An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Of Superſtition peculiarly. And firſt of his Prolegomenon on that Subject.
Sect. 1. Anſwer to §. 1. The method uſed to find the meaning of the word.
IN his firſt Diatribe, that of Superſtition, §. 1. I may lightly touch and paſs over the diſlike of my method in writing of Will-worſhip before Superſtition, together with the reaſon, that being more general, this a ſpecies under it; for though it be certain, that I am not of his mind, that the former is a ſpecies of the latter, and ſo that I cannot admit of his reaſon of change, or that his is, as he ſaith, a more juſt methodical order of tractation, yet I ſhall not ingage in a diſpute of their precedence, but onelyonly reply to the latter part of his firſt §. which directs the manner of inquiring, what Superſtition is, not by ſearching into the monuments of heathen Authors Latine or Greek from the names or ſenſes by them given, as by the judgement of Divines &c.
In anſwer to this I ſhall need no farther reply then to remind him, that as there is no better way to underſtand the full importance of words, then to examine them in their origination, and their uſage among the beſt Authors, Maſters of words, not only profane but ſacred, ſo ſure this is the very method I have taken, for foreign (and Superſtition) viewing it in the antient heathens, in the parts firſt, then in the compoſition, and ſo alſo in the ſacred Scripture (which I hope is no heathen Author) as oft as it is found there, in Lactantius and St. Auguſtine, which ſure knew what true Religion meant, whatſoever he is pleaſed to ſuggeſt of my way and Authors, and are as competent judges of Superſtition, as his later Divines, that have reduced the uſe of all ceremonies, not commanded by God, to the 2d Commandment (and to Deut. 4. 2.) under the title of Superſtition.
Sect. 2. Anſwer to §. 2. Ameſius's definition. The matter of the 4. firſt Commandments. The Affirmative part of the 2d Commandment. The Diatribiſt's miſadventure about Duty in the midſt. No prohibition of either holy days in the 4th Commandment. Jeroboams act, 1 Kin. 12. 32. The Rubenites altar, Joſh. 22. Naaman's altar. Chriſtmaſs Feſtival parallel to it. The exceſſes in each Commandment.
IN the 2d §. where he ſhews out of Dr. Ames: how Superſtition may be fitly defined by Aquinas, a vice contrary to Religion in the exceſs, viz. in order to the acts or external means of worſhip ſuperadded by the wiſdome or will of man, when a man tenders worſhip either to whom it is not due, or not in that manner which he ought] he knows this, in the obvious ſenſe of the words, ſuch as from Aquinas was lately cited, is perfectly agreeable to my affirmations who make the worſhip of all but God, and the worſhip of God in any forbidden or aboliſht manner, to be ſpecies of Superſtition. But if by the aequivocal phraſe [not in the manner which he ought] he mean [in whatſoever other manner, or rite, or circumſtance which God hath not expreſſely preſcribed, any appendant of worſhip inſtituted or appointed by man] (and not onelyonly any worſhip, as he cites out of Ameſius, p. 4.) there is no truth in his definition, nor agreeableneſs to Aquinas's ſenſe, as hath appeared formerly: Tis ſure, Aquinas, which is cited in the margent, hath not owned any ſuch interpretation of [non prout debet] to belong to all uncommanded rites. If Ameſius have (which I have not commoditie to examine) then he was one of the Caſuiſts which I forementioned, as the derivers of this prejudice into the Diatribiſt, and if Ʋrſine, Dr. Fulke, Mr. Perkins are rightly cited in his margent, and their words extended no farther then they deſigned them, then perhaps we have the full catalogue of them, and the Diatribiſt is now of age, to conſider whether they have proved, or onelyonly dictated in this matter.
As for the grounds which are here laid by the Diatribiſt toward the evincing of it, they are no way qualified for ſuch a ſtructure. For when to the 4. Commandments of the firſt Table, he aſſigns theſe 4. things as the ſubject matter of them, a right object of worſhip, God alone, of the firſt; a right matter, commanded worſhip, of the ſecond; a right manner, with all reverence, of the third; a right time, his own appointed day, of the fourth; and thence concludes all exceſs in any of theſe Superſtition, there is ſcarce any one minute part of ſound doctrine in all this.
For in the firſt, 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, all the parts of that, having him for our God, treating him, addreſſing to him, as ſuch, and of this there is no criminous exceſs, which can be ſtyled Superſtition, 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 of that precept, not the nimiety of the affirmative.
In the ſecond, there is not a word to determine the matter of it to commanded worſhip, as hath been evidenced beyond all queſtion. The Subject of the 2d Commandment is the prohibition of Idol-worſhip; And bending the knee to the true God and none elſe, obſerving of Chriſtmaſs &c. are remote enough from that guilt.
As for the 3d I had thought our Saviour Mat. 6. had given us the ſumme of it, Thou ſhalt not forſwear thy ſelf, but perform unto the Lord thy oathes, the negative and affirmative parts of it, and then with what propriety can that be ſaid to denote the right manner of the worſhip, with all due reverence? Or if it ſhould be extenſible ſo far, then ſure all ceremonies that may expreſs that reverence, though not elſewhere preſcribed, will be here commanded, and then ſure not forbidden in the 2d Commandment.
Laſtly, for the right time, God's own appointed day (the Sabbath, I ſuppoſe, he means) though that be appointed in the 4th Commandment, yet ſure not ſo as to prohibite all others, we know there was a yearly Sabbatick faſt (the great day of expiation) ſo called Iſa. 58. 13. and many other feaſts beſide that of the weekly reſt in the 4th Commandment, ſome of Gods own inſtitution, others, as the feaſt of dedication of the Altar, in memory of the purging by Judas Maccabaeus, inſtituted by the Jewes themſelves, and never mentioned in the Canon of the old Teſtament; and ſo the faſts of the fift and ſeventh monethmonth, Zac. 7. 5. And under the new Teſtament, the firſt day of the week, that certainly was not the laſt, which the Decalogue preſcribed, and why the Apoſtles, that inſtituted that, proportionably to the weekly Sabbath, ſhould not (either they, or their ſucceſſors) inſtitute other days, feſtival or faſting, proportionable to the like among the Jewes, ſure there is no manner of prohibition in the 4th Commandment, which commanding one day to be hallowed, and allowing the reſt for their ordinary labour, doth not yet interdict all others, or bind his own, or his peoples, and all Chriſtians hands from preſcribing or ſetting a part any other.
And there being ſo little ſolidity in the grounds, how can it be expected, there ſhould be any in the concluſion, as he ſaith, anſwerably erected on them, that Superſtition may extend to the whole firſt Table, or that every exceſs which he will phanſie reducible to any of theſe, ſhall ſtraightway commence Superſtition?
That he may farther perſwade this, one obſervation he commends to us fundamental to this diſcovery, but ſuch as I think never ſlipt from any man before him. His words are theſe, The Commandments of God, having every of them a negative and affirmative part (expreſſed or underſtood) the duties of Religion do ſtand in the midſt, as virtues between two extremes. Here I ſhall not queſtion the corner ſtone of this foundation, elſe I might demand, what is the affirmative part of the 2d Commandment, or how can it be evidenced that there is any, or indeed any more then a prohibition of idol-worſhip appendant to the no other Gods in the firſt Commandment, which ſtill is but a negative, or an interdict, or if an affirmative be to be underſtood, muſt it not be bowing down to the true God, and ſo that will not prejudge, but juſtifie all outward decent geſtures of adoration, aſſiſt, not oppugne our pretentions?
But in ſtead of this nicer inquirie, and ſuppoſing with him that every of the Commandments, hath its negative and affirmative part, I onelyonly demand how he could think that the duties of Religion ſtand in the midſt? what I pray is the antecedent to which [in the midſt] relates? there is no other in the period, but [an affirmative and negative part of each Commandment] But do the duties of Religion ſtand in the midſt of the affirmative and the negative part of each Commandment, as virtues between two extremes? Then ſure the affirmative part of the command is one extreme, and the negative is the other, then what is commanded in the affirmative part, to that which is under precept, is an extreme, and ſo a vice, as far removed from virtue, as that which is forbidden in the negative, the worſhip of one God, a vice, as well as the worſhipping of many; paying to God our oathes, a vice, as well as perjurie; perfect chaſtity, a vice, as well as the moſt proſtitute adultery, and ſo in the reſt of them: what could have been ſaid more unluckily then this?
I would fain believe that the Diatribiſt did not mean thus, and therefore would attempt to affixe ſome other poſſible meaning to his words, as thus (without any retroſpect toward the former part of the period) that the duties of Religion ſtand in the midſt between two extremes, as virtues ſtand in the midſt between two extremes. But then to what purpoſe was the ment on of the two parts, affirmative and negative, of the Commandments, premiſed? for this I am ſtill to ſeek, and therefore muſt miſdoubt my foreign, that it is not ſo fit for the malady as I could have wiſht, and yet I have no better to ſucceed it.
The beſt of it is, he hath not purſued this obſervation, nor made this Superſtructure in his exemplification thereof; the groſſeneſs of it would not permit that. But then to what purpoſe was his obſervation? ſure but to amuſe the reader and ſay ſomewhat demurely, which ſhould pretend to be a ground of his beloved concluſions, that all additions to the rule of worſhip are exceſs againſt the 2d Commandment, additions of ridiculous ceremonies or geſtures an exceſs againſt the 3d, men's inſtituting other holy days and times, an exceſs againſt the 4th. And truly what elſe he pleaſe, with as much appearance of truth, or ſolidity of argument, as theſe are inferred from either the letter of thoſe Commandments, or from the ſolemne obſervation concerning the affirmative, and negative parts of them, and the duties of Religion in the midſt.
Tis true, all worſhipping of Idols is forbidden in the 2d Commandment, but how come all uncommanded rites to be Idols? All perjury (and (by Chriſts foreign) voluntarie ſwearing at all) is forbidden in the 3d Commandment; but how come rites and ceremonies and geſtures, though never ſo ridiculous, to be either oaths or perjuries, or to bear any analogie with, or by that means to be reducible to them? In the 4th Commandment the not obſerving Gods deſigned Sabbath, was a defect; but what words of that Commandment conclude againſt inſtituting other holy days and times, as an exceſs, and that criminous, not admittable among Chriſtians.
If any, it muſt be [ſix days ſhalt thou labour] but ſure that is not the meaning of them, but the explication is to be fetcht from the other part of the period [and do all that thou haſt to do] i. e. all thy labour, and all that thou haſt to do, ſhall be finiſht, as God's was, in ſix days, and no other day muſt be ſo ſet apart, as to take off from the ſeventh dayes reſt or Sabbath: but for ſuch celebrations as are reconcileable with that, there is no word nor appearance to the prejudging of them.
But the unlawfulneſs of this laſt is confirmed by the ſinfulneſs of Jeroboams act, 1 Kin. 12. 32. He ordained a feaſt like unto the feaſt that was in Judaea. But the Diatribiſt cannot but know what it was that made that criminous in Jeroboam, his appointing this feaſt to be kept with ſacrifices at Bethel, which, beſide the ſacrificing to calves which he had ſet up, was alſo quite contrary to the expreſs word of God, which had commanded that all ſacrifice ſhould be offered, and conſequently feaſts kept at Jeruſalem, and no where elſe, ſee Deut. 12. 5, 6. 11. 13, 14. 26, 27. and Joſh. 22. 16. 19. 29. and Joh. 4. 20. This ſure was the ſin of Jeroboam, to ſet up calves in Dan and Bethel, to keep the people from going up to Jeruſalem, 1 Kin. 12. 28. 30. to make a houſe of high places, and Prieſts which which were not of the ſonnes of Levi, v. 31. and ſo in like manner a feaſt like unto the feaſt which is in Judah; and upon that feaſt day to offer ſacrifice upon that Altar, which he had made in Bethel, v. 33. All contrary to that command of making Jeruſalem the onelyonly place of ſacrifice and publike ſolemne worſhip to all Iſrael.
Nay had that ordaining of a feaſt by Jeroboam been ſeparated from that appendant ſin, of ſacrificing elſewhere then God had commanded, and drawing away the people from the worſhip of Jeruſalem, which was ſo ſtrictly under precept, I ſhall deſire to know, why that might not have been as blameleſs as the Rubenites erecting an Altar by Jordan, Joſ. 22. which though it were lookt on by their other brethren as an horrible thing, whilſt it appeared to be a violation of that Law, v. 12. and 16, 17. yet when it was truly repreſented to them by Remonſtrance, that this Altar was not built to divert them from Jeruſalem, or to offer ſacrifice on, v. 23. but onelyonly for a memorial to their children, that they belonged to the Lord God of Iſrael, v. 24. 27, 28. and a means to keep up Religion in their childrens hearts, v. 25, 26. then it was juſtified in the ſight of all Iſrael, the thing pleaſed the people, and they bleſſed God &c. v. 33.
And why may not a Chriſtian feſtival, inſtituted in like manner as a memorial, not to draw off any mans heart from any part of God's preſcribed worſhip, be as innocent as this? And ſo our jealous brethren, the Diatribiſt and thoſe of his perſwaſion, that came out to diſpute againſt us, imitate them, and lay down that deſign, and go back to their houſes in peace?
To which purpoſe one thing more may yet fitly be added, that Jeruſalem being the place of worſhip, preſcribed by expreſs precept to all the Jewes, but not ſo to all other pious people of the world, though even to them alſo, to all people, it was a houſe of prayer, if they would make uſe of it (and accordingly we read of heathens that came to Jeruſalem to worſhip) yet this precept, which, as ſuch, lay on the Jewes, being not obligatory to the Gentile proſelytes, we know, Naaman built him an Altar in his own country, and there offered unto the God of heaven, and was ſo far approved in this, that the Prophet himſelf allows him the mules loads of earth to be carried out of Judaea to the erecting of it, And I am perſwaded the analogie will hold exactly, as to the matter in hand, to a Chriſtian feſtival inſtituted by the Church of Chriſt which was never bound up to any preſcript number of days for the worſhip of Chriſt, whatſoever can be deemed of the Jewes, who, though required to do all according to the pattern in the Mount, had yet the liberty of inſtituting a day for God's ſervice, as is evident by the foreign.
And ſo whatſoever the Diatribiſt can phanſy in the concluſion of his 2d §. of the poſſibility [that there may be Superſtition in or againſt all the Commandments of the firſt Table in the exceſſive part, and that it were eaſie to obſerve, that many (Divines eſpecially) do call the exceſſes of any Commandment by the name of Superſtition] yet I hope the obſerving of a few blameleſs, decent, uſefull ceremonies, inſtituting a Chriſtian feſtival for the commemorating the birth of Chriſt (deſcenſum venerabilis Dei ad humanae conſervationis rerum mortalium gratiam, the deſcent of a venerable God for the ſaving of mankind, could a Chalcidius in Plat. Tim. p 219.Philoſopher ſay upon the obſervation of the ſtar at his birth) will not actually prove to be any of thoſe exceſſes. And then I ſhall not need enquire what thoſe Reverend Divines are, who have been ſo liberal of the odious title of Superſtition, as to impoſe it (very diſcreetly and charitably) upon the exceſſes of any Commandment.
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 7th Commandment, and allowing fornication, adultery and ſodomie to make up the extreme on one ſide, either in the exceſs, or in the defect, ſhall give the Diatribiſt leave to chooſe which it ſhall be, and ſuppoſing it muſt be the defect, (the want not the abundance of chaſtity) I ſhall deſire to know what is the exceſs or other extreme, and whether that be by the forenamed Divines, placed under the head of Superſtition, or indeed whether ſomewhat otherwiſe criminous; Thus it muſt be, if the exceſſes of any Commandment be ſo to be called, and if in every Commandment, not onelyonly in thoſe of the firſt table which had been dilated on before there be ſuch exceſſes (and however the analogie holds for theſe of the 2d table as well as for them) of theſe he hath oft told us, that the duty is in the midſt of the two extremes, how duely, will be diſcerned by anſwer to this queſtion, and others, which will be ſoon ready, when he pleaſes to call for them, of the ſame kind.
Sect. 3. The ſpecies of Superſtition, Idolatrie belongs to the 2d Commandment. Superſtition to the firſt. It differs from Wil-worſhip. The meaning of Illegitimate worſhip in Aquinas. His opinion of Eccleſiaſtical rites. Barbarous ceremonies of Baals worſhip belong not to the 2d Commandment. Holy days before Popery. Two antient Teſtimonies for them. The Jewes ſcrupuloſity in not reſiſting on the Sabbath day.
IN his 3d §. ſome few things may be briefely noted. 1. That he wrongs Aquinas in ſaying he makes but three kinds of Superſtition, Idolatrie, Illegitimate worſhip and Divination, whereas it is moſt evident to any that will turn to the place in Aquinas, 21 22 qu: 92. art: 1. and art: 2. in corp: that he adds a fourth, Superſtitio quarundam obſervationum, citing out of St Auguſtine the Ligatures and ſuch like; And I cannot gueſſe to what purpoſe this was miſreported thus.
Secondly, where he ſaith of Divines that they refer Idolatrie to the firſt Commandment, the Divines he means muſt needs be thoſe that put the firſt and ſecond commandment into one (ſuch I ſuppoſe was Aquinas, and I had well hoped the Diatribiſt had not been of that perſwaſion) for elſe theſe words [Thou ſhalt not make to thy ſelf any graven image, &c.] being ſuppoſed to make a diſtinct and 2d Commandment, no Divine can be ſo irrational, as to deny Idolatrie properly ſo called to belong to, and to be prohibited in that. And if it were true, what the Diatribiſt addes, that Divination is the worſt kind of Idolatrie, ſure that muſt be forbidden under the 2d Commandment alſo; But in this I ſuppoſe Aquinas was in the right, that made it a ſpecies of Superſtition, not of Idolatrie, and ſo it muſt more fitly belong to the firſt Commandment, and ſo muſt Illegitimate worſhip, being an offence againſt the due manner of Gods worſhip. But theſe are niceties that we are but little concerned in.
Thirdly, this quarrel to his own Dr. Ameſius for reſtraining Superſtition to one Commandment, which he will have ly common to all the four, is certainly cauſeleſs; For the worſhip of many Gods (together with Divination &c.) and the undue worſhip of the true God, do certainly belong to one Commandment, viz. the firſt, which by commanding to have no other Gods but that one true God, excludes the foreign or demon worſhip, and by commanding the worſhip of that one, forbids all undue manners of worſhip. That he underſtood by the word Superſtition no more but the tendering undue worſhip to God, was indeed an error in Ameſius, ſufficiently prevented, and diſproved, by Aquinas, and by the nature of the Greek and Latine words, and ſo likewiſe that he confined it to the 2d Commandment, when in all reaſon it belonged to the firſt; But that being acknowledged his error, this other of not extending it to many Commandments is no way imputable to him.
Fourthly, when of that ſpecies of Superſtition, which he defines by the vice of undue worſhip tendered to God, he affirmes that it is more properly Wil-worſhip, this is but an unproved and improbable affirmation, quite contrary to Aquinas and his own Authors (as far as I can diſcern) Ameſius himſelf, and a confounding of things very diſtant.
Fiftly, when of Aquinas's illegitimate worſhip he gives his own gloſs, that he means that which is not commanded by God, but inſtituted and appointed by men] this is great injurie to that School-man; What he means by that phraſe will be beſt learnt from 2• 2 qu. 93.Aquinas himſelf, who ſets it down diſtinctly by diſtributing it into two parts; For thus that 93d queſtion De illegitimo Dei cultu, Of the illegitimate worſhip of God, begins, Et ſuperfluitate & pravitate vitiatur divinus cultus &c. The worſhip of God is vitiated both by ſuperfluity, and by pravity; by ſuperfluity, if to the worſhipping of God ought be aſſumed, which neither by Divine nor Eccleſiaſtical appointment belongs to the glory of God nor to the ſubjecting either of the body or ſoul to the Creator; by pravity, if the external ceremonie contain any thing of falſity in it, which may fall out, ſaith he, two ways, either by the diſagreement between the ceremonie and the thing denoted by it, or by the publike miniſters uſing any ceremonie contrary to the cuſtome of the Church. Thus far are the words of Aquinas: and what could have been more deſtructive to the Diatribiſts pretenſions then this deſcription and branching of illegitimate worſhip, if either here or before, when Aquinas was cited, this ſenſe of his, thus expreſt, had been conſidered?
That he may never cite Aquinas again in this matter, I ſhall deſire him to remember from that School-man theſe 4. things, his undoubted affirmations, by way of Axioma, 1. That illegitimate, is vitiated worſhip, and ſo more then uncommanded, certainly that which is prohibited, (and this according to the propriety of the word illegitimum, which ſignifies not without, but againſt Law. Legitimum, ſaith In Tim: p. 243.Chalcidius, eſt id quod legem ſequitur, legitime is that which follows the Law, or as foreign.Plutarch defines foreign, & foreign, the command of Law or that which is determined or commanded by Law, adding, that thoſe good things which yet are not under precept, are not to be called foreign legitime; And ſo in Leo ſerm: 1. de jejun: 7. menſ: legitima are oppoſed to voluntaria, as commanded to ſpontaneous. Now what is Law, ſaith p. 248.Chalcidius, niſi juſſum ſciſcens honeſta, prohibens contraria, but a command requiring honeſt things, and prohibiting the contrarie? And conſequently illegitimum being the direct contrarie to legitimum, will ſignifie, in the contrarie ſenſe to that which is commanded, that which is prohibited by Law.) 2dly. That the ſuperfluity of it conſiſts not in being ſuperadded to God's commands onelyonly, but to the Churches appointment, and ſo that which is ordained by the Church, though not by God, comes not under that ſtyle of ſuperfluous or illegitimate upon that ſcore. 3dly. That what tends to the glory of God, or to the ſubjecting of the body as well as the ſoul to the Creator of both, is neither ſuperfluous nor illegitimate, ſo it be ordained by the Church. Laſtly, that the Miniſters publike uſing any ceremonie contrary to the cuſtome of the Church (ſuch is his ſitting at the Sacrament, and the like) is a pravity, and that is worſe then a ſuperfluity in the worſhip of God. I ſuppoſe this may now be ſufficient to arme the Reader againſt the fallacies, to which the frequent citations out of Aquinas might ſubject him.
Sixtly, That it is not to me imaginable how or why the barbarous ceremonies of Baals Prieſts, &c. ſhould be an exceſs againſt the 3d Commandment, or a taking Gods name in vaine, which we know is by Chriſt rendred for ſwearing ones ſelf, and when they that cryed nothing but O Baal hear us, from morning till night, never uſed the name of God at all (for ſure Baal and God are not Synonyma's) and ſo cannot be affirmed in vain to uſe it or take it.
Seventhly, That dedicating holy days to Saints (though Chriſt, whoſe Feſtival we treat of, be more then ſuch) is neither fitly paralleld by the Diatribiſt with Jeroboam's feaſt day at Bethel (as we competently evinced in the laſt Sect.) nor appropriated by him to Papiſts, when we know ſuch days were dedicated to the memory of Martyrs, long before the name or errors of Papiſts were come into the world.
A competent evidence we have Feſtiv: p. 438.formerly given from the Epiſtle of the Church of Smyrna, written on occaſion of the Martyrdome of Polycarpe, St. Johns Auditor, where having deſcribed the paſſages of his ſuffering, they conclude with their wiſh and hope, that God will now permit them to meet together with exultation and joy, to celebrate foreign, Smyrn. Eccleſ. Epiſt. p. 28.tho birth-day or natalitia (ſo was ſtyled) of his Martyrdome, adding the two great ends of ſuch obſervations, foreign, for the commemorating of ſuch Champions conſtancie, and the exerciſe, and fitting of others for the future. The circumſtances of that Epiſtle make it clear, that ſuch celebrations and dedications of days were then of uſe before Polycarp's death, and that they now expected that this of his ſhould be added to that number, and that ſo it was, I ſhall now adde a 2d undoubted proof or teſtimonie of Primitive Antiquity, antienter then that of Polycarp, in the Martyrdome of Ignatius, written by them which were preſent at it, who ſetting down the day and time of his Coronation, ſay, they do it ſo preciſely, Martyrium Ignat. p. 8.ut ſecundum tempus Martyrii coagregati communicemus athletae, that aſſembling together on the Anniverſarie of his Martyrdome, they may communicate with his Martyrdome, commemorate his ſufferings and bleſs God for him, &c.
Theſe authorities may, I hope, be of ſome credit with him, who can found arguments on paſſages in Aquinas and Ameſius, and if Apoſtles, as equitably as Martyrs, may thus be commemorated, the Church of England I hope (whatever become of the Papiſts) may be vindicated from all Superſtition, or exceſs againſt the 4th Commandment.
And then when I have added 8tly, that the Jewes ſcrupuloſity in obſerving their Sabbath, ſo that they would not ſtand up to defend themſelves in that day, is none of the exceſſes we are guilty of, and that this being by the Diatribiſt ſtyled exceſs of Religion, and that againſt the 4th Commandment, and juſtly called Superſtition, there is no need of making any more ſpecies of that exceſs, or forcing in all dedication of holy days, into that place I ſhall not need look any more narrowly to ſpy out greater ſtore of infirmities in that 3d Sect.
Sect. 4. The Diatribiſt's method and caution in ſetting down the ſpecies of Superſtition.
BUT becauſe all the former methods were imperfect and unſufficient (even before they were confuted) to erect ſuch a modelled notion of Superſtition as would ſerve the Diatribiſts aimes, he muſt now in his 4th Sect. become humble, in ſtead of Magiſterial, implore the courteous Readers pardon, if he be not ſo logically accurate, to ſet down (what he is reſolved is not eaſie to diſcover) all the kinds and wayes whereby this ſin of Superſtition is committed in particular.
And to what purpoſe all this modeſty is deſigned, will be eaſily gueſt, viz. to leave the word Superſtition in the clouds, to involve, in ſtead of explaining it, that it may continue uſefull to him, as a mormo, whenſoever he hath a mind to affright men out of their obedience to the Church, to which purpoſe it could not be ſo commodious, if it were once defined or limited to one or any ſet number of more Commandments. And though in the 10. following Sections he reckon up pretty ſtore of ſpecies of it, yet he muſt here before-hand make ſure of a reſerve, proteſt his libertie to adde more, whenſoever he ſhall have need of them [we ſhall, ſaith he, labour to expreſs ſome of them, as we find them held out by Divines and others] where it ſeems Divines, ſuch as Ameſius, Ʋrſine, Mr. Perkins &c. have not held out enough, but he muſt have a ſupply from others, which are not Divines, (and it would be an odde queſtion to be anſwered, who thoſe others are, when the monuments of heathen authors, Latine and Greck have been ſo ſeverely diſclaimed in his §. 1. and then none but the judgement of Divines thought ſit to be appealed to in this matter) and §. 14. when he hath completed a large catalogue, he concludes with [Laſtly to adde no more] intimating that there are ſtill more to be added; of which he will ſerve himſelf, when he ſees good.
What now follows in the 10. inſuing Sections, I ſhall reſolvedly paſſe over, though there be many things very fit to be noted in them, partly becauſe he promiſeth they ſhall ſoon recurre again, and partly becauſe they belong to the other tracts, that of Wil-worſhip and Feſtivals, where ſure we ſhall meet with them, and partly becauſe they have been ſpoken to already, and beſides, ſome of them are the enumerating of thoſe very ſpecies of Superſtition which I have ſet down in that treatiſe, as ſuch. And therefore ſo much (after his Preface) for his Prolegomena.