion; ergo,] And from his own words, [In this case, (of too many Ceremonies) though any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault, yet this not the fault of Superstition, but of folly and vanity.] He was speaking of store of inordi­nable, unfit Ceremonies in the Church of Rome, are not they Superstitious? yet are they also foolish and vain. And when he sayes, [ any one may be a Nimiety, and that a fault,] how will he reconcile this with what he had said before: [If the excess be, in taking too many Rites and Ceremonies into the Worship of God, then (he hastily assumes this) [Page 133]by this it is granted, Any one Ceremony, if made a part of Worship, (as the word sig­nifies) is a Nimiety and excess in Religi­on, and su­perstiti­ous: not the multi­tude only, as was said above the Rites and Ceremonies themselves are not Superstitious, but the multitude onely.] But now he sayes, Any one may be a Ni­miety, and that a fault; Now that cannot be, if onely the multitude of Ceremonies makes them superstitious; suppose ten Ceremonies, all singly indifferent and lawful; which of the ten is a Nimiety, and a fault? they are supposed all equal­ly, good: or if the number onely make them Super­stitious, how can so many goods, added together, make them bad? either therefore there must be some Rule in Scripture, how many Ceremonies may be instituted, and yet not be superstitious, unless they exceed that number; or else the Adding of one, any one Ceremony, to the Rule, is a Nimiety, and faulty in Superstition. Let the Doctor resolve us in this case.

Section 34. The placing of more vertue in some things, then either naturally, or by the Rule of the word, or in the estimation of purer ages of the Church, may be thought, &c.

UPon this principle of the Doctor, I made an Assumption, not onely of Romish Ceremo­nies, unfit, &c. but of all superadded parts of Worship, what ever, p. 87. n. 11. [They do place more vertue in them, then either naturally belongs to them, or by the Rule of the word;] ergo, they are supersti­ous. This argument, the Doctor thinks best to wave; lest his Ceremonies, he pleads for, should be suspected, or concluded superstitious: because he places that vertue in them, which neither natu­rally, nor by the Rule of the word belongs to them, as hath been shewed. All that he pleases to take [Page 134]notice of, is, to answer my question; [What he meant to adde to his disjunction, or in the estima­tion of the purer ages of the Church;] thereupon I asked, [Whether the Church after the Apostles, had power to put vertue into things, which they had not, either naturally, or by the Rule of Gods word.] He answers, [I never thought any such thing.] Truly he that reads the words, where these three are put together, and knowes the Do­ctors Good-will to the power of the Church, would easily take the meaning to be, as I have exprest it: [That the Church hath power to put some vertue into things, which neither nature, nor God hath put into them.] For he makes the Institutions of the Church, to be almost, if not altogether, Divine; her Authority, equal and the same with that of the Apostles, (confest to be Divine;) and seemes to joyn with, and approve of the phrases of Roma­nists; speaking of the power of the Church: I shall instance in some particulars: In this Section, where now we are, n. 4. he alledges a Testimony of Pope Leo; p. 83. n. 4. Divinarum reverentia Sanctionum, &c. and renders it thus, [ The reverence of Di­vine, i.e. Ecclesiastical Sanctions, hath always this priviledge, &c.] We plain simple Protestants, would have thought, by Divine Sanctions, he had meant, the Institutions of Christ and his Apo­stles, which are truly Divine; but the Doctor un­derstood the language of the Beast better than we do. [The Divine, that is, the Ecclesiastical San­ctions.] Again, when Aquinas was cited, as saying, [Worship is vitiated by Superfluity, Ad p. 50. n. 5.6. when ought is assumed, which neither by Divine nor Ecclesiasti­cal appointment belongs to the glory of God, &c.] He stops my mouth, with this; [That the Super­fluity of it consists, not in being supperadded to Gods commands onely, but to the Churches appoint­ment [Page 135]also, &c.] Where he seems to me, to close with Aquinas, that the Churches appointments of Worship, are equal with Gods. And once more, (to take it in here, in this so fit a place, and pass it light­ly hereafter) citing a testimony from Salmeron the Jesuite; Omnis ritus colendi Deum, &c. Infra ad p. 147. n. 24. [Every Rite of worshipping God, that is not delivered from God, nor from the Holy Ghost, by the Church, but is invented by the will of man, is superstitions.] Leave but out those words (by the Church) and Salmeron speaks as full for us, as we could desire. But does the Doctor boggle at those words? not at all, but thus besets me, [where it seemes, that which is delivered by the Church being by him supposed to be from the holy Ghost, doth in no degree fall un­der this censure, and then the Diatribist is free to make his best advantage of this citation.] What advantage I shall make of this, he shall hear anon; I make this onely at present, that the Doctor will easily favour a Romish Gloss against the truth, and could finde in his heart to believe with them, that the power of the Church is Divine. Some other such passages, we may meet again here­after.

Sect. 35.36. The Nimiety must be, an excess of fear, or being afraid of God, when we need not, &c.

TO these 2. Sections, the Doctor sayes not one word, (but leaps to Sect. 37.) Where some things were needful to have been considered by him; I shall briefly remind him of them: First, p. 87. n [An excess of fear, or being afraid of God when we need not, is granted a Nimiety, a culpable ex­cess; [Page 136]this might be called Superstition under this notion of Nimiety.] They are his words, in his 46. and 47. Sections of Superstition. Now hence how justly have I inferred; 1. That Su­perstition is an excess. 2. That this is not the Worshipping of Daemons; then Superstition is lar­ger, then he is willing to make it. 3. That a needless (which I call slavish) fear of God, is an excess, and Superstition, against the first Com­mandment. All which the Doctor hath laboured to deny; and is now confuted by his own pen. Another thing deserv'd his notice; That I say, Sect. 35. [ In matter of Worship, it is a Nimiety and excess, to do what God hath not command­ed:] To which he sayes just nothing. And then again, when he said; [That this way of dogma­tizing, &c. is the speciall, and onely kinde of Superstition, which he believes any Protestants to be guilty of.] I said, this was a great mistake; for himself hath granted many more kindes of Su­perstition; as those newly named, placing ver­tue, in things, &c. An excess of fear, &c. and I may adde, all men-devised Worship, new kindes and sorts of Worship appointed by men, &c. Hap­py were it for many Protestants, and for the Do­ctor himself, if either there were no Superstition, but worshipping of Daemons, amongst Christians, or none but Dogmatizing among Protestants: for then his Ceremonies and Festivals, might very well hope to escape. But besides all those named, there is yet another, and that is, in the next con­sidered.

Sect. 37, 38, 39 And now we are come to another consideration of the last way, that he supposes, may be called Su­perstition, that is, because men place Holiness in some observances, &c.

HEre he said, [The onely inquiry will be, by whom, and how far any thing is thus separa­ted; by Christ, or the Apostles, &c.] To which I answered, [He tells us here, p. 87. n. 12. by whom the separa­tion is made; but not a word, how far, or in what difference, a thing separated is made holy, by the se­veral Authors: whether, onely gradual, or specifi­cal, &c.] To which he returnes not a word of an­swer: which yet is a thing of very great concern­ment: That we may know what degree, or kinde of Holiness we put upon things; So himself said, [The way to discern, whether we exceed, and place more Holiness then is due to them, is to account them Holy, in a degree proportionable to the Autho­rity of him that separated them.] This is a blind; we should know what is the degree of Holiness, proportionable to every one of their Authorities; else we may place as much Holiness, in the institu­tions of a private man, or a particular Church, as we should place only in those of Divine institution, by Christ and his Apostles. And so commonly men do; account the Church as Holy, as the Tem­ple was: and Festivals as Holy, as the Lords day, and are not by the Doctor taught their due propor­tions. Many things were there propounded to his consideration, Sect. 39. which we cannot but take ill, to be slighted, as not concerning him to take no­tice of; first, whether any but God can make a thing properly Holy. 2. What proper Holiness is. [Page 138]3. The diff [...]ence of Holiness given by the diffe­rent Au [...] &c. and the rest there propounded. The Doctor waving all these, (for what reason, he best knowes) catches at an advantage from some words of mine. I said, [In times or places separa­ted by God or men, there is this difference, (besides others) that those sanctified by God, require holy duties to fill them up: but those by men, are to wait upon holy duties.] This, he sayes, (without consi­deration) is not so: [Prayer and Fasting, &c. were not appointed for time or places sake, &c.] He clearly mistakes me; for I meant thus: The Sabbath, and the Temple being made Holy by God, required Holy Services to fill them up: But times and places, set apart by men, have respect to the Worship of God; and are appointed for the Wor­ships sake, not the Worship, for the time and pla­ces sake: That's it that I said a little afore; men cannot make any thing properly Holy, but onely improperly, with respect to Holy things or Duties. And that is, to make any time or place, when and where those duties are performed, as Holy as any other time or place, that is, the one no more Holy then another. But this Holiness, I doubt, will not serve the Doctors turn; yet it must, if he be con­stant to his principles: For he professes not to make his time and place, (Festivals and Churches) parts of Worship, but circumstances onely of Worship; which any Day, or place, is as well as his separa­ted Dayes and places; and so one as Holy as ano­ther. p. 87. n. 13. But to this he hath to say, [The time and place instituted by God himself, is as truly a cir­cumstance of Worship, as when instituted by men; and duty is equally the Substance, &c] This is another of his mistakes; not that time and place instituted by God, are not as truly Circumstances, as those by men; but that they are more, even [Page 139] parts of Worship; so was the Sabbath and Tem­ple: but so are not his Holy-dayes, and our Chur­ches. [Art thou a Master in Israel, and knowest not these things?] And now he may take home his The Doctor uses the word (till) for, fill; the Printers fault; to give me a flout, and that twice. Absurdity put upon me, to himself.

I said, [I had thought Apostolical and Divine, had been both one with the Doctor, (and so they are sometimes) but I perceive he makes them differ, &c.] He answers, [It is soon dispatcht, p. 88. n. 14. by say­ing, I do not think the Apostles to be God.] Too soon dispatcht indeed; Did ever any man charge him to think so, when he made Apostolical insti­tutions to be Divine and infallible? Is not this a miserable subterfuge? when he knowes well enough how to distinguish, between Immediately Divine, (so were Christs own Institutions;) and mediately, The Scrip­ture was [...], of Divine inspira­tion, or God in­spired; yet writ by holy men, 2 Pet. 1.21 by commission from him, and Inspiration from the Holy Ghost; so were the Apostles, Divine. Why then did he speak thus? Sure it was, either to bring Apostolical down to Ecclesiastical, or to advance the latter, to the Authority of the former, and to make them equal. But is it not uncharitable for me thus to judge? No, not at all, knowing him so well as I do. For he sayes expresly hereafter, [His Festival and the Lords day are founded both on the same Authority.] Fest. 5.57. Then, either Ec­clesiastical is Divine, for so is Apostolical; or Apo­stolical is but Humane, for so is Ecclesiastical; un­less the Doctor will joyn with Papists, and make the Churches Sanctions to be Divine; as was said afore. But more of this hereafter.

Yet before we part with this Section, one thing the Doctor is desired, in his next, to satisfie, how [Page 140]he will avoid that in the close; [By this distinction (aforegoing) of his, the Papists may excuse their grossest Superstition, in placing Holiness in things, times, places; they may borrow the Doctors answer; They may say, they account them Holy, but either by the authority of the general, or particular Church of Rome; and that is no Superstition, sayes he, say they.] Something would be said to this.

Sect. 40, 41, 42. But he goes on: [If my voluntary oblation, I per­form as a voluntary oblation, &c.]

THese three Sections, the Doctor passes over, with an easie touch: because it touches too near upon his Will-worship; and therefore tells me, [I beg the question, p. 28. n. 15. to take it for granted, that his voluntary oblation, is an eminent species of Super­stition, against which punishment is denounced in the second Commandment; when his whole Tract of Will-worship, undertakes to demonstrate the con­trary, &c.] I could answer for my self, that at my first draught, I placed his and my own Tract of Will-worship, before that of Superstition, (as he did) and so took it for granted, I had proved his Will-worship to be a Species of Superstition; But I say, the place is proper enough here, having in my discourse of Superstition, held out Will-worship to be a species of Superstition, by the Judgement of of the best Divines, though much more remaines to be said of it. And I adde further, that the Doctor hath yielded, Ʋncommanded Worship to be unlaw­full and superstitious: but his voluntary oblation, ( Worship he meanes) is Uncommanded Worship: ergo, let him take heed of the punishment threat­ned [Page 141]to such Worship. Yet I shall say, I am not much troubled that he reserves this to the next Ex­ercitation, if I were sure, he would look back to these three Sections, and answer them there: but this I fear, is but an avoidance of what he is not wil­ling to answer. We shall observe his performance.

Sect. 43. And now the Doctor may be pleased to review, and if he will, recall his bitter, false, uncharitable conclusion, &c.

HOw the Doctor hath vindicated his Doctrine against me, the indifferent Reader, p. 89. n. 4. must now be Judge, not we our selves: It onely remaines, to see how he will vindicate his charity, in his bitter conclusion: which he goes about, first, by his Rhe­torick, [craving to premise, that it was but a se­vere Satyre, against a vice, and not a per­son, &c.] I shall with him, desire the Iudif­ferent Reader to review those two last Sections, and then give Judgment, whether he doth not even point at the persons, whom he meanes; not in particular, naming the men, but in a plain describing a party of men, known well enough to the nation: Thus he begins: [If some men, The oppo­sers of the Ceremo­nies of our Church, a­gainst whom that tract was prepared. Infr. p. 114 n. 7. as they will abide no Rites, so they would avow no quarrels but, &c.] Who knows not, that he means, those godly, learn­ed, conscientious men, who opposed the Ceremo­nies of our Church: So he sayes expresly here, n. 5. [All that have opposed our Church, in point of Rites and Ceremonies, and branded the innocent as guilty of no less crime, then Superstition.] This part of the charge is false, for they could, and did abide some Rites, as we said above; and did avow no quarrels, but for what (they thought) Scripture would give them particular directions and [Page 142]commands: But he goes on, and worse; [And con­sequently, if they would not judge or damn their brethren, when neither Christ nor his Writ, &c. condemnes them.] This is both false and uncha­ritable, to censure men, as judging and damning their brethren; when neither Christ nor his Writ condemn'd them: when as they were men of hum­ble and meek Spirits, readier to be judged and con­demn'd by their opposites, and patiently to suffer it. It followes [which till it be done, it must be expect­ed, that they (afore described) who have learn't one of the Divels Attributes, that of Satan ad­versary, or enemy man, will also advance to ano­ther, that of [...], calumniator, and [...], accuser of the brethren, &c.] What could he have said worse, if he had called them Divels? Is there yet any more dregs in the bottome of the cup? yes, a little very charitable stuff. [It now, being by some men resolved (if the testimony of the rest of their lives may be believed) that there is no capital damning sin worth heeding or abstaining from, but Superstition, See p. 90. n. 5. &c.] Now Reader, is this a Satyre, of a vice, and not a description of persons, or a party? can the Doctor with perfect peace of minde review those Sections, and see no breach of duty, none against whom he hath offended? Non equi­dem in video, miror magis.

Onely one thing more, and we shall part a while; The Doctor sayes, [He can very well ab­stain from making use of the advantage given him, of more then recriminating.] And wel he may; for he hath done it before; saying, [ I have charged that foul sin of Superstition upon the Doctor person­nally, and enlarged it to his party, which must needs involve all the obedient Sons of the Church of Eng­land, &c.] To which I answer, first, For the Do­ctor himself, I have charged him with nothing, but [Page 143] [what is avowed by himself, to be his opinion and practice, and what is proved really to be superstiti­ous,] according to the true notion of the word, a­mongst reformed Orthodox Divines.] These are my words, in this last Section: which if it be not true, why did not the Doctor deny the charge, and make it appear, that his own principles do not hold out the nature of Superstition; & his own opinion and practice do not conclude him guilty of what is laid to his charge. This is very observable, that where­ever I charge him to be superstitious, he moves it, and takes no notice of it, as will appear here­after. 2. As for his party, he takes too much Honor to himself, to think I meant all the obedient Sons of the Church of England. No, there is a party in that party, that condemn the Doctor for his Super­stition, as much as I do. But the party, that I joyn'd with the Doctor, were those too forward Sons of the Church of England, who were (if God had not staid them) running away from their Mother to Rome, both in Doctrine and Worship; and by all modest and pious men, even of Episcopal notion, judged as Hetordox in the one, and as Superstitious in the other. In a word, I shall make the Doctor to be his own Accuser, in the premises, and his own Judge, in the conclusion, of any charge I lay against him. And so I now rest.

Sect. 1. Had the Reverend and Learned Doctor (as it be­came him,) distinguished the words, either [...], in Greek, or Will-worship in English, &c.

HE now begins to do what before he had for­got, p. 93. n. 3. or neglected; to distinguish, till he hath confounded the words, more then before, and yet not telling us clearly, in what sense he takes it, as he promised n. 2. First, [Betwixt Worship on the one side and on the other side, external Cere­monies or Circumstances of it, which are not parts, but accidents of Worship.] Where he does not di­stinguish of the word Worship, (as was required) in it self, that we might know, what he means by Worship, in the word Will-worship; but between Worship, and Ceremonies, or Circumstances of Worship, which are not parts, but accidents of Worship, as he sayes. And yet some Ceremonies and Circumstances are made by him, and called Worship, as we shall hear. 2. He distinguishes Worship indeed, after as confused a manner, when he sayes, [Worship, whether the Theological ver­tue, or some act thereof, together with the degrees, and frequency of those acts.] As if a man should [Page 145]distinguish Justice, (his present instance) thus, Justice is either, 1. The Moral vertue it self. 2. Or some act thereof. 3. Or some degree or fre­quency of that act. Were these several species of Ju­stice, or not rather the same vertue distinguished by accidental differences? So the Acts of Wor­ship, and the degrees thereof, &c. are either the same kinde of Worship, or but accidental differen­ces of the same Worship. 2. In his distinction of Worship, against Ceremonies and Circumstances, he is no lesse confused. For 1. Ceremonies and Cir­cumstances of Worship, are not one and the same, (which yet he seemes to make them) as was said above. 2. Ceremonies and Circumstances, were sometimes parts of Worship (and so Wor­ship Ceremonial) as the Sabbath, and Temple, time and place, after mentioned, in his Illustration, by Justice, &c. And Ceremonies however, are com­monly taken for external Worship, (as I said above;) and then he should have distinguished Worship, thus: Worship is either Moral and Sub­stantial, or Ceremonial and Accidental; and then his Ceremonies had been, not onely parts, but spe­cies of Worship: And such indeed he makes them, however he dissemble the matter here. But who is the wiser by all this confusion? who can tell, for he tells us not) what is meant by Worship in the word, Will-worship: It must be, either the vertue or some act, or degree, or frequencie of it, on the one side; or a Circumstance, no part, but acci­dent of Worship, which of them I know not. Per­haps his Illustration will spring some light. [As in Justice; it may signifie, 1. The vertue it self. 2. Some Act of that vertue. Or, 3. the degree thereof, and frequent repetition of the Acts of it; but for the Circumstances of time, or place, at­tending on any Act of it, they will never be called [Page 146]Justice, with any propriety.] Where, 1. he leaves out, (whether negligently or willingly) the other word Ceremonies: For there may be some Ceremonies also in Publique Justice, the Formalities of the Judges and Court, &c. He should have told us, whether those may, in any propriety, be called Ju­stice; as Ceremonies in Religion, are by some cal­led and made Worship. 2. He should now apply this distinction and illustration, and tell us, what now he meanes by Worship; whether the vertue, or some Act, or degree & frequency of it, or the Cere­monies, that is the circumstances of time and place: if he mean the latter onely, Circumstances of time and place; as it is not comprehended in the word VVill-worship, so it is not controverted between us: as hath oft been said in the other Tract. If he mean the former, let him consider, that he con­futes himself from the beginning of this Dis­course; who maintains VVill-worship, Uncom­manded-worship, men Devised-worship; not VVill-ceremonies, or VVill-circumstances of VVorship, time or place; which can with no more propriety be called VVorship, then the same, or the like Ceremonies or Circumstan­ces, in exercising of Justice, can be called Justice. But he is no less confused in the next; for he says, [Secondly, for the other part of the word will, or choice of man; it may be of four sorts distinguish­able by the matter willed: 1. When it is forbid­den by God. 2. Commanded, but not ad semper: 3. Left free. 4. When though not indifferent nor forbidden, but good in an high degree, yet not under particular precept, and so omitted without sin, &c.] But here's confusion enough: 1. VVho ever distinguished the faculty of Will, (which is but one) into four sorts, according to the objects or matter of the things willed? 2. Will, in this word, must be referred onely to Worship; (Will-worship) [Page 147]which is either commanded or forbidden; there's none left indifferent. 3. That there should be any thing, which is neither indefferent, nor forbidden, nor commanded, (and yet good in an high degree) is to me a mystery, and some of the Doctors new Divinity. It helps him not to say, [It is not under particular precept.] For if it be under a general precept, it is under precept, and so pro hic & nunc, (as they say) cannot be omitted without sin, and if then done, how it can be highly rewardable by God, eo nomine, because not under particular pre­cept, I am yet to seek; of which more hereafter. 4. His particular instances, are nothing to the pre­sent purpose; which is of the Will, with relation to Worship, and none of his instances are of Wor­ship, but other things. We enquire, what Will, signifies in the word Will-worship; whether, it im­port, willingness in commanded Worship, or wil­ling and instituting Worship not commanded: To which all that distinction, and discourse of the Do­ctor, sayes nothing; Onely he takes occasion from the last part of his distinction to empty his Note­book, of what he had read of that notion, [of things good in an high degree, neither indifferent, nor forbidden, nor commanded, and yet highly re­wardable by God;] wherein I shall not now follow him, but consider it in a place more fit for it, where we shall meet with it again. We shal attend his appli­cation of that distinction, n. 6. (for the 5. p. 96. n. 6. is lost) or rather his no-application of it; for he tells us nothing, in which of those four senses he takes the word, will, but comes presently to the word in compositi­on, the word [...], Will-worship, to distinguish of that, and then tell us, in what sense he does not, or does take it. And to confound us the more, hath found out six wayes, or things, which it may denote. [1. The performing any sort [Page 148]of worship to God, forbidden by him; which yet is not truly but equivocally called Worship, &c.] Where I observe; first, That any sort of Worship forbidden by God, is Will-worship, and consequent­ly Superstition; and so Worship of Daemons, is not the onely Superstition, which the Doctor was ve­ry loath to grant in his former Tract. 2. How warily he speaks; [which yet is not truely Worship, but equivocally;] It's sufficient, first, that the offerers think it truly Worship; and then I would ask, is not false Worship truly called Worship, if Worship be properly distinguished into true and false, as several species thereof, as it is by the Do­ctor hereafter? But we go on; 2. [The using any Ceremony in Gods Worship, which is forbidden, &c.] Now for these two, the Doctor sayes, [He must readily acknowledge, p. 97. n. 8. Was not the Wor­shipping of Angels, a Wil-wor­ship? [...], and for­bidden? they are criminous, and he pleads not for them, nor are they capable of that title of Will-worship.] But, first, Worship for­bidden by God, and devised and instituted by the meer Will of man, may well be capable of the title of Will-worship: but forbidden Worship, is Wor­ship devised & instituted by the meer Will of man, s. 1. may well be called Will-worship. 2. Worship not commanded by God, or uncommanded Worship, is forbidden by God as hath often been said & proved: ergo, all uncommanded Worship, that is set up by the meer will of man, is criminous, & may well be called Will-worship. [3. Ridiculous and unprofitable Cere­monies, which though no where forbidden several­ly by God, yet by their multitude become an hinder­ance to devotion, a yoke too heavy for Christians.] What thinks he of these? He professes his dislike of them, p. 97. n. 9. [ yet thinks it not applicable to the notion of the word in the Apostle, but rather to that in Epi­phanius, [...], superfluity of Will­worship: where still the fault is the superfluity, &c. [Page 149]and not the Ʋncommandedness of them.] Enough hath been said to this in the former Tract: But I adde, first, The multitude orsuperfluity of Cere­monies made parts of Worship by men, as they were by the Pharisees, and are by Papists, may well be capable of the title of Will-worship. 2. The fault is not then onely the Superfluity; for any one Ceremony made Worship, by the Will of man, Ceremony in common acception, signifies, external VVorship; and being appointed by men, any one is a Nimie­ty, and Crimi­nous; as was said above. is a Superfluity, and too much, and so criminous, as Will-worship. 3. Epiphanius taxes the Pharisees, not onely for their superfluity of Ceremonies, but for their Will-worship in them. The Doctor then must not beg, and take the word Will-worship, in a good sense, and talk of [Superfluity of Will-wor­ship.] 4. If these superfluous ridiculous Ceremo­nies, be not applicable to the word in the Apostle, Col. 2.23. Why does he make this one sense, or one species of Will-worship? Surely superfluous Ceremonies are one species of Superstition, in the judgement not onely of others, but of the Doctor himself in the former Tract; and being imposed by the Will of man, may well be called will-wor­ship: the Ʋncommandedness of them, as well as the Superfluity, will name them so. And if any one such Ceremony be lawful, and so a second, and a third, &c. The more the better; and how then can there be a fault in the multitude? when as the Do­ctor said, [If they be wholesome, Of Super­stition, s. 41. then there will be little reason, to accuse them of excess; for they will then more probably help the inner devotion, then encumber it.] But of this afore sufficiently, and we go on. All Ce­remo­nies in the sense above, are forbidden. n. 10. 4 [Ʋsing or instituting one or more Ceremonies, not forbidden, yet not command­ed, but founded in some pious or prudential conside­ration, &c] Of this he sayes, [It is not Worship [Page 150]in it self, and I need not allow that the title of Will-worship, Does not the Doctor in this and the next Tract, plead for VVill­worship, in Ceremo­nies and Uncom­manded VVorship in Festi­vals, &c. and yet now will not allow them the name ei­ther of VVorship, or VVill­ship? n. 11. but refer it to those Circumstances of VVorship, &c.] But suppose this one or more Ceremonies be made parts of Worship, not meer Circumstances; will he not them grant them Su­perstitious, and so VVill-worship, by the VVill of man? as was said to the third sense afore. 5. [Of­fering to the service of God any thing, which God hath any way reveal'd, he will accept of, and re­ward, if duly performed, &c.] But what means he, by offering to the service of God? that men may offer service, or VVorship, which God hath not commanded? This I suppose he will not say; yet palpably does it, in his maintained VVill-worship: what then? will he say, it is not VVorship, but a Circumstance of Worship? Then it cannot indeed be called VVill-worship, for it is not VVorship at all: yet to this, the Doctor applies the word in the Apostle, under the notion, [of voluntary oblations, and as good and commendable (no way vitious) if it be truly such as it pretends to be.] So then, he calls that VVill-worship, which is no VVorship: and yet with a limitation, [if it be truly such as it pre­tends to be.] So that if it be not truly such; such what? such VVill-worship, as is good and com­mendable, the Doctor (begging that there is any VVill-worship good) will not allow that, the name of VVill-worship, in the Apostle; though it be in­stituted meerly by the Will of man. There is yet one way more, 6. [Lastly, when either for the de­gree or frequency of any known act of VVorship, a man doth more then be is by Gods law strictly re­quired to do, prays, or Fasting is not an act of VVorship: but an help to VVorship: yet here and elsewhere made so. fasts oftner, &c.] But to this I say, 1. This is impertinent to the point, for [Page 151]we are speaking of VVill-worship, not of Com­manded Worship; VVorship devised by the VVill of man, not by God, as prayer is. 2. The degrees and frequency of these VVorships, are under a pre­cept, if not particular, yet general; with respect to abilities and opportunities: but the VVill-wor­ship we speak against, is under no precept at all, un­less by way of prohibition. 3. He that will take upon him to Pray or Fast oftner, then Gods law strictly requires of him, must certainly know, how oft Gods law requires him to pray, &c. and no oft­ner: which the Doctor may do well to determine out of the chair. 4. We speak not of degrees and frequency of acts of Worship commanded, but of new sorts or kindes of Worship not commanded, instituted meerly by the VVill of man: And of such VVill worship the Doctor must speak, or he sayes nothing. Let him now consider, whether by his sixth-fold distinction, he hath not rather cloud­ed, then cleared the business. [VVill-worship can­not be imagined to denote any more then some one of these six things, &c.] Whereof the four first, are not allowed the title of VVill-worship; The two last are not properly VVorship at all, I mean, He call them six species of VVill­ship. n. 14. p. 98. n. 13. new sorts of VVorship; and besides fall under Commanded VVorship. But we speak of [VVill-worship which respects the VVill, and choice (of VVorship) by man, without any necessity imposed by God] as himself states it. n. 13. Let him speak plainly; What does the Apostle mean by VVill-worship? In which of these six senses must it be taken? Is forbidden Worship, Will-worship? no, that's not truly but equivocally Worship. Are for­bidden Ceremonies, Will-worship? no; they are but Circumstances of Worship, but no Worship: and so of the rest. I must profess, I know not well what he resolves to be Will-worship; but I con­jecture, [Page 152]he means it of the fifth and sixth part of his distinction, See n. 11. & 12. voluntary oblations, which God by no law exacts from every man, or Fervency and Frequency in commanded Worship: Now if these two be either no VVorship, or no new sorts of Worship, instituted by the will of man, then the Doctor hath denied that there is any such thing as VVill-worship, at least sinful Will-worship in the world. I will not anticipate, but onely in a word or two: The first sort of his Will-worship, is [vo­luntary oblations, which God by no law exacts from every man:] But then I say, To those, of whom God does not exact it, it is no VVorship at all: and to those of whom he does exact it, (for of some the Doctor grants he does exact it) it is VVorship com­manded; and so uncapable both wayes of the title of will-worship. Nay if those, of whom God does not exact it, should tender it to God, as new VVorship; they would incur the censure of (sinful) VVill-worship. But this is new Divinity to the Doctor, (though it is his own) and must wait till it's time comes: And I proceed with him, to consider what he thinks of my distinction, which was this; [ The words in both languages, may be taken in a double sense. 1. For willingness and freeness in worship commanded by God. 2. For worship devised by the wit, and appointed by the will of man.] p. 98. n. 13. To the former part he says, [That can be no species of that will-worship which re­spects the choice and will of man, &c.] I pray, did I make it a species of will-worship, to worship God willingly, in commanded Worship? And not ra­ther make that, one sense of the word, as it is com­pounded with, will of man? mans will, I hope, may willingly perform commanded Worship; and that may be one sense, of [...], the first part of the word. And why does the Doctor refuse this [Page 153]sense? [Because he supposes, that in the commands of God, not onely the action, but the chearfulness of this performance is in like manner commanded by God, and so necessary, and not voluntary.] Grant this true; yet I ask, may not a man do a command of God unwillingly? if he may (as is evident he may) then may he also do it willingly: and the necessity of it, doth no more hinder it from being voluntary, then the unlawfulness of an act against the law, makes it the more involuntary. That a thing may be necessary to be done, in respect to Gods command, and yet done voluntarily in re­spect to mans will, I hope the Doctor need not learn of me. The word [...], surely, signifies such a willingness sometimes: as [...], a willing servant; not with respect to the service of his master, but to his own will; doing willing­ly what is commanded. Eph. 6.7. [...], with good will. n. 14. For sure the Doctor will not allow a servant a will and choice, to appoint his masters service, of his own head, and call that willing service, in a good sense, but will-service, in a bad sense. And that's the second part of my distinction: to which he says, [ It hath many im­proprieties in it, and this great fallacy, plurium In­terrogationum, confounding and putting together things most desperate, &c.] But I appeal all Rea­ders, if there be any thing but plainness, in the se­cond part of my distinction. Are not those two senses given, the onely possible ones to be given of the first part of the word [...]? Let the Doctor finde a third if he can. As for his fourfold distin­ction, there is not one of them almost to the pur­pose, as hath been shewed above: Neither do they at all distinguish the sense of the word will; but the several objects of the will: clean beside the bu­siness. And if I have distributed will-worship into but one part (I distributed onely the sense of the [Page 154]word will) as he flours me, in the end of n. 13. I may more truly say, he hath distributed will-wor­ship into no parts; for none of them in his sense are proper to the business in hand, as I shew'd afore. It's better to distinguish into one part, then into nothing. n. 15. Let the Reader judge. In his last number I cannot but observe briefly some things. 1. I cited in my first Section a saying of S. Austin, as the sum of the second Commandment, in the affirmative part. [That God must be worshipped, with his own prescribed worship,] and another of the Doctors own glosses of that Commandment in the mar­gine; [God is to be worshipped, in a manner pecu­lar to him, and appointed by him.] What says he to it? handsomly puts it off, with saying, [It appears already how little force it hath against my preten­sions, it being evident that the words cited, belong to essential parts of Gods worship, not to each Cir­cumstance, &c.] But this is a prevarication. For nothing appears before concerning either of those sentences, but the Doctor hath peremptorily affirm­ed, See p. 43. n. 4. [That in the second Commandment, there is not a word to determine the matter of it, to commanded worship: nothing but the prohibition of Idol wor­ship.] Which if it be not a contradiction to what St. Austin and himself said above, let all reasonable men judge. And now, when they are clearly laid before him, in a proper place, to shuffle them off, with a distinction of Essential parts of Worship, and Circumstances, &c. is a very poor evasion, to hide his self-contradiction, and to wink against the light. 2. Here also, he grants, an Affirmative and Negative part of the second Commandment, which before he denyed, or doubted of: But I re­fer to what is said above, onely adding, that essen­tial parts of VVorship, may import these Ce­remonies he speaks of, are accidental parts of [Page 155]VVorship: and so they are made to be by many.

Sect. 2. How oft, or seldom the Greek word is used in other Authors, or the Translators of the Old Testament, we shall not trouble our selves, &c.

TO this Section, little or nothing is said, that is material; I shall therefore briefly dispatch it. And I cannot but take notice, that the Dr. waves the stating of the question, upon the two senses of the word, before by me given; and my fixing it upon the latter, saying, [ The thing signified by it (in the second sense, in which the Reverend Doctor must take it, or he hath no adversary,) viz. Worship devised and imposed, by the will of man, is so much decryed, &c.] The Doctor leaves out those words in the Parenthesis, and will say, nei­ther I, nor no; which he ought to have done: For thus I argue; The Doctor must take Will-worship, either for willingness, in com­manded Worship, (but that he disclaimes) or will-devised Worship, for non datur tertium; there can no other sense rationally be given: If he take it in this latter sense, (as he must or he hath no adversary) let him speak out and say so, and the question is fully stated. Yet though this be the sense of the word, in his own opinion and practice; he will not be so liberall, as to say so: For what means he by will-worship? why voluntary, spon­taneous, uncommanded VVorship, as he speaks here­after, which should have been said here: This he must maintain to be lawfull, or he comes not near the question. To dislike my distinction, and to say, p. 100. n. 5. [There may be many acts of worship, many Circum­stances of worship, which may bear proportion with [Page 156]worship, that are not under obligation, &c.] is just nothing to the question; because they either are no worship, or not devised by the will of man: and then [what proportion they may bear with worship] is not inquirable.

Sect. 3. What the word, [...], in the place, Col. 2.23. signifieth, may indeed be gathered from the context, &c.

IN manifesting the scope of the text, I used the In­terpretation of Beza, and Bishop Davenant; supposing it to be, to beat down some Corruptions creeping into their Worship; and all Rites and Ce­remonies, obtruded as parts of Worship, &c. To this he sayes, p. 101. n. 1. Their words are presently answered, by adverting to the distinction, given, between the Essentials and Circumstantials; the parts and Ce­remonies of Worship.] Nothing here but confusion still: For 1. What is this to the point in hand, the scope of the Apostle in this Chapter? 2. One of them, expresly sayes, the Apostle disputes against all Rites and Ceremonies, obtruded as parts of Worship; what is his distinction to this? or how is it any answer to them at all? It is not yet the que­stion, what is meant by Will-worship, by those learned men, but what the Apostles scope; Let him apply his distinction, and see it's va­nity.

The next is as bad a mistake; p. 102. n. 2, 3. [ That I charge him, to say, that the Apostle there speaks of the commands, or prohibitions of Magistrates, vers. 22. in things indifferent, and censures those under the stile of Will-worship.] The clean contrary is as­serted by me; The mistake lies in this, (and that I [Page 157] charge the Doctor with,) that he sayes, [The Apo­stle does not speak of Commands, but Doctrines:] Whereas I say, he speaks of Commands, as well as Doctrines: (both the words are here) commands I say, not of the Magistrate, that I disclaim as well as he; but of False-Teachers, See my 4. s. and his own ac­know­ledgment. p. 104. n. 1. who laid those Ab­stinencies upon their Disciples, as their Doctrines and Commands; but were nothing but Traditions and commands of men; who had no Authority, in point of Worship, so to impose upon the people of God: and then all his labour in the 3. and 4. numb. is utterly lost. What the meaning of Com­mands here is, and whether the same with Doctrines (as the Doctor sayes) we shall consider anon. But one thing, must here be remembred, (he sayes) [That the Seducers spoken of in that Chapter were the Gnostick Hereticks.] p. 103. n. 5. This is once afore said by him, and many times more hereafter, I know not well how oft; I shall here speak to it, once for all, and but point at it, when ever it comes again. 1. The Gnostick Hereticks, were not yet hatched, when Paul writ this Epistle to the Colossians; I finde no newes of them, till the time of Basilides, Carpocrates and Valentinian, who all lived in the second Century, about 120. or 130. These were the first, that cal'd themselves Gnosticks, as men of greater knowledge then any others. So Iraeneus lib. 1. Of Heresie, c. 34. Ex his, &c. from these, Basilides, Carpoor, &c. Who were formerly cal'd Sinoniani, the multitude of the Gnosticks did arise. So Tertull. Advers. Valentin. Atque ita insole­scentes doctrinae Valentiniorum, in sylvas jam ex­oleverunt Gnosticorum. Upon which words, Rhe­nanus thus, Valentiniani superbo nomine, se Gnosti­cos appellabant. Horam principem facit Irenaeus, Valentinianum. I know how the Doctor will evade, by saying, The name indeed began then, [Page 158]but the Doctrines were the same, with those of Ni­cholas and Simon, &c. who lived in the Apostles times: So Epi­phan. and Austin seem to say. But that's but an equivocation, or evasion, to say the Gnosticks were in that time, and meant here by the Apostle, because they suckt some of their poyson from those Hereticks: Saint Paul therefore could not properly intend the Gnosticks. 2. This is Estius, a Papists gloss upon 1 Tim. 6.20. [Oppositions of science falsly so called,] a fitter text to be applied to the Gnosticks, then this of ours; Quamvis credi potest, Gnosticorum nomen non statim cum haeresi emersisse, sed aliquantò post tamen Apostolorum temporibus rem ipsam, jam tum à Simone & Nicolao originem accepisse certum est. But in that sense, the Gnosticks may be said to have their Original from the ancient Baalites, and Heathens, who were as abominable in their filthy worships of their Gods, as the Gnosticks lightly could be. 3. The best Commentators on this place, never dream'd of the Gnosticks; but generally say, the Apostle opposes himself against two Sects, then troubling the Church: First, some Philosophers turn'd Christians, who brought in Philosophical speculations; at these he strikes, verse 8. and 18. in Worship of Angels. Secondly, some Judaizing Christians, who would keep up the Ceremonial Law with the Gospel; against these are the 16.20, 21, 22. verses. In particular, the 21 verse hath clear reference to the Abstinencies formerly com­manded the Jews, but now abolished by Christ, Touch not, taste not, &c. as some say. However, there is little or no colour to bring in the Gnosticks here; who though they agreed with others, in ab­staining from such meats and drinks, yet the chief poyson of that Sect was, in abandoning and vilifying of Marriage, and in other abominable filthinesses, for which they had not the least pretence from the [Page 159]Jewes (with whom the Doctor sayes they joyn'd) to abstain from Marriage, that being never prohi­bited to the Jewes, as some meats and drinks were: yet the Doctor speaks hereafter, See p. 109. n. 3. n. 10. as if the Apostle here intended them, that forbad Marriage; as the Gnosticks after did. And I do a little wonder how he mist a Criticisme in the 21. ver. Ne attigeris, touch not; that is, Marry not; (so the Gnosticks said) for which he had a fair text of Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.1. [It's good for a man, [...], not to touch a woman;] that is, not to Marry. So in the text here, Touch not, first, Marry not; Taste not, first, such or such a meat, &c. But enough of this at present, for it will often meet us again. For the rest in this his third Secti­on, it will come to be condered in a fitter place: onely saying now, That, a shew of wisdom is apply­able to No ju­stifiable humility, p. 112. n. 10. And austerity is of the same kinde there. humility, and the rest, as well as to Will­worship; all being equally naught and con­demned.

Sect. 4. That we have not mistaken the Doctors meaning, will appear by that which he addes, &c.

THe chief business in this Section, is to speak to the instance of David, appointing the Levites to serve from the age of 20. years: whereas God by Moses had appointed it but from 25. p. 105. n. 6. The Do­ctor sayes, he made this alteration upon prudential reasons, as a King, not as a Prophet: or by inspi­ration, as my places of Scripture import. 'Tis true, there are prudential reasons given for what he did: but prudence of man is not sufficient to alter [Page 160]the institutions of God: It's this prudence that hath undone the Church, that men will be wiser then God, in altering and adding to the Rule of his Worship. See 2 Chron. 29.25. for so was the com­mand­ment of the Lord by his pro­phets. Let the Doctor look once more upon the text, 1 Chron. 28.12, 13. In the 12. verse it's said, [David gave to Solomon his Son the pat­tern of all that he had by the Spirit, &c. and 13. vers. Also for the courses of the Priests, and the Levites, and all the work of the service of the house of the Lord.] If the Doctor saw not this, he was negligent, for I pointed to the place; if he saw them, he willfully winked against the light; resolv'd belike, to maintain what ever he once sayes, right or wrong.

Sect. 5. The full importance of the words, vers. 22. (he says) is this, That when those abstinencies are imposed, &c.

COncerning the sense of those words, p. 107. n. 1. [...]; I know no reason, why the Dr. should forsake the Interpretati­on of almost all Interpreters, unless because he loves to be singular: He says, the Apostle speaks not of the meats, but of the commands of abstaining; I granted this might be the sense, but yet it might well be rendered, as our Translation, and all (but the Doctor) do; [Which all are to perish with the using;] that is, [That now being out-dated, they perish without any Spiritual advantage.] To this he answers: p. 109. n. 4. [This is sure very short, it being evi­dent, that the imposing these out-dated observances, is not onely, not advantageous, but hurtful, deadly, destructive.] But, first, the Doctor varies the question; it is not spoken of imposing them, by [Page 161]false Teachers, but of the Ordinances, or Absti­nencies themselves, [which all are to perish with the using,] as used by the Colossians, whom they had seduced. 2. He that sayes, they were to perish in the using, does not exclude their hurtfulness, even to eternal destruction; there may be (as oft there is,) a [...], less spoken, and more intended: so Saint Austins words cited by him import. But as for Saint Ambrose, he reads the text, Quae sunt ad corruptelam ipso usu, as ours do: and hath these words upon it, Quia praecepta & doctrinae, no [...] Dei, sed hominum sunt, in quibus vana spes est. And again; Hinc se sapientiae rationem habere putant, quia traditioni humanae, nomen Religionis applicant, ut religio appelletur cum fit sacrilegium: quia quod contra Authorem est, sacrilega mente in­ventum est: Ambr. in textum. Where these things are observable, first, that he reads, [...], corrupte­lam; corruption, not destruction: 2. [...], he renders, ipso usu. 3. Gives the reason why those abstinences lose their vertue, which formerly they had, because they are not the precepts and doctrines of God, but of men, in whom hope is vain. 4. That he makes the crime to be, because they made them parts of Religion, or Worship, which is not Reli­gion, but Sacriledge; and gives the reason, because they are invented by a Sacrilegious mind (by men) against the Authority of God. And now I hope, the Doctor will never cite Ambrose more, in this point. He knows Hierome, and the Greek Com­mentators take the words in our sense, referring the words to something understood, viz. meats, which are in interium ipso usu: So the vulg. So Estius, and all Papists that I have seen, Will-wor. s. 5. besides all our reformed Divines. [That sense (says he) is sufficiently improbable, because the Apostle speaks not of the meat, but of the commands of abstain­ing:] And this supposition of his is as sufficiently [Page 162]improbable; p. 109. n. 3. because (as himself says,) [The ante­cedent to, [...], all which, is Touch not, Taste not, &c.] But then the words must be meant, not of doctrines or commands, (for they can in no good sense be said, to perish with the using, as we read; or are to destruction, by the abusing, as he reads) but of the abstinences themselves command­ed, or as used or practised by the Colossians; they be­ing now out-dated, perish in the using; and are de­structive to them that make them necessary parts of Worship and therein abuse them: But that [...], the abuse, should belong to the the Doctrines of abstinence, can be no good sense; which Doctrines of abstinence, are to destruction, by the abuse. But this is good; which abstinences are to destruction, by the abuse, viz. of an ordi­nance, some time since profitable, as a part of Wor­ship: but now abusively continued to that end. Be­sides, the Doctor sayes, [The words, Touch not, &c. denote other abstinencies, besides that of meats, particularly, that of marriage.] But, these are the Doctors second thoughts: for in his former Tract of Will-worship, he saw not this of marriage; or the Gnosticks, that after prohibited marriage as abominable: Humane out-dated Judaical Constitu­tions. Will-wor. s. 14. So [Touch not, &c. noting thereby those doctrines which affirm men obliged to fasting, or abstinence from such or such meats; (the word [...], to touch, signifying to eat, &c.] Not a word of abstinence from marriage) then thought of; though, [...], might signifie, to marry; as I said above. 2. Let marriage be ta­ken in with meats (if that will please him) yet as the speech would be improper, to say, marriage perishes in the using; (as he objects to us) so also to say, marriage perishes by the abuse; If he say, he reads thus which (abstinence from marriage) is to de­struction by the absue: So it might be said of any [Page 163]other gift of God; and then the Apostle sayes little to the purpose, in the particular case; any creature abused, is to destruction. But the Apostie here speaks of Ordinances of God, abstinences un­der precept lately; (but so was never abstinence from marriage,) but now used, or abused to a wrong end, being abolished by Christ: Now wherein that abuse consisted, comes next to be en­quired.

The Doctor placed it in this onely, n. 5. [That those abstinences were imposed as Divine precepts, this is an abuse of them; (otherwise innocent,) &c.] To which I said, 1. There is little or nothing in the text, to import this: He replies (something anger­ly) [what will, with him, be accounted great I know not; but something there is, to incline it this way; 1. The word [...], vers. 20. [...] and [...], doctrines signifie those things, which are taught, as from God. Matth. 15.9. as formerly hath been shewed, &c.] This indeed was asserted before, p. 3. n. 1. but not proved at all; and here it is again asserted more largely without any convincing proof: yet he says, [It's evident from the form of speech; Col. 2.22. The words are, After the Com­mand­ments, and doctrines of men: as both one. In vain do they Worship me, teaching for doctrines the Com­mandments of men; where the Commandments of men, are taught, not as such, but as doctrines of God.] It's much to sight, with what eyes men look upon objects. To me and others the contrary ra­ther appears; For, first, if I might play the Critick a little, I would say, there is not in the text to be found, the word (for:) The words are thus; teach­ing doctrines, the Commandments of men: that is, doctrines which are meerly the Comandments of men: 2. The word [...], does no where that I know, signifie [to teach things to be Divine precepts, which are not:] The word (sayes the [Page 164]learned Professor) signifies, D. Dav. in locum. [teneri, vel abstringi dogmatib. magistrorū nostrorum; as the Academicks were bound to receīve the dogmata, the Doctrines or opinions of Plato, the Peripateticks of Aristotle, &c.] But sure they did not teach or impose their doctrines, as Commandments of God. 3. The very text produced confutes the gloss; where the doctrines of the Pharises, are called the Command­ments of men; and opposed to the Commandments of God vers. 3, 6. Yea the Pharisees themselves, cal­led them, the Traditions of the Elders, vers. 2. &c. This he would thus evade: [They were so really, Commandments of men, p. 110. n. 6. yet were by false Treachers imposed, as Commands of God, and therein their false teaching consisted.] This might be true of some false teachers, that preached up the Ceremo­nial Law, after it was abolished, as still obliging by divine precept; but there was no colour for the Pharisees, to pretend to a divine precept in their new Traditions; being known not to be command­ed by God, in the Jewish Law; and therefore they call'd them onely, Traditions of the Elders: They being men of great repute, for knowledge and piety, did invent, and then by their own example, com­mend some new wayes of worshipping God, and then by their Authority, they had got in their Di­sciples hearts, as pious and devout men, did lay their own doctrines upon them; and they stooped and were subjected to them. They did not there­fore so much as pretend them to be the Will and Commandments of God, (sure our Saviour would not have been silent, in such a blasphemy) but one­ly that they would be pleasing and acceptable to God, as being more then he commanded; which is the opinion of all formal Hypocrites, in their Will-worship. And I cannot but wonder, the Do­ctor [Page 165]should hold our, that they pretended their Do­ctrines to be Divine precepts, when he makes them differ from the Karraim, in this, that they tran­scended the Law, in their Worship; in uncommand­ed Worship. Now to say, their Worship or doctrines of Worship, were Divine precepts, was to derogate from that height of excellency, which themselves (and the Doctor) conceited to be in them. Let him confider it,

But to convince him the more, I could tell him what Calvins judgement was of that text, Matt. 15.9. Omnes [...], hic damnari minimè dubium est: but the Doctor will easily slight his judgement. I shall therefore give him the gloss of a learned Papist, whom he more regards. It is, Tolet on Luc. 11. Annotat. 84. [The Priests had brought in many novel things, though Moses had with great terrour threatned them not to adde any thing: of which number of additions, were those washings. There was a double fault. 1. The innovation it self, was no slight fault, &c. 2. An­other was their Superstition. The Pharisees had put in those washings, not for any natural or civil cleanliness, but as pertaining to Religion: who so did contemn them, were judged to offend against Gods Worship: and whoso did observe them, seem­ed chiefly to regard Gods Worship in them. But this was in no wise lawful, &c. for Christ reject­ed these washings as superstitious, Mark 7. In vain do they Worship me, teaching the doctrines and precepts of men. i. e. such things as men set up of themselves against the Commandment of God.] Not, (as the Doctor) [such things which though they were the doctrines and commandments of men, yet were imposed, as Commandments of God] Judge, Reader, which is the better Inter­preter.

But supposing (not yielding) they did hold them out as Divine precepts (that I said, was an abuse of them:) yet the fault might be, they made them parts of Worship: that would make them more de­structive: And this our Saviour particularly charg­eth upon the Pharisees, [In vain do they Worship me.] They made their Traditions, to be parts of Worship: I asked, [whether placing Worship, in the observation of those ordinances, though not im­posed as Gods Commands, were not an abuse of them, to destruction?] The Doctor answers (as a man amused) by asking me; p. 111. n. 8. [What I mean by Worship? if such (Worship) as a man may justly prescribe or practice; ceremonies perfectly lawful; or more, what is sure to be accepted, &c. 'tis cer­tain, it were no abuse.] Here Reader, observe 1. That the Doctor grants, a man may justly pre­scribe, and then practise his own prescribed Wor­ship. 2. That he calls Ceremonies, Worship, which hitherto he call'd onely Circumstances of Wor­ship. But he knows, I mean it of Worship; what then? [If he mean the commanded Worship of God, then his question implies a contradiction; for whatsoever the Worship of God is placed in, that is taught, as a command of God, or else it were not Gods prescribed Worship, which yet it is supposed to be.] I mean it not of commanded Worship, (it were ridiculous indeed, to ask such a question) but of uncommanded Worship, devised of his own will, against the will of God: may not a man devise false Worship, and yet not pretend it to be imposed by Divine precept? Surely Papists do so, in many of their Will-worships; holding them our, not as Di­vine commands, but as things very pleasing to God, and rewardable by him, &c. Upon this my question falls; to which he sayes nothing, but gives as strange a reason; [for whatsoever the [Page 167]Worship of God is placed in, that is taught as a command of God, else it were not Gods prescribed Worship] Which is proved false by the former instance; and begs the question, That no man pla­ces Worship in any thing, but he must teach it, as a Command of God; which I believe the Doctor will contradict by his own practice; placing the Worship of God in some things, and yet denying it to be a Command of God. I shall take another instance, from himself in the next number; n. 9. He (fals­ly) suppo­ses absti­nence from marriage to be meant in Col. 2.23. See p. 107. n. 3. n. 10. [It is certain abstinence from marriage may be lawfully practised, by him that can bear it, all the error is in imposing it on others, &c.] Suppose now, a man does not impose it upon others, yet places the Worship of God in it, to Worship God by it, as Papists do; (whether the Doctor do so, we shall hear anon) I would ask, whether this be not an error, to place Worship in that, which God doth not command? Whether Col. 2.23. be a [setting down the abuse, and defining wherein it consists] or no, shall be tryed hereafter.

Sect. 6. Yet let us hear wherein the Doctor places the dan­ger, &c.

WHat ever is repeated in this Section, by the Doctor, is fully answered in the last; and the Doctors notion, I still say, is singular and his own, [That the false teachers held out their do­ctrines as Commandments of God;] which no In­terpreters of the place, do touch upon: I shall one­ly observe, what Estius notes upon the text, answer­ing this question; [Seeing the Apostle speaks here of Legal Rites, instituted by God, how doth he call them the precepts and doctrines of men? which in [Page 168]the Scripture are taken in the evil sense, as also are the Traditions of men, viz. those things which are invented and delivered, by an humane sense and spi­rit.] He gives divers answers. 1. [Some took the place to be meant of the superstitious precepts of the Gentile Philosophy, or Simonian School (so did the Doctor p. 110. n 5. at least in part.) But this exposition is refuted; For those precepts were Jewish, Touch not, &c. as those afore, Let no man judge you in meat or drink: which without doubt was spoken of Jewish observations. 2. Others an­swer thus: Those Institutions of the Mosaical law, being imposed to foretell Christ to come, did now pertain no longer to the Law of God, but to the doctrines and precepts of men; who teach them still to be observed. So Chrysost. Theophyl. and others. 3. The Greek Interpreters give another, That the Apostle hath respect to the humane Insti­tutions and Traditions of the Pharisees, mixt with the Precepts of God; For the Apostle says not only touch not, but handle not; which because it differs from the former, seemes to be referred to some other things, the touching whereof, was forbidden, not by the law, but by the tradition of men.] And to this last he rather inclines. But he never took the word, [...], to signifie things impo­sed as commands of God; but as the commands of men: Cur sinitis vos regi praeceptis, & doctrinis humanis: As touch not, &c. But if the Doctor had considered my question, [what it was they im­posed by those ordinances and doctrines? was it not a way of worshipping God, by those Absti­nences and false worships, p. 111. n. 10. They commended them as acts of voluntary worship, and so to be acceptable to God. p. 123. n. 3. Abstinences, touch not, &c.] He would have given an answer, [Page 169]or an evasion; and have said, yea, or no: If he should say no, they did not impose those Abstinen­ces as a way of Worship, or as worship, the text would confute him; for all those legal abstinences, were parts of worship to the Jewes, which these false teachers would have so continued. If he should say, yea, they did so impose them; then it's evident, that though they might impose them as Di­vine Commands, yet the main crime would be, their setting up, or continuing a worship of God, which Christ had abrogated: therefore the Doctor overlookt it, and said nothing. The danger therefore was, that they were but Commandments and Doctrines of men, (or if held out as Gods) placing the worship of God in those observances, which either he never commanded, or were now out-dated: Yet the Doctor is at his old fence; p. 113. n. 6. [If they placed worship in them, in this sense, that they did or taught them as parts of Gods commanded worship, 'tis the very thing, I placed the danger in: If they delivered them as their own doctrines, they did not then place any part of Gods command­ed worship in them.] Enough hath been said to this in the former Section: I onely ask, what makes the word (commanded) here? Let him propound it thus, as I did; If they placed worship in them, (whether commanded or not commanded, is not material,) was there no danger and destructiveness in them for that? But the second part is false (up­on a false supposition) that a man cannot place worship in things, but he must teach them as com­manded by God. But here's one thing new; [If they taught them as such things, which though not commanded by God, would yet be acceptable to him still, after abolisht by Christ, then they taught that which had no truth in it, for such kindes of absti­nencies, are not now valued by God.] To which I [Page 170]say, 1. This will recoil upon himself; For he hath said, the danger was onely that they taught them as Commandments of God, (which otherwise had been innocent things) in sect. 5. of VVill-wor. but now he sayes, they had taught that which had no truth in it, though they taught them as such things, as would be acceptable to God, though not com­manded by him. And is it no crime, to teach un­truths? 2. It falls on him once more; For he doth teach many things (his will-worship) to be acceptable to God, which he hath not commanded; yea, the more acceptable because not commanded: then, he teaches that which hath no truth in it; for such abstinences of worship are not now But more real acts of self-deni­al, morti­fying of lusts, set up in their stead, as here he sayes: yet he highly values those very abstinences: as after, Infra pag. 129. n. 8. See p. 119. n. 15. valued by God, who will be worshipped with his own com­manded Worship. If he will say, he does not make them worship, that shall be tried hereafter.

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 onely 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, [Page 171] 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 onely 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 onely the possibility of the word, (used onely 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 [...], 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, [Page 172]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 [...] should, &c But 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 onely 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 onely 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 [Page 173]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: onely 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 [Page 174]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 onely [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 [Page 175]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 [Page 176]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 [...], to [...]; 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 onely 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. [...], 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 [Page 177]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, [...], to be, not an ex­tenuating, but an amplyfying particle. But enough of this.

Sect. 8, 9. That the last part of the verse, not sparing the bo­dy, &c.

IN the eighth Section, nothing is excepted to; [...], p. 123. n. 4. and in the ninth nothing but a strife of words, in a point, beside the main business; [Whether the Abstinences were well comprehended under free-will-offerings; and whether they may be called positive things:] Wherein I shall not contest (to swell this Discourse) but leave the Doctor to his own opinion; though much might be said therein, onely these things might be said to shew the differ­ence, 1. The Doctor understands these Absti­nences [of the Gnosticks, detesting of marriage, p. 122. n. 2. making it damnable, &c.] sure such are not com­prehended under Free-will-offerings. 2. These Abstinences are condemned by the Apostle, as de­structive, whereas those Free-will-offerings were allowed and commendable. 3. The Free-will-offerings were by him, made parts of Worship, but I think, he will not say so, of the Abstinences from meats and marriage: If he should, I would say, he is nearer the Gnosticks, then I was the Epicureans; who pretended them to be (as he does here) acts of voluntary oblations, or voluntary Worship; and so acceptable to God. Had they not defamed mar­riage, and brought in those abominable filthinesses, [Page 178]the Doctor and they might have shaken hands. Yea, in making Abstinence from marriage, a part of Worship, and a state of greater perfection then marriage, (pronounced honourable in all, by the Apostle) both they and he do implicitly defame marriage. Offering to God a free-will-offering of absti­nence, &c. p. 119. n. 5. p. 123. n. 4. n. 5. That the Doctor makes fasting and Vir­ginity, or self-denial, in matter of meats and mar­riage, a part of Worship, may appear, 1. By the Phrases he uses in commending of it; [Design­ing it to the honour of God; looking on it, as that which will be acceptable to God, though not com­manded, and as such, dedicating it to God; this sure will be a Free-will-offering.] This was spo­ken of Fasting; but then he addes, [The same is as visible of Virginal chastity, &c.] That is, so designed to the honour of God, so acceptable to God, so dedicated to God; All which imply the things are put into a Religious state; and made Holy, Abstain­ing for Religion or Piety, [...], p. 133. n. 19. So Sal­meron. p. 146. n. 21. p. 123. n. 4. and parts of Worship. 2. That he calls them voluntary Free-will-offerings, which con­fessedly were parts of Worship. 3. That here (as hereafter) he gives it the title [of greatest perfecti­on.] Now to place perfection in things, which God never placed in them, is a species of Superstition, (as was discoursed in the former Tract.) But the Doctor to gratifie me, will throw a [...], an apple of contention, before me; (which he is very good at, having thrown abroad more such apples of contention, then almost any man of late; except but J. G.) [That such the Abstinences We speak of those Gnostick abstinen­ces, not of such, as he will fain. may he, that they safely and fitly may be comprehended under the selfe-denials and Free-will-offerings:] He instances in two parti­culars, Fasting and Virginal chastity. That these [Page 179]are or may be acts of self-denial, is true; that is, when God calls for them: otherwise, they are not acts of that self-denial, which our Saviour requires, as the first lesson in his school; Fasting, is then ac­ceptable, when God calls for Fasting, Isa. 22.12 by either some publique or private and personal oc­casion: and yet then, is not a Free-will-offering, as being then necessary; nor a part of Worship, but an help to Worship, as our Divines generally hold. But for a man to set apart dayes of Fasting, twice a week, as the Pharisee, or oftner as Pa­pists, as an Act of Religion, and Worship of God, when God by no just occasion calls for it, is no ac­ceptable service of God, but rather, displeasing and abominable, as prescribing self-devised Worship. Say the same of Virginity, or single life; either God calls for it, and then it is a duty; or he calls not for it, and then it can be no act of true self-denial; much less, an act of Worship, pleasing to God. For thus I argue, [either the party hath the gift of continency, and then he denies himself in nothing:] what self-denial is it, for a man to de­ny himself drink, when he is not a thirst? [Or be hath not the gift of continency, and then he may not deny himself the remedy and satisfactions tending to it; because then he exposes himself to temptations.] But now, supposing a man hath the gift of continency, and so resolves to keep his Virgine; if this man should make his self-denial, or Caelibate, a part of Religion and Worship, (as Papists do) he will be guilty of Will worship. And if he shall beside, make this state of Caelthate, See Q. of Di­vorce. Sect. 36. Not commanded at all, but looked on as the greatest degree of perfection. an higher, even the highest or greatest perfection, [Page 180]and so advance it above marriage, in himself, or another; he comes near to the Gnosticks, in defa­ming and depressing marriage, an honourable ordi­nance of God, and preferring his own fancy before it; and may justly fear, that God will give him over to vile affections, and abominable lusts, (not much short of the Gnosticks, as is visible amongst Papists) for dishonouring honest marriage. And now I could, if I listed, throw out another Apple of contention before the Doctor; [Whether he that assuredly hath the gift of continency, is not by God called to single life?] I will give him some reasons for the Affirmative, and leave them to his Determination. 1. Every Special gift of God, is a Special Talent to be improved for the glory of the Giver. But such is the gift of continency, a spe­cial gift, 1 Cor. 7.7. Matt. 19.11. [All men cannot receive this saying, save those to whom it is given.] And therefore he that hath it must improve it, for the kingdom of Heavens sake, ver. 12. 2. Our Sa­viour seemes to lay a command upon it, ver. 12. [He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.] Which is not a bare permission, but a kinde of pre­cept. And this in the judgement of some learned, whom the Doctor cannot well reject. The first is the B. of N. Doctor Hall, of Honour of married Clergy, lib. 1. s. 7. Who thus speaks, somewhat in our Doctors language; [ Neither do we think that the earth affords any thing more glorious, then Eunuchisme for the kingdom of God; which is therefore commended by our Saviour, not as a thing meerly arbitrary, by way of advice, but of charge to the able, Qui potest capere, capiat.] And a little after this, he sayes of such as upon trial, finde they have the gift, and make profession of it, [The observation whereof, if they through their own neglect, shall let fall, they cannot be excused from [Page 181]sin, or freed from censure.] But then it can be no Free-will-offering, but a duty. The other is, the learned Doctor Hamond; who seemes to me, to make it obligatory, to him that is able to bear it; pag. 211. n. 27. [Virginity, I hope, is not every mans duty, but at the utmost, his, who can receive it.] If then it be his duty, that can receive it, it is neither Free-will-offering nor high degree of per­fection; which yet these two whose Testimonies are cited, do seem to make it. However, if it be free, for him that hath the gift, to marry; if yet he should abstain voluntarily, accounting it, a part of Gods Worship, or a degree of higher perfection, it will, I think, prove no better then a sinful Will­worship. But more anon of this. Those men that hold Free-will in natural men, to Good, as well as to Evil, no marvail if they talk so much of Free-will-offerings and self-denials, in these things; which an Heathen or an Hypocrite may do, as well as they.

The words cited out of Chrysost. distinguishing acts of mans will from Commandments of God, and making them, first, p. 124. n. 5. more rewardable then the acts which are under precept, will fall in again to be spoken to, more fitly; till then I shall forbear. [That abstinence from marriage, n. 7. was never com­manded by any Law,] I never doubted; but I ne­ver dreamed that that was here censured by the Apostle; no Interpreters beside himself, that I know, ever so expounded it. But the Doctor ha­ving once assumed it, (as serviceable to his pur­pose) most confidently carries it on as yeilded him, and all along applies it to the Gnostick Heresie, who, I said, were not hatched, till Paul had long been dead, in the second century.

Sect. 10. First he sayes, he will give his reasous, &c.

THat the Doctor in taking the word, [...], in a good sense, complies with some Papists, is evidently true; that most Papists take it, p. 125. n. 1. in an ill sense, is also clearly true: yet [he con­fesses himself unable to give any answer, as not guessing wherein the objection lies:] But presently after findes my meaning. The objection lies here, that the Doctor (for carrying on his own designe) had rather joyn and comply with those few Papists, who oppose the Orthodox sense of the word, then with our own Divines, and those many Papists which agree with them, (which oft they do not) in the ill-sense of the word. For not onely my self, and partners (as he scornfully speaks) but the learn­edst Doctors and Bishops of our Church do so ex­pound it. That the Doctor should be cross to them, and to the more ingenuous learned Papists, is something to be admired. But hear what he sayes, p. 126. n. 3. 1. [He borrowed not this Interpretation from any Popish Writer, but from the weighing of the text it self, &c.] It may be so; yet may he comply with them; As Doctor Montacute pro­fessed, he never read word of Arminius, yet was as perfect an Arminian, as if he had studied him ma­ny years. It's no wonder that men of parts do meet in the same errour. As our vulgar people (on the other side) and all the Sectaries (for the most part) do meet, in the errours of Arminius; Ʋniver­sal Redemption, Free-will to good and evil, &c. Yet never heard of, or read, Arminius, or the Do­ctors Fundamentalls. 2. Yet well fare a stout [Page 183]heart; He sayes, [he shall not startle at the In­terpretation upon that account, many Papists ha­ving given true senses of Scripture.] But sure, then all our Divines agree with them, as they with us; truth forcing them to it. Now such is the text or word before us; most of the Popish Interpreters take it in an ill-sense, and render it, by Supersti­tion; and that's a strong Testimony against an Ad­versary. But, 3. he will retort the argument upon me; [The sense which he hath given is owned by most of the Papists, then he that com­plies with most of the Papists, and not he which complies with some few, must be guilty of that crime of compliance.] Sure this must be, where those few Papists, are in the right, and the most of Protestants and Papists are in the wrong; which if the Doctor should affirm to be the present case, he begs the question, and wrongs those many learn­ed men of the contrary judgement. And when I said, n. 4. [ I did believe his Interpretation was without any precedent, Protestant or Papist, s. 7.] I meant not absolutely, to a man, but for the most part, (as after I said.) Chamier sayes the same, yet after in­stances in Bellarmine, taking it in a good sense, and so does Salmeron too, hereafter: But Estius, as ju­dicious, and ingenuous, as any Papist I ever met with, sayes, in confutation of those, that will needs take it so, In locum. Docere non poterunt [...] usquam accipi in bonum. [They can never teach (or prove) that Will-worship is taken in a good sense.]

But that the Doctor will undertake to prove; [first, p. 127. n. 1. Because it's joyned with Humili­ty.] I said, Humility was not the laudable Christian vertue, but a pretended humility, &c. He answers, [That serves his turn very fitly; for still they are associated, pretended Will-worship, [Page 184]with pretended humility; then the fault is in the fainedness of them both: but when they are truly such, they are Christian vertues, &c.] This was spoken to, partly before: Here was not onely a shew of Will-worship, but real Will-worship, in those observances: and not onely a shew of Humi­lity, but real Will humility, and Will-self-denial, (for [...], is applyable to all three, (as I noted from Estius.) Pretend­ed humi­lity may be in a comman­ded Wor­ship, but affected, in a VVil­worship. Now Will-humility, (which is more, then pretended Humility) is an Humility affected, not of Gods command or allowance, and so sinful, as well as the Will-worship. Besides, in the 18. verse [...], im­ports, a voluntary uncommanded Humility, and is joyned here with Worship; and both confessed by the Doctor to be impious: Why may it not be so understood here, those Abstinences being as impi­ous, as worshipping of Angels? There was in both, a shew of Christian true Humility, but there was also a real Will-humility; as a real Worship, or Will-worship. Say the same of Will-self-denial, or will-devised wayes of mortification: I instanced in the Romish Penances, made parts of Worship. To which he sayes, p. 128. n. 4. [It is not their making it the Worship of God, that renders it culpable, but ridi­culousness, and unfitness to the end designed.] Let the Reader mark this, to make new sorts of Wor­ship, (such as Romish Penances are) is not culpa­ble. And yet the Doctor hath condemn'd all new sorts of Worship, as impious and unlawfull, more then once. I wonder not now, that he justifies Will-worship. But he hopes to help himself, by saying, it is not that, [but the ridiculousness and unfitness.] And why not both these? for they are both. He knows, there are other Ceremonies or practises named, which are not ridiculous, nor cru­el laniations of themselves, but seem sad and grave [Page 185]exercises of devotion; as their Pharisaical Fast­ings from flesh, their Caelibate, Religious orders, &c. wherein they place much Religion, that is, make them special parts of Worship: will he say, this does not render them culpable? If so, he will say, I know no great reason, but he may, in most of their VVill-worship, joyn with them: and I fear, does make some things parts of Worship, which are as like theirs, as one egge is to another.

In his vindication of his second argument; he again rejects that notion, of [some truth or reality of VVisdom] to be meant by the Apostle; yet comes of with a mind to have it thought possible. [The bare possibility that it might so signifie, n. 5. See p. 140. n. 3. and n. 25. If it should be so taken, &c. super­sedes the proof from this text, for the criminousnes of Will-ship.] When he knows, if he will not offer vio­lence to the text, there is no possibility, it should so signifie in this place. It was ill done to dazle the eyes of his Reader, with such vain notions, as this.

We are next to consider the sense of 1 Tim. 4.8. [Bodily exercise profits little, or is profitable for a little] as he reads it: I said, p. 129. n. 7. [there was a [...], it's hurtfull and abominable:] The Do­ctor jests it away, first, comparing it with, [...], Acts 26.28. But I say, there's a great difference between [...], in this text, and [...], in the other: which must be taken from the context here: for the sense, look back to the former verse 7. [Avoid profane and old wives fables, but exercise thy self unto Godli­ness: for bodily exercise, &c.] Now ask Inter­preters what is meant, by profane and old wives fables; Chrysost. will tell him, [...], others refer it to those Jewish fables, which he censured, 1 Tim. 1. Some to the [Page 186] Fables of the Simonians, of a good and an evil God, &c. But the best is to consult the context: at ver. 3. where he tells of some, that should (in time to come, ver. 1.) depart from the faith, so far, as [to forbid marriage, and command to ab­stain from meats.] These were those profane and old wives fables, and call'd by them, [...], exercises of Piety and mortification: To these the Apostle opposes, [...], Godliness, that is, [the true and right VVorship of God;] as Estius well explaines it: [Exercise thou thy self, in the true VVorship of God;] for, those bodily exerci­ses, though pretending to much Piety, profit no­thing; that is, made matters of Religion, and parts of Worship (as they were by some Hereticks, in those, or in following times) are hurtful and abominable. Those exercises of Religion, in ab­stinence from meats and marriage, were long ago exemplified in the Gnosticks, (of whom with the Romanists, this is a prophesie) and perhaps in some, in the Apostles times, not yet come to detest marriage as damnable, &c. but onely placing some Religion in them; and calling them [...]. Of these the Apostle speakes modestly, they profit little, that is nothing; though he mean, they are hurtful, and indeed abominable. And if the Apo­stle had meant it, of those [...], which the Doctor understands by them, he would not have said, they profit a little; but very much; not to the body onely, as some, but to the soul also; to make more See p. 131. n. 15. & n. 17. The excellencies of Fasting. De jejunio non potest hic locus accepi, quia non est corporalis exercitatio, sed spiritualis. Estius in locum: vide laudes jejunii. The Doctor makes Fast­ing VVorship, p. 130. n. 12, 13. and so Piety, and not a bodi­ly exercise. acceptable to, and rewardable by God, as [Page 187]under no command, and being voluntary oblati­ons, and Free-will-offerings, which (sayes the Doctor) may expect greater reward in Heaven, then any commanded service. Besides, the oppo­sition of Godliness to those exercises, argues, they were considered as ill and hurtful by the Apostle; For abstinence from meat and marriage (those bodi­ly exercises) in the Doctors conceit of them, are great parts of Religion, Piety, Devotion; and therefore could not well be opposed to Godliness; the Apostle certainly looks at something before, under the notion of bodily exercise, else he could not say so abruptly, [...], for bodily exercise, (before intended and expres­sed in some other terms) whether the Jewish obser­vations or abstinences from some meats, ver. 3. as Chrysost. or those abstinences of fore-prophesied hereticks, from meats and marriage. ver. 3. Ad p. 109. n. 4. pro­fits nothing; that is, is hurtful, and destructive; as the Doctor said above. And these are the grounds of my Interpretation. If the Doctor, have any better, let him impart them, or enjoy his own opi­nion.

Somewhat he sayes, to that which I said, [of ma­king those abstinences parts of Religion, or Wor­ship] which he calls, [an help at a dead lift,] p. 130. n. 10. n. 11. and disputes against that notion, saying, [They that make abstinence from marriage a thing acceptable to God, and a state of perfection, do not count it a Worship unless in a genervl sense, as every vertu­ous act performed to God may be stiled Worship, and so this, a Will-worship.] Here first we have a distinction of Worship, which should have come long ago; that we might know in what sense the Doctor took it, when he speaks of Will-worship. Something was said of the word worship, p. 93. n. 3. but then it was onely distinguished from [ex­ternal [Page 188]Ceremonies, or Circumstances, which are not parts but accidents of Worship.] And nothing was called Worship, but [the vertue it self, or some act thereof, together with the degrees and number of those acts] But now we have a distinction, of Worship, in a special, and a general sense, as every vertuous act (of the second Table) may be stiled Worship.: which is most improperly. 2. What meanes the Doctor to talk of Will-worship, and voluntary Worship, if they be not Worship, but in a general sense, as every virtuous act of righteous­ness, &c. may be stiled Worship? that is, not an Elicite act of Religion or Worship, but an Impe­rated act of it; as visiting the poor and widow, is by Saint James called, pure Religion: If thus he meant, why did he not tell us so at first, to prevent both mistake and trouble? 3. Those abstinences forbidden by our Apostle, were formerly acts of Religion and parts of Worship properly, and were so held out still by the false Teachers; not Wor­ship, as every vertuous act may improperly b [...] cal­led Worship. 4. The Papists for certain do make them parts of Worship, place Religion, in their Cae­libate, Fastings, and Religtous Orders, &c. not in a generall sense, but proper and special Worship. Will the Doctor yeild, that they that do so make them parts of Worship, are superstitious, and this is unlawful. Will-worship? I shall ask no more. Lastly to make things more acceptable to God, be­cause not commanded; to place more vertue and more perfection in things, then God hath pla­ced in them, is confessed to be superstitious: But this the Doctor does sufficiently; and this we call Will-worship. And that we may not go far for an instance; the Doctor makes Fasting, a Sacrifice, n. 12. and a species of Worship, as well as prayer, and almsgiving, and calls it [Page 189] [an acceptable worship of God,] as Papists do; p. 130 n. 13. See p. 14. n. 20. Fasting and Alms, two sorts of Gods Worship. which our Divines deny to be Worship, but onely an help and furtherance to worship.

By the way, the Doctor, as he makes Worship of that which is not Worship, so he degrades some Worship, and makes it none: p. 131. n. 14. [Hearing of Ser­mons is not any acknowledged branch of Worship.] I know he addes the word (bare) to hearing; but bare hearing of the word by profession is Worship, though not pure and right Worship; as bare pray­ing with the lips, is Worship; but vain Worship: [ In vain do they Worship me &c. and bare preach­ing of the word, is Worship, though not true VVor­ship. But the Doctor makes hearing of Sermons no Worship; when he sayes, [Hearing of Sermons, in case it should be taught, or assume to be a part of Gods VVorship;] As if to teach it to be a part of VVorship, were an assumption, or presumption. In­deed this is some of the old language, that Preach­ing and hearing of Sermons was no Worship, but the whole VVorship of God, stood in reading and hearing the Liturgie.

That the Doctor placed the illness of those bodi­ly exercises, in this, when they are taught as neces­sary, to the defaming of meats and marriage, I found no fault with, but that he placed it in that onely; I expected that he should have spoken to my question; p. 133. n. 19. [If they taught them not in that sense, but onely placed Religion and the VVorship of God in them, as Papists do, were they not ill?] To this he sayes just nothing, but empties his Note­book, to prove, what is not denied.

By all Interpreters, I meant, the greatest part; p. 134. n. 22. and he cannot name any, it seems, before Grotius, a [Page 190]Neoterick, n. 23. &c. Cassandrian Authour. As for his question, and what here he again repeats, it is spoken to before, upon the word, [...]. I shall one­ly adde, that he varies the question, by altering and putting in words not in the text, piety, for wis­dom, and (in respect) of Will-worship: the words are, a shew of Wisdom in Will-worship; that is, those abstinences wicked enough, made a Worship, by those men: And here it is, that some would have the adversative [...], to be understood; [but in Will-worship,] that is, in False-worship, devised by the will of men, it hath a shew of Wisdom, but is but Will worship; which supposes, the VVill­worship, to be ill and impious. And the Doctor himself sayes, n. 24. [I confess, that supposing VVill-wor­ship as ill, as the Diatribist would have it, a thing may be foolish or impious, in respect of VVill-wor­ship.] To clear this, change but the word, VVill­worship, into So the vulgar, and others read it. Superstition, or Idolatry; and then ask, may not those abstinences have a shew of Wis­dom, in respect of Superstition in them? or, and yet [be but Superstition?] which most Interpre­ters take to be the sense of the words. Now Su­perstition, amongst Christians, is alwayes taken in an ill-sense, as hath been proved above: put another like question, may not worshipping of An­gels have a shew of Wisdom in Idolatry; or, and yet [be but Idolatry?] All the question then is, whether, there be any VVill-worship good; which (as we deny) it concerns him to prove, because he is on the Affirmative part, and must not beg the question. He again varies the question, when he reads, n. 26. Piety for VVisdom, here: [How can a thing have a shew of Piety, in respect of that very thing which is impious?] The words should be thus, how can a thing have a shew of VVisdom in respect of that thing which is impious? changing [Page 191]Wisdom into Piety, and putting in (in respect) makes all this difficulty. For mark his next que­stion; [Can any thing be represented to me, n. 27. as ha­ving so much as a shew of Piety, in respect of lust, or rage discernible in it:] He should first have said, a shew of wisdom (not of piety) and in lust, and rage, (not in respect of them) can a thing have a shew of wisdom, which is but lust and rage? And then I would answer, first, it may: and se­condly, the question is well laid; [For lust and rage are confessedly for kinde, wicked things; but VVorship may be true or false, &c.] He asks, [whether VVill-worship may be so, true or false? p. 136. n. 28. that's the word we contend about.] What if we say, it may not, but is always false? [Then it is direct­ly parallel, with lust and rage, they always ill and this also.] Why that's it we assert; but then see afore how he altered the question: I said VVorship (not Will worship) may be true or false: The truth of Worship consists, in the Institution or Command of God; the falshood, in the Institution of men. Now that's VVill-worship, and therefore it is always false. We do not say, nor can with reason say, VVill-worship is true or false, but is always false; and therefore the Doctor (begging this distinction) is far enough from a demonstration pretended.

When I said, [The words are not, p. 137 n. 31. which things have a shew of wisdom, and of VVill-worship, &c. but in VVill-worship: and if faulty because they had onely a shew of VVisdom, they will be more faulty, that they had but a shew of VVorship.] I said in the last clause, too little; for here was more then a shew of VVill-worship, and VVill hu­mility, &c. even a reality of them. Now VVill­worship being Worship devised by the will of man, (not Commanded by God, which onely makes [Page 192]true VVorship) it must necessarily be False-wor­ships and so ever unlawful; as was said above. He may compare this verse with the 18. There was in the worshipping of Angels, a shew of Hu­mility, and a shew of Worship; but there was more, a reality of voluntary humility, and a reality of voluntary Worship: and both of these, mistaken and impious: so in these abstinences, there was also a shew of Worship, and a shew of humility, &c. but there was more; a reality of Will-worship, and of will humility, &c. and all these, impious Worship, humility, and self-denial; being all devised by the will of man, not commanded by God. This may satisfie any reasonable man. VVill-worship then is not taken in a good sense here, because it is joyn­ed with humility and self-denial; but contrarily, they are here both taken in all ill sense, because they are joyned with VVill-worship, VVill-de­vised VVorship, which is alwayes false; both be­cause it is not commanded (but forbidden) by God, and also, because invented and instituted by men: And now the Doctor may see, that VVill-worship, is parallel to Judas traiterous kiss, p. 138. n. 32. and Papists bowing to stocks and stones. And that uncom­mandedness of Worship makes it ill, is not onely supposed, but proved in the former Tract. I say uncommanded VVorship, not uncommanded Cir­cumstances. The Doctor may now consider, how well he hath vindicated his second argument, for the good sense of the word; and I leave him all that wholesome heap of Rbetorick, n, 34. to enjoy him­self, who best deserves it.

Sect. 13. A third reason is, because the Greek Fathers, &c.

THe Doctor here begins with some of his flow­ers of Rhetorick, a scoff and a jeer, (much learning puffing him up.) p. 140. n. 2. [Here truly it is not to be reprehended, but cherished in the Diatribist, that he is so very much rejoyced, to hear the newes, that the Greek Fathers and he are of a minde, in any the least particular; I hope it will engage him to a more familiar conversation with them; and then I am perswaded no body will have reason to repent of it.] This hath been the Doctors language for­merly; not onely in slighting all our Modern Di­vines not of his opinion; Of Superst. s. 32. [Those Authors which come home to the point in hand, are so few, or so Modern, and of so small authority, that they would be scarce worth producing:] But also to undervalue their learning and reading; witness that speech of his, VVill-wor. sect. 19. [The words in Latine (which is the language, which those that are most subject to be abused in this mat­ter, will be most likely to read it in.] A pretty piece of scorn cast upon his Adversaries, as though none that were of a different judgement from him, in this particular, were able to read a Greek Fa­ther, or a piece of Philostorgius in Greek, but must onely be beholden to the Latine Transla­tion. Macte virtute. All I shall return, is but this, that if the Doctor had, either less conversation with the Greek Fathers, or made better use of them, then to follow them in their [Page 194] errours, and See p. 145. n. 19. How he throws off Theodor. and p. 165 n. 6. Clemens. Alex. and Ambros. p. 145. n. 18. p. 140. n. 3. See p. 146. n. 21. Specimen (which is more then Speciem, or bare shew, some real evidence.) forsake them in their true interpre­tations; I am perswaded, no body (nor himself) would have reason to repent of it. For let it be observed once again, (seeing it comes so often) that though the Doctor durst not well contradict the Fathers sense of [...], for a shew, not reality of Wisdom; yet how glad he would be, if the latter might, but by head and shoulders (as we say) be drawn in, to be the sense of the word; thus he says, [ If [...], should be there taken for ratio, the ar­gument for the good sense would proceed most irre­sistibly:] which is proved above, irresistibly false. And once more, [If species should prove a true one, then, &c.] pag. 147. n. 25. Other like sen­tences are noted above, after he had disclaimed this sense of truth or reality; which I leave to his con­sideration, and go on.

The Greek Fathers, rendred the word, a shew, without power and truth; whereupon I asked, [Can that which hath neither power nor truth, in the Worship of God, be taken in a good sense?] He asks again, n. 4. [what it is, of which the Fathers say, that it hath neither power nor truth? sure the Do­ctrines of Abstinence, and not the VVill-worship:] This is a common Fallacy, with the Doctor to say, it is spoken of but one, when it is spoken of both: yea, here both are one; the will-worship, is meant of those (Gnostick) Abstinences; and those Absti­nences were this will-worship: these had a shew, but neither power nor truth of Wisdom; and (said I) can that be taken in a good sense? Here I produced the Interpretation of the word, [...], by the Latine Fathers; Ambr. Si­mulatam Religionem; Hierom. Superstitionem: [Page 195]so vulg. and all Popish Interpreters: what was it that these Authours say, was Superstition, counter­feit Religion? Sure it was those Abstinences: and so they were both one, that will-worship, in Ab­stinences, &c. had neither power nor truth. Yet hear what he says, [will-worship is rendred by Piety, and unless Piety it self can be taken there in an ill sense, will-worship must be taken in a good sense.] He had said before, n. 3. [The Gnostick Doctrines cannot have so much as a shew of Piety in will-worship, unless will-worship real, be Piety real; and appearance of will-worship, a foundation of an appearace of Piety.] But did not the Doctor say just now, [ That the Fathers said it of the Doctrines of Abstinence, That they had neither power nor truth of Piety.] Now he sayes, [VVill­worship is rendred by Piety, not the Abstinen­ces.] The truth is, those Abstinences had a shew of Wisdom or Piety, but were but Superstition, so the word is most commonly rendred, or [Volun­tary Religion, which a man forges out of his own brain, willing to seem Religious,] as Estius hath it; that is, (say I) will worship: If then Super­stition and such voluntary Religion, cannot be taken in a good sense, no more can will-worship, which is the very same thing. And the Doctor does but beg the question all along this debate, [That there is any real or true will-worship.] There is in­deed a real (salse) will-worship in those Abstinen­ces; together with an appearance of Piety or wis­dom. I end this, as he does; certainly I need adde no more ('tis pitty I should be required to say so much) of this matter.

I had said, the simple word, [...], some­times signifies false Religion; the composition of [...], or will of man, with it, makes it worse: He asks, [ worse then what? then false Religion? p. 142. n. 7. [Page 196] This is fairly to resolve, that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of the true God, is worse then false Religion; i. e. then Idolatry or Superstition.] I will not question the Doctors Learning here, [...], Supersti­tiose Deo colo. Sui­das, on the word, [...], from the Thraci­ans. but his Ingenuity, I do, and that twice: 1. That I meant worse, then false Reli­gion, when I meant the [...], or will, made the word worse; which he could not but see, had not prejudice, and a desire to slur or slander me, blinded his eyes; which appears more in the se­cond. 2. That I must fairly resolve, that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of God, is worse then false Religion, &c. When as his con­science knows, and his pen hath often testified for me, that I understand the question (not of any thing, n. 8. as he, but) of uncommanded Worship, not of Circumstances of worship; as kneeling in Prayer, &c. as he most injuriously, would make his Rea­der believe. Hence I do not conclude, so absurdly, as he would make me, n. 9. [All Inventions of men are Idolatry, and worse then Idolatry;] but all in­vented Worship, by men, is Idolatry or Superstiti­on: and then this proposition is convertible; I do­latry or Superstition is invented Worship; and In­vented Worship is Idolatry or Superstition: Now Will-worship and Superstition being both one, in some sense it will follow, (in spite of all gain-say­ing) that all Will-worship is Idolatrous or Super­stitious. And he still begs, that there is any Will­worship, not Idolatrous or Superstitious: And this may satifie that which follows; n. 10. he that useth an uncommanded Ceremony in the Service of God, (provided it be not made a part of Worship) doth not take upon him to be wiser then God; but he that useth an uncommanded Worship. As for his acts of uncommanded Devotion, we shall speak to them in due time; let him in the mean time consider [Page 197]how weakly he hath vindicated his third Argu­ment, and see if he can strengthen it better.

Here are some other things yet considerable, but very briefly: As first, that he would fain get the learned Daille to be of his minde, (who is an ene­my (I believe) to all Will-worship:) whereas his Interpretation is the same with our Divines.) He sayes, p. 144. n. 15. [ The false teachers had a threefold colour of Wisdome. 1. Will-worship. 2. Humility. 3. Austerity to the body, for which three things they admire these doctrines of men.] But I pray, what Interpreter, Papist or Protestant, does not so expound it? (By the way, note, he calls them, doctrines of men, not Commandments of God.) So had the worshipper of Angels a double colour of wisdom. 1. Of Humility, voluntary humility. 2. Of Worship, voluntary Worship, will worship; yet his practice was never the better for that; and that Humility and will worship, false and impious, (as hath been confessed.) But (sayes the Doctor) [ he defines, [...], cultum sponte, & voluntariè assumptum; nulla cogente Dei lege:] Why, so does Beza, Bishop Davenant, and many of our own, yet take voluntary worship, in an ill sense; as the learned Chamier, his countrey-man, also does; whose sense, no doubt Mons. Daille knew well enough. What more? He sayes, [They were voluntarily undertaken out of abundance of zeal and Holiness. And so in his opinion, if abundance of zeal and holiness were taken in a good sense, will worship must be resolved to be so takens] As if all Idolaters, the worshippers of Angels, and Saints (as Papists, &c.) did not undertake their su­perstitious Worships, out of abundant (pretended) zeal and Holiness? Those Abstinences spoken of, (granted to be Gnostical and abominable) were they not undertaken out of abundant pretended [Page 198] zeal and Holiness? Thus Daille is easily vindica­ted.

As for Ambrose, he is as much against him, as any man, (he had best question the Authority of those Comments, under his name.) For his words are these, Englished by the Doctor, [Hence they think themselves to have some appearance of Wisdom, p. 145. n. 18. because they apply the name of Religion to humane tradition; and it is called Religion when it is sacriledge:] He speaks this of that will worship, in those Abstinences, where observe, first, He ren­ders, [...], wisdom, not piety, as the Dr. does. that he says, they gave the name of Religion to their will worship. 2. That this which they called Religion was but an humane tradition, not held out as a Commandment of God. 3. That this Religion, or will worship of theirs, was but Sacri­ledge: what can be said worse, of will worship? The vulg. Latine and others call it Superstition; Ambr. calls it Sacriledge. But the Doctor leaves out the foregoing words, where he says, [they are the precepts and doctrines, not of God, but of men:] As I cited it above, ad p. 109. n. 4. As also the following words, why he called it Sacriledge, [be­cause what is against the Authour, (the Authority of God) is invented with a Sacrilegious minde.] Will the Doctor grant all this, and yet say, [they offended in this onely, that, the will worship and humility were not what they pretended to be.] Let him go on to maintain himself by begging.

For Theodoret, the reason (if he will needs have it) why I cited his sense of the word, amongst the Latine Authours, was, because I found it cited by a learned Divine, in Latine; But what sayes the Doctor to his Interpretation? First, he fairly re­jects his sense, [as not pretending that all either Greek or Latine concurred with him, in this sense:] This is too favourably spoken for himself, for he [Page 199]might more truly have said, [That few either Greek or Latine, concurred with him.] I am sure none of our own Divines do, and therfore he is very glad of the company of Bellarmine, n. 14. and Salmeron, n. 21. and whether any more, I know not. But this he says he is sure of, p. 145. n. 19. [That it's not the uncommand­edness of the worship, that he findes fault with; but, first, their teaching those for Gods commands, which are their own; (that is the meaning of [...], their introducing their own ordinances their unseasonable Judaical do­ctrine. 2. The bare shew of Piety and humility, &c.] But I doubt the Doctor strains his con­science in this gloss; for, first, I observe, that Theodoret, did not understand the Gnostick Absti­nences, but Judaical unseasonable doctrines, yet the Doctor will needs have it meant of them; and hath not one Interpreter for his notion, that I can finde. 2. That the Doctor interprets, [...], to be Gods commands; which most properly signifies the contrary, their own doctrine, or Ordinances. And yet he sayes, [By his con­clusion it's evident, that the Abstinences without the doctrines, would not have been deemed by him reproveable.] This runs upon the former false supposition, [That these Abstinences had no fault, but onely that they were held out, as Commandments of God] When as we have proved, that they were sinful, because they were made Religious, and parts of Worship. But enough of this afore.

The Ancient Fathers then, are not for him, but rather against him; he must now seek for assistance from some Modern Authors; not amongst our own, or forraign Protestant Divines, they are all against him. To Papists then he must go, Bellar­mine he hath closed with above, [as one whose au­thority were alone considerable enough, if there [Page 200]were not some others, n. 14.] But he is not alone; Salmeron another Jesuite, hath the very same no­tions of this text, as if the Doctor had learned his Interpretation from him; p. 146. n. 21. this learned Jesuite, renders, [...], not by Speciem, (that might possibly signifie, a bare shew,) but by Specimen, which is more, some real evidence of Wisdom: which sense the Doctor hath oftentimes renounced, yet fain would have it so. 2. The word [...], (sayes the Jesuite) signifies cultum spon­taneum, sive voluntariam Religionem, pro arbitrio cujusvis abstinendi à cibis: just so the Doctor, only with this difference, that the Doctor takes in the Gnostick Abstinence from marriage also, which Salmeron thought not of. 3. Alluding by this word, to the voluntary oblations of the Law, called Nedaboth, Free will offerings. How sweetly all correspond! n. 22. But yet Salmeron is not thorow-paced with the Doctor; [For Salmeron conceives the words to allude to ver. 18. In voluntary humility and worship, &c. And so goes along with Estius, and others in that mistake.] Truly if Salmeron take the words in allusion to the 18 ver. he confutes his own Interpretation of this 23. ver. For sure­ly, that Worship of Angels, and Impious humility, is nothing of time with the Free will offerings. And I rather take him and Estius to be in the right in this allusion, then in his former Interpretation with the Doctor upon that reason. But they will differ yet further, (unless the Doctor will turn Pa­pist, in the Divine Authority of the Church) in that which follows: p. 147. n. 24. [Omnis ritus, &c. Every rite of Worshipping God, that is not delivered from God, but is invented by the will of man, is superstitious.] I never said so much, of every rite, if rite signifie a circumstance of worship, or a ceremony, if not made a part of Worship. But will [Page 201]the Doctor say, Amen, to this of Salmeron? I much fear it. He will rather evade, and tell me, I leave out some of Salmerons words; [Not deli­vered from God, nor the Spirit of God, by the Church.] I did so, but not to conceal them; for I would ask the Doctor whether he agrees with Sal­meron, in this notion, [That what is delivered by the Church, is from the holy Ghost; i. e. is of Di­vine Authority.] If he do not, why does he cite it, seeing it is as false to him as to me. And yet I see a reason for this, it would serve to blinde his Rea­der, and to jear me; for thus he sayes, [Where it seemes, that which is delivered by the Church, be­ing by him supposed to be from the holy Ghost, doth in no degree fall under this censure: and then the Diatribist hath free leave to make his best advan­tage of this citation.] And so would the Doctor suppose, and say too, if it were not for open shame, that the Traditions of the Church, are from the ho­ly Ghost, and so not superstitious: But of this afore, and anon again, ad p. 162.10. As for Estius, he sayes indeed, that [...], is here taken for Species in genere, sive vera sive falsa; but yet addes, licet verificatio fiat pro specie, & imagine falsa: And he cannot take it otherwise, in his sense of [...], which is [an affected and fained Religion, or Worship, and an affected and fained humility, joyned to an affected Religion.] And now the Doctor hath free leave to make his best advantage of this citation of Estius. n. 26. Whether Augustine and Thomas gave him authority to pre­tend their accord with him, let them agree among themselves, and the Doctor with them. Yet that which the Doctor cites from August. [Non sit Religio, &c. Let not our Religion be placed in our fantasmes, &c.] is little for his advantage; for sure the Church of Rome, (and our Doctor with [Page 202]her) doth place much Religion in her own fan­tasmes. p. 148. n. 27. And yet we have the Doctors full consent to this, [That all fictitious false worship, is to be avoided, &c.] If I list to pick quarrels, I would ask why the Doctor added false, to fictious Wor­ship; some would suspect, there may be some ficti­tious true Worship; as he makes Will-worship to be true or false: But I let it pass, and hear what he sayes: [So is not the Commemorating the Birth of Christ, I hope, nor any Ceremony in use, in our Church.] He knowes some Ceremonies of our Church, have been charged with the guilt of ficti­tious false Worship; and the observation of Chirst­mas, as made a part of Worship, with the guilt of Superstition; not as intended to be so used by the Church, but as used by some of her rash Sons; and the Doctor hath not yet washt his hands from this charge. I shall only speak to the citation out of the Gloss on Coloss. p. 149. n. 29. 2. [Superstitio est, &c. Super­stition is when the name of Religion is applied to the Tradition of men.] But say I, this is done suf­ficiently by the Church of Rome, and by the Do­ctor himself, if I be not much mistaken. He thinks to evade by saying, [Dogmatizing is a sin.] But sure that's not in the sentence of the Gloss. Dog­matizing with the Doctor, is to hold out a thing, as the Commandment of God; but the Gloss speaks, onely of the Tradition of men, in what kinde or way so ever held forth, under the name of Reli­gion. And thus much to confute his third rea­son.