Of Superstition

OF SVPERSTITION.

S UPERSTITION being a crime so ordinarily charged on those whose Consciences assure them that they are fair enough from the guilt of it, it will be an Act of double charity, first to the honest calumniated Protestant, Secondly to the contumelious unjust defamer of his best actions, to consider a while of this matter, and first to inquire what is the natural importance of the word in Latin and Greek, especially as we find it in the New-Testament.

Superstition in Latin is most clearly according to the use and Origination of the word, Superstitum Cultus, The worship of some departed from this World, supposed yet to have life in another, This is observed and acknowledged amongst many others by Lactantius, and made probable even by the different conceit of Cicero, who deduceth the word from the practice of those that used to pray whole days together, ut sibi liberi superstites essent, that their children might outlive themselves; by that acknowledging the truth of the Etymology from the word [Superstites] but disguising it into a ridiculous fancy, out of fear, saith S ^t . Austin, to condemn the practice of the Romans, among whom he lived. These Superstites, whom the Heathens thus worshipped, were by them called Heroës, men of worth and excellency 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , assumed into the state of God's, but among Christians the Souls of the Saints departed, quae supersunt corporibus; which when their bodies are buried in peace, are imagined to live for evermore. And the worshipping of these (as among the Papists 'tis most ordinary) is most properly called Superstition. And in that sense I conceive it is, that in some authentic writings of our Church, the Idolatry and Superstition of the Papists is censured; by Idolatry meaning the worship of Images among them, and by Superstition the worship and prayers to Saints departed. A censure authorizable by that part of S. Austin 's words, De Doct. Christi. l. 2. Superstitiosum est quicquid institutum est ad colendum, sicut Deum, Creaturam, partemve ullam creaturae. Superstition is the worshipping a Creature as God, or any part of a Creature. By the latter of which I know not what he should mean so probably, as those supposedly deified parts of Creatures, the souls of dead-men.

The Greek word parallel to this is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which literally is, as S. Austin defines the Latin Superstition, Daemonum Cultus, the worship of Daemones.

The full importance of which must be taken, 1 from the various use of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2 of the other word [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] ingredient in the composition.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Signifies sometimes in a wider sense a God, as generally among the Poets, Juno and Apollo and Minerva, and all beside the supreme Jupiter, are numbered among Homer 's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This Maximus Tyrius demonstrates at large, and adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ that there are a great flock of those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Somtimes 2. in a stricter sense the Angels, as 'tis used among the Philosophers, especially the Pythagoreans & Platonics; for so the description of them in Hierocles, & Maximus Tyrius, & Plotinus, & Proclus will evidence, particularly that every man's proper tutelary Angel the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Plotinus calls him. The cohabitant or domestic Daemon or Angel that is allotted us.

A thing so frequent among those Philosophers, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Philosophy, Col. 2. 8. seems to me to be directly all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; worshipping of Angels v. 18. And so those two exhortations in those two verses to be coincident, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in one (which we render receiving of reward) being aequipollent to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , spoiling in the other, only in diverse notions. The first referring to prizes in the Olympic games, the other to spoils in war. the reasons of which conjecture it will not be seasonable here to insert.

And thirdly again the departed worthies, which (besides the frequency of that acception among the Philosophers) may seem to be meant Apoc. 9. 20. where the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which are said to be worshipit, are join'd with Idols of Gold, &c. and communicate with them in their effects and livelesnesse, that they neither see, nor hear, nor walk.

To these senses might be added that other most vulgar for evil spirits, agreeable to which, is that definition of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Etymologicum magnum, that 'tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a care & fear of evil spirits. And a fifth less frequent, yet to be found among the Philosophers, for wise men here in this life, which Hierocles describes at large under the Title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 earthly spirits, or Daemons.

Now the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 refers indifferently to the three first of these, and signifies the worshipping either of the many Poëticall God's, or Angels, or Dead-men, or indeed anything but the one supreme God. Thus is it said of the Gentiles, 1 Cor. 10. 20. That what they Sacrifice, they Sacrifice 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and not to God. i. e. not to the one true God. And in the book of Baruch 4. 7. Offering 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and not to God. where (as also in many other places of holy writ) 'tis not proper to render it [Devils or Infernal Spirits] but (with M ^r . Mead) Damons, meaning thereby either Angels or Dead men, or anything else beside the true God. Which seems to be expressit Rom. 25. by worshipping the Creature 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , besides (not as we render more then) the Creator.

Thus when S. Paul tells the Athenians Acts 17. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I consider and behold you in all things (or in all that I see of you) as men that are more superstitions then any other. He means they worshipit more God's or Daemons then the Romans, or any other sort of Heathen people; or were more devout, more pious in the Heathen worships then any others; for so it follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , v. 23. Ye worship: and so indeed 'tis generally attested by the Greek writers Pausanias, Philostratus, Strabo, Max. Tyr. &c. That the Athenians were more religious then other people, at least were more hospitable to new and strange Deities, then the Romans, who (saith Dionysius Halicarnasseus) were so averse from all foreign Deities (unless some few that their ancestors had from the Grecians) that they might be more truly said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be haters of such kind of hospitality or admission of foreign God's, then lovers of it.

So Acts 25. 19. Festus or Saint Luke in his story saith, That the Jews had certain 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Quaestions, or Accusations against Paul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , concerning his own Religion, or Superstition, or worship, peculiar to him from them, and (as it follows to explain what they meant by the word) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Of one Jesus that was dead, puting him under the vulgar notion of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or dead Heros, and so meaning the worship of him by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Beside this method of examining the sense of this word, another I mentioned by observing the force of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the former part in its composition, which though it signifies simply to fear, (and therefore the word is rendered by Hesychius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , fearing God, or Religion in general; by others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , The fear of God & Daemons) yet perhaps may be set sometimes to import a cowardly trembling fear; and so may have an influence on the word in some Authors. Thus the Etymologist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the superstitious man is religious and cowardly, Feares the God's, and is afraid of them; and Clemens 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Superstition is a passion, being a fear of the Daemons; and Theophrastus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 'tis a cowardly fear of the Daemon. Thus Maximus Tyrius having compared a pious man to a friend, a superstitious to a flatterer, [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] he explains the meaning in the words following, the pious man comes to God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without fear, the superstitistitious 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with much fear, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. dreading the God's as so many Tyrants. according to which notion of the Greek word, Saint Austin is affirmed to say, Deum a religioso vereri, a superstitioso timeri. The Religious man reveres God. the superstitious is afraid of him; and consequently to that, Religio Deum colit, superstitio violat. Religion is the worshiping of God, Superstition the wronging and violation of him. So again Plutarch. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Atheist thinks there are no God's, but the superstitious wishes there were none, but in spite of his Teeth believes that there are. An argument whereof is, that he is unwilling to die. Where the believing of any punishment after this life is the main piece of Superstition.

I conceive myself able to give the reader some light in this matter, by what I have gathered out of some scattered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Epicurus 's Philosophy, and it is this: Epicurus, we know, was willing to rid God of the trouble of a providence or care of human affairs, resolved that all things were done naturalibus ponderibus, & motibus, by natural weights and motions, and consequently that men were to revere and adore God for his greatness, and excellency, and be atitude, and immortality, and transcendent beauty; but not to fear, or dread, or be afraid of him. Of those therefore that differed from him in judgment, as they which thought there was no God at all, were the down-right 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and for that by him censured; so those that believed a providence, and consequent to that, rewards and punishments, he rejected also, as the other extreme, under the title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Superstitious, or fearers of a deity. This appears by several passages in Cicero and other of the ancients out of him, and by what we find in the lives of the Epicureans in Laërtius. In Cicero l. 2. de nat. de. ut Superstitione liberatem, &c. to be freed from Superstition, is explicated by metum omnem Deorum pulsum esse, to have all fear of the God's banished from us. And again having described the wiseman to be such as can sine metu vivere, live without fear, he repeats it again in these other words, Omnium rerum naturâ cognitâ levamur Superstitione, liberamur mortis metu, the knowledge of the nature of all things (and among them of God himself) frees men and releases them from Superstition and the fear of death. This in the same book he calls metum religions, fear of Religion, or such a fear as the believing God's providence was apt to beget in men, (especially in those which did what they ought not) viz. terrors and expectations of evil from God, which they which took it to be an error in divinity (as Epicurus did,) must needs count a very uneasy, unpleasant error, and so as much dislike Superstition, i. e. a religion that brings so much affliction to their lives, as any man nowadays doth under the most odious notion of it.

Agreeable to this is that of Aristippus and the Cyrenaici in Laërtius, which upon the same principles resolve that it is the part of a wiseman neither to be moved with envy, nor to be superstitious, and afterwards explained the [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] being without Superstition by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , putting off all fear of death, and as a foundation or consequent of that fearelessenesse, a resolution that nothing is by nature just or unjust, but only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by positive law or custom, and from thence never doing any ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) unbecoming thing, never admiting any unfashionable piece of Piety on contemplation of any Mulct or danger.

Whereupon it is, that Lucretius an Epicurean Philosopher speaking of the eternity of Torments threarned in another world, confesseth that, if that were true, there would be no way of resisting the religions and threats of the Divines. Nam si nullum finem esse putarent Aerumnarum homines, nullâ ration valerent Religionibus atque minis obsistere vatum. Makeing that belief of the infinite Torments in another life, and the menaces of the Priests attending it, to be the Religion or Superstition, that was to be confuted and banished out of the world. And I wish 'twere now uncharitable to suspect, (what the actions of many makes too visible) that the abhorring of Superstition (which men we boast of, and by which they so discriminate themselves from other men) hath at least brought them to this piece of Epicurean faith, To discarde all fear of another life as a relicke of superstition, & to resolve with him in Plutarch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Vnbeleife and contempt of all that is Divine is a shrewd fault indeed but on the other side Superstition is a shrewd fault too, the shrewder of the twain, and meant by superstition what you had even now from the same Author. The fear of death, or any ill thing after it. But this by the way.

This generally is the notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Superstition. (and the same of Religion too) among the Antient heathen writers when either Epicureans or Atheists speak of any Religion, or those who are neither speak of some kind of Religion which they do not like. For in both these cases whatsoever they see men of other persuasions do, which they like not, or think them not bound to, they call it straight their Superstition or Religion.

Thus in Plutarch's Tract 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it goes indefinitely for Religion, but particularly for some fearful apprehensions of the God's, which he makes to be contrary to Atheism, and to offend as ill in the other extreme; a being awed with some frightful Doctrines to do some things which he thought not men obliged to, an Astonishment of soul, looking on the God's as so many 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , furies or sprights, conceiving them to be cruel, bloody minded, and other such things, which rather then he would believe, he professeth he would wish there had been never a man in the world, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and that Plutarch himself had no being. All which are but odious expressions fastened on those practices of Religion which he did not approve of, and the very same that Epicurus before him had laid upon Religion or belief of Providence.

Among these he mentions keeping of Sabbaths, and casting on the face, or Prostrations, particularly that so strict observation of the Sabbath among the Jews, that when they were Invaded by the Enemy they would not rise from their seats 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , tied and bound by their Religion or Superstition as with a Net, that they could not move. And then adds the killing and sacrificing of children which by the description one would think referred to the custom in the valley of Hinnom, or Tophet mentioned in the scripture.

And so have we passed through the second part of our designed course or method to find out the meaning of the word.

From whence it appears that the word in Greek and Latin both in the classical Authors and the scripture use is set to signify one or more of these severals.

In general Religion or worship of God without any censure or mark set upon it of true or false; agreeable to which is that of the old Greek and Latin Lexicon found at the end of some of Cyrills works 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Superstition, Religio, rendering it, indifferently by those two words. And what Stephanus observes of Cicero that he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Religio, and that in Athenaeus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is religione teneri, (and thereupon Budaeus, hath so rendered it) and an ancient glossary, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . To which purpose a considerable place there is in Polybius a grave and an excellent heathen writer who speaking of the Romans l. 16. p. 497. and giving his opinion of their government that it excelled other commonwealths extremely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the opinion and apprehension they had of the God's, expresses what it was, he so commends in them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I mean saith he, their Superstition, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was raised so tragically, or to so high a pitch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. was so far taken in both to their private and public affairs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that it was no less then an excess. Where although (that I disguise not any part of his words) it be by him affirmed, that this was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made matter of reproach to the Romans among other men, as indeed everything in Religion is spoken ill of by those who are of other persuasions and practices) yet 1 that which those others are said to reproach in the Romans is their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or excess, or that which others counted to be so, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it self, and secondly Polybius himself doth not only commend and extol extremely ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) both the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the excess of it, but attributes much of the good government of that nation to it, and that it doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , keep their affairs in good order and compass. If any doubt be made of this importance of this place, I shall then, instead of farther asserting it, add one other to it which seems to beyond all exception to demonstrate the word to be used in a good sense, it is in Diodorus Siculus bibl. l. 5. p. 305. Where speaking of the ancient souls he taketh notice of one special thing in them in their behavior toward the temples of the God's, Their lies (saith he in their Temples) a great deal of gold consecrated to the God's, which yet no one of the natives toucheth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 through their superstition or Reverence they bear their God's, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 although these country me hare extremely covetous. Which words must needs set a good notion on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to any that do not count sacrilege a good quality, and abstaining from that a vice or scrupulosity. The only thing I can foresee possible to be objected to it is, that the not touching of the gold may be such a scrupulosity, but that will be soon answered by puting the reader in mind that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to touch signifies to take away, and that it doth so in this place appears by the addition of the mention of their covetousness which surely would not put them upon the desire of touching only, but also of taking it away.

Secondly the worship of the deified dead men and Angels which the Heathens took to be true God's, but the Christistians do not, and therefore saith the Etymologist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The word among the Heathens is taken for a good thing, but among Christians for impiety.

Thirdly, any part of Divine worship, which in obedience to his God, or for fear of vengeance from him, any worshiper doth perform to him. A thing which every sect or sort of people liking in themselves, but disliking in others of a distant worship, do either honor or defame with the Title (as of Superstition, so) of Religion also.

Fourthly, A trembling fear of God's punishment due for every sin, which the Epicureans were willing to scoff out of the world, lest every man being a sinner, every man should be left to terrors and astonishments of Conscience, and so loose that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that tranquility and ease of life, which they proposed to themselves as the chiefest good.

To which I need only add a fifth not yet tourcht upon, The use of magical Spells, Ligatures, Characters, &c. (of auspicious and ominous days the not observing of which Hesiod makes to be impiety, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (that whole book being a direction to that purpose) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) & all the observations and books of the Augures and Aruspices, a Catalogue of all which Clemens Alexan: (Strom. 3. p. 312.) tells us, was to be seen in a Comedy of Maenanders called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in which he scoffs at those that make every Accident almost 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a presage, or sign of something, divining by the flight of birds ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Homer,) by the feeding of chickens, as in that famous story of Valens which cost so many men their lives for having names which began with those letters which the chicken peckt at on the table: to which you may add the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by striking a stafle against the ground; to which tis thought the Prophet referred, Hos. 4. 12. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and a many more collected by learned men out of their books, and the rest of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 auspicious signs, such as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , lightning on the right side in Homer Id. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The like with more ease you shall find in Saint Austin de Doctr. Christiana l. 2. under the Title of Significationes superstitiosae, superstitious significations, which saith he Epist. 73. ad serviendum Daemonibus adhibentur, are used to serve the Devils, and thence it seems are called Superstitious, and they that use them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Soudas, superstitious observers of signs.

All which being thus premised, three things there are in our moderne customary use of this word among men, that will appear very inconsequent and improper at least. First that Superstition simply and abstractly taken should be resolved in all Authors to signify somewhat which is evil; That sin particularly of False-worship. Whereas first those that use the word to express their own worship either of God or Angels, or Saints, conceive that to be a creditable word, or else would not call it by that name, and the Etymologists even now affirmed that among the heathen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 'It is taken for a good thing, and for religion in general. And secondly When Saint Paul's Religion, or Christianity it self is called by that name by Festus an heathen Acts 25. 19. it appears not that he did use that word as an accusation, or in an ill sense, but only in general to signify Paul's Religion, or somewhat in that different from the Religion of the Jews, and no whit less favored by him then the Jews Religion. For he that reads the story, shall see that he rather favored Saint Paul's part against the Jews, or at most doubted whose side to judge on, so far is he from prejudgeing Saint Paul's cause, or his Religion in comparison of theirs, or expressing that by this word. Thirdly Saint Paul himself Act. 17. 23. saith, they do 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 worship the true God, though ignorantly, taking him for a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the rest of their many God's were) whom he had called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Fourthly he calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , more religious then other men, not in relation to any vicious rite or performance, where in they exceeded others, but in relation to their worshiping the unknown God, which others worshipped not, which saith he was the true God of heaven whom he preached, though the truth is they knew him not.

A second inconsequence is, that the use of Ceremonies or Rites in the worship of the true God, if they be not distinctly prescribed either by the example or precept of Christ, should 1 be called superstition, then without farther matter of accusation be condemned only for deserving that Title. Whereas first there is no example in the Scripture, nor ancient Author nor ground in the nature of either Greek or Latin word to affix that Title to that matter (Superstition to unprescribed Rites) or if there were, yet secondly no Authority to defame that Title, being so applied; or to conclude everything evil that were called by it, unless it might appear to be in it self evil, abstracted from the Odium of that Title.

The Third Inconsequent thing is, that men on pretence & in the name of Piety should abstain from some observances (in themselves and their own nature acknowledged to be indifferent) as superstitious, either because they are commanded by lawful authority, or at most, because they are or have been used by Papists; And yet themselves not expect to be accounted superstitious in hating and detesting and not daring to practice any one of them (and that sometimes for no other crime but because they are by lawful authority commanded to practice them) but as strictly obliging themselves to do the contrary sometimes that which Anabaptists, and other Persons (1 not in authority, secondly as much or as well condemned by our Church both for doctrine and manner of worship as the Papists) are wont to do; Whereas in things indifferent, first it is certainly as criminons, and Superstitious to place piety in the Negative, as the affirmative, in not kneeling, as in kneeling; in abstaining scrupulously from Ceremonies, as in using them as scrupulously, And secondly 'tis as dangerous a kind of dogmatizing to teach the necessity of abstinence from lawful unprohibited Ceremonies, as from lawful unprohibited meats, Col. 2. And thirdly it is not imaginable that the intervening of a command on one side and not on the other, should leave the Superstition only on that side, where the command lies, for then the Superstition must consist in obeying lawful magistrates, or else the magistrates themselves be the only Superstitious Persons in commanding. Either of which acts (either of giving or obeying commands in things indifferent) if it were acknowledged a fault, might sure be Adultery, or Witchcraft, as well as Superstition.

If to all which hath been said in this matter, it be still objected, that superstition may and doth in some authentic writers either sacred or profane signify a nimiety or excess in Religion, I shall briefly make this return.

1. That the word Superstitious may indeed denote such excess from the force of the termination [osus] and so also (saith Agellius out of Nigidius Figulus) the word Religiosus denotes; but then, first, by that Grammatical observation I might conclude, that Superstition denotes this no more then Religio doth; Nay secondly, that 'tis Agellius his animadversion upon Nigidius Figulus, that all such excesses are not culpable, nor consequently all words of that termination to be taken in ill senses.

But then Secondly, granting the word to be thus used by some Authors, I must first say, That some, and those not of the meanest of the ancient Heathens (as appears by what we produced out of Cicero) did it on that ground of Epicurean Divinity, God's no providence, no punishments in another life, to which it was but consonant to condemn all superstition (because all fear of God) for a Nimiety in opinion first, and then in practice. 2 ^lie . that for other later Christian writers the use of a word in this or that sense in some Authors, is so slight and casual a thing, that it must not be thought sufficient to fasten an ill character on any thing, to which those Authors have applied it, unless that thing be first proved to be ill by some other Topic. Thirdly, that those Authors which come home to the point in hand, are so few or so moderne & of so small authority, that they would scarce be worth producing. Fourthly, that this supposed Nimiety, or excess in matters of Religion may be reduced to these two sorts, as consisting either in the degree, or in the number of Actions; either in the quality or quantity: in the intension or extension.

If it be supposed in the first kind only, then I shall without scruple deny, that there is any such thing as Nimiety or excess in Religion. There is no possibility of being Religious in too high a Degree, of praying too fervently, or too often. For though the Messalians or Euchitae were condemned in this matter, yet 'tis clear, that that which was their crime, was not that excessive practice, but the laying that obligation upon themselves and all others, to be always a praying, upon authority of that Text [Pray continually] which being by the Apostle delivered in reference and in analogy to the continual i. e. daily Sacrifices, was by them misinterpreted and applied to uninterrupted, incessant pouring out of Prayers. And again though 'tis possible also, that in too frequent or intense a practice of holy Duties some incident fault there may be, as for example, if by so doing a man neglect the Duties of Charity or of his own particular calling, yet then also 'tis clear that this fault is the neglecting of those Duties, and not the Excess of Devotion (to which this neglect is but extrinsical and accidental, and so not fit to deprave the nature of that devotion it self) which you will discern by this, that if that supposed excess might be separated from those adherent Neglects or Omissions, it would then never be accounted criminous, no man that discharges all his other Duties will ever be said to be too zealous, or to pray too often; and that he doth not discharge those Duties, though a fault it is, and an argument of partial hypocritical obedience in him that is willfully guilty of it, yet sure not properly the sin of superstition. For 'tis Saint Austin 's argument against Cicero (who thought that the praying day and night, ut filii essent Superstites, was superstition) de Civi. l. 4. c. 30. Si Superstites dicti, qui dies totas precabantur & immolabant, nunquid non & illi qui instituerunt deorū simulachra? If 'twere Superstition to pray and sacrifice whole days together, then sure they were superstitious also that set up those Images of the God's to which they so Prayed and Sacrificed, intimating his opinion that the frequency of Prayer could not be Superstitious, unless the worship and institution it self were Superstitious: that is the God's or Images to whom they thus prayed, false God's.

But if this excess be supposed to be in the extension, i. e. the taking in too many things, to wit too many Rites and Ceremonies, &c. into the service of God, I shall then say. First, that by this it seems to be granted, that the Rites and Ceremonies themselves are not superstitious, but only the multitude of them. I make such hast to assume this as granted, because I conceive it such a reasonable postulation, that I would persuade myself no pretender to rational discourse would deny it me; it being demonstratively as impossible to devest Religion of all Rites and Ceremonies wholly, as to perform the duty of Prayer in a human body, and yet to do it at no time, in no place, with no gesture.

Or if our opposite Brethren will distinguish betwixt Circumstances and significant Ceremonies, and only disclaim the latter; Then first they must fall out with their friends who generally use elevation of the hand in taking of Oaths, and that is a significant Ceremony. And some of them assert the necessity of sitting at the Sacrament as significative of their assurance of their Familiarity with Christ on Earth at his second coming. And secondly, they must affirm it to be a fault too in a Ceremony, that it is significative, which seems very unreasonable also.

For the significancy of a Ceremony may be of three sorts. First, when it naturally signifies the thing which I am about, and properly floweth from it; as the lifting up the eyes to Heaven floweth from zeal in Prayer, and signifies or expresseth it; and no sober man would ever think fit to quarrel with that for being significative, or to prescribe limits to the use of such kind of Ceremonies. Secondly, When by the custom of the place it becomes in like manner also significative of the Action in hand. As, among us, kneeling signifies humility, &c. and to blame such a significancie again, or such a Ceremony, because it is significative, were as irrational, 'Twill not be fault in any thus to use it privately himself, or being a Magistrate to prescribe others (for decency and uniformity) the use of it. Thirdly, when it is set to signify something else, whether that which it signifies be matter of Christian Doctrine; as in the Antient Church, the custom of standing in the Church between Easter and Whitsuntide, was designed to signify the Resurrection of Christ; or whether it be matter of promise, as the Types in the old law were of Christ to come; or whether matter of fact & Story, &c. and then also to quarrel with the significancy of them, and dislike them more then if they were empty and unsignificant, is First, very irrational again (for it will not be more fault to have some profit in them, then to have none.)

Secondly, it will lay a censure upon the Types of the Law appointed by God himself, for they were such; And though those particulars are now out-dated by the coming of Christ whom they signified, yet since others that are now still seasonable by signifying and commemorating somewhat past, or prefiguring somewhat yet future, will by that Analogy and proportion which they hold with those which were then lawful, be evidenced to be lawful too.

The not observing of which matter, and of the sole reason why the old Jewish Ceremonies, Circumcision, &c. are interdicted us Christians (not because significative Ceremonies are toto genere unlawful, but because the observing of those particularly which foreshowed Christ, and teaching the necessity of observing them, would be interpretative the denying of Christ; or that the Messias was come) is conceive, that which hath given occasion of the mistakes of thinking significative Ceremonies to be now unlawful; which error if upon this advertisement it may now be reformed, and this so reasonable a postulation for the lawfulness of Ceremonies significative be thus granted, the greater part of this present Controversy will be at an end; for I shall not then be Advocate for the multitude or abundance of that last sort of significative Ceremonies, but rather give my full vote to the confirming of the old rule concerning them, that they be paucae & salubres, few, & wholesome; and particularly few for these Reasons.

First, because there are really not many such wholesome Ceremonies to be found; Secondly, because those that by Law are received into the Church, are but very moderate for number; which with me hath no small Authority. Thirdly, because 'tis not impossible that the number may encumber the Soul, by busying it about many things, and so diverting it from the One great Necessary. Fourthly, because the multitude of such was counted a Burden to the Jews. Fifthly, because it seems sometimes to be an ill symptom of some inward neglect, to spend overmuch Care and Time in the Outer-washings; as in the Pharisees it is noted to have been; And as Aristotle observes of the insectile Animalls, that the want of blood was the cause that they ran out into so many legs.

But then Secondly, I must add by way of caution, that in this matter men are sometimes mistaken (as Misers are in judging of excessive expenses, or sluggards of excessive labor) think, they or others exceed, when they do not.

To which purpose you may please first to take this direction, that though the premised caution concerning Ceremonies in a Church be very good, that they be paucae & salubres, few and wholesome, yet if they be wholesome, not only negatively, but positively, not only harmless but tending to edification (for so salubrity, or wholsomnesse imports) then there will be little reason to accuse them of excess; for if they be salubrious, they will then more probably help the inner devotion, then encumber it.

Secondly, you must distinguish of such Acts, wherein that excess is supposed to be, that they either are ordinable, fit, &c. proper to that end, the service of God, to which they are annexit; and then again being used in their kind, they are salubrious, and no danger of excess; or Secondly, they are inordinable, unfit, improper, of which nature there are great store noted in the Church of Rome; and in this case though any one may be a nimiety, and that nimiety a fault, yet still this not the fault of Superstition, but rather of folly and vanity, or what ever other guilt, the using things in the worship of God, which do no whit tend to that end (but are aliene from it) may amount to. And these vanities, or this fault, I desire to alow no favor or patronage or countenance to, but have as full dislikes to them as any charitable man hath, though as yet I am not satisfied, that they are to be called Superstition.

And yet concerning a word I shall not conend neither, but rather grant them liable to that title also, on condition that I may but evince and be granted this one thing, that it is a circle of injustice, and a noxious fallacy, first to apply the title of Superstition to such trifles or faults as these, then to extend it farther to those things which have no such fault to be charged on them, and then to condemn those also, as faults and crimes, because they are Superstitious; just like the old heathen Tyrants dealing with the primitive Christians, first to entertain themselves with the bloody spectacles of baiting of wild-beasts, then to take off those wild-beasts skins, and put them upon Christians, then to bring forth those Christians to be baited and devoured in those shapes, The injustice of which is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the prime thing which this paper was designed to demonstrate.

And it still it be urged and pressed that Superstition is a Nimiety and Excess in the use of good Authors, and demand be made wherein, or what is that Nimiety, that may properly be called Superstition? I answer, that if we will needs take Superstition in that nature, then the most proper matter of it will be.

First, The placing more virtue in some things then either naturally, or by the rule of God's word, or in the estimation of purer ages of the Church of Christ may be thought to belong to them; as the placing virtue or force in the sign of the Cross, and the women's parvula Evangelia in S. Jerome on Mat. Cap. 23. The Opus operatum of the Sacrament, and other Christian performances. (parallel to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or amulets among the Heathen, to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Phylacteries among the Jews (having their audi Israel Deut. 5. fastened to their wrists and foreheads) to drive away Devils, and to the precatiunculae the little Prayers that the Turk carries about with him, as a defensative against all dangers, The doing of which is either utterly groundless, and then it is folly; or else it fastens some promise on Christ which he hath not made in the Gospel, or some doctrine on the ancient Church, of which that is not guilty neither, and so is a Nimiety: or else,

Secondly, (That to which the literal importance of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 refer's) An excess of fear, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being afraid of God, when we need not, thinking ourselves bound (or obliging others) as from God, when God immediately neither commands nor forbids, nor the lawful power under which we live (which would be mediately the command of God also) of this kind is the doing or abstaining religiously (i. e. upon pretence of divine precept or prohibition) from those things which the word and the law of Christ doth neither immediately, nor by consequence of commanding obedience to the higher powers, command nor interdict us. I say not, the simple doing and abstaining (for that may be simply lawful) nor the doing & abstaining upon ground of command or prohibition from our lawful superiors, (for if there be any such, we are bound by the word of God to such obedience, and the not paying thereof is as truly, I will add, as immediately a breach of God's Law and sin against God, as any act of theft or adultery, or sin against the second table: for though the commands of the Magistrate, are but mediately the commands of God, yet the disobeying of those commands is an immediate disobedience to God, in the fifth Commandment which commands to honor, i. e. to obey him, and then to be most exact and praecise in caution never to sin against that obedience, cannot be superstition, or fault, though perhaps by being in a man that makes little Conscience of greater disobedience, it be an ill Symptom of that Hypocrisy which consists in straining at Gnats and swallowing Camels) but the doing or abstaining religiously (which is in effect dogmatizing Col. 2. 20. laying burdens upon ourselves, and others as from Christ) where Christ hath wholly left us free. As if a private man should think himself obliged by (or a Magistrate press upon others by virtue of the Mosaical precept, the obligation of) the Jewish Law long since abrogated by Christ, or any other outdated or not-yet-given command; This might be called Superstition, under this Notion of Nimiety, because that man add's to the Commands of Christ (as the former to the Promises) annexed to the Christian Religion, to the Gospel Rule, those things which belong not to it, and so is an exceeder in the fear and service of God, doth things in obedience to God, which he neither immediately nor mediately commands, and so walks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ephes. 5. 15. Circumspectly, but as a fool, fearing where no fear is, doing some things servilly (that is, fearing damnation if he should not do them) wherein Christ hath left him free, and no authority of the Church or lawful Magistrate restrained that Liberty.

And this is a culpable or criminous Excess, not in doing what God commands not (for that may be innocent enough) but in affirming (as a false Teacher) God to command when he doth not command, or to forbid when he doth not forbid; and so inthralling himself or others, whom God hath freed. Which way of dogmatizing, or imposing as necessary such things as the law of Christ hath not made necessary (no, nor so much as the higher powers authorized by Christ, nor the Primitive or universal Church of Christ, which will have authority amongst all sober men) and so proceeding to make such things marks and characters to condemn others and illustrate themselves by, is the special kind of Superstition, which I have reason to believe any kind of Protestants to be guilty of. Yea and

The only one, unless it be that ridiculous one of making groundless observations of ominous things, inauspicious events, unlucky days, and such like old-wives divinations, to which one part of Theophrastus his character of Superstition, and of Agellius his notion of it, and of S. Austin's also refers; which yet is rather believing firmly what we have no ground to believe, and so an excess of credulity, then doing what we are not bound to do, & so an excess of Religion; or if you will, a civil Superstition (being not in any order to the worship of God) in an affected retaining or embracing of some old Heathen traditions, taken up by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , first foolish in them, and then of evil report for us to continue from them, being so much better instructed then they were; and if taken up upon their authority, and continued under that notion, then also possibly matter of scandal (as the eating of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Things offered to Idols, was 1 Cor. 10. 29.) But then still th is is rather an effect of natural magic, or Heathenish persuasions, then an Excess of the Christian Religion; and not at all the thing which is now a days pressed with that odious title of Superstition, and therefore it may suffice to have named this without farther enlarging on it.

As for those other things which are so ordinarily brended under this name, by many that are now ill pleased with the legal state of things in our Church, though I shall not descend to the particular consideration of them, and vindication of each, yet this it will not be unseasonable to have advertised in this place, that that main proof and common way of evidencing the superstitiousnesse of some observances or performances among us▪ only because either we do place (or others have placed) holiness in them, is, (whatsoever may be said of it in thesi) in hypothesi or application to the particular cases generally very false, or impertinent.

For, whensoever in any such particular I shall be thus accused, I shall first ask what is meant by holiness? any real inherent virtue? or only (according to the Hebrew, and so Scripture notation of the word) separation from common uses? For the first of these, that real inherent holiness, no Protestant that I have heard of, affirms it of any created thing, but only of persons, as God, in the high degree, and Saints of his, in a lower and imperfect degree, by way of communication from him. Either therefore the charge must be false, or else by holiness must be meant that second kind of it, separation to holy, from common uses; and thus times, & things, and actions, &c. may be truly called holy, and if we place no more of this holiness in them, then thus truly belongs to them, then sure we offend not again, nor are to be defamed (for Superstitious in so doing.

In this case the only thing behind for inquiry will be, by whom and how far this thing what ever it is, is thus separated, and that I shall suppose will be found to be done either by Christ or the Apostles, or the universal Church in the purest ages, or the particular Church (and rulers thereof) wherein we live; or if by none of these, then (being left free and at our own disposing) by our own voluntary act, or that confirmed with a resolution, or vow perhaps in some cases. Now if these or any of these be the authors of the separating anything, then to discern whether we exceed in any of these, and whether we place more holiness then is due to them; it will not be very difficult: For, if that; which is thus separated by Christ, I shall count holy in that degree, and conceive myself obliged to it virtute praecepti divini, by virtue of divine precept, I surely offend not. And so in the second, If I count myself obliged by the Apostolic pracept, or in the third by the example or precept of the primitive universal, or in the fourth, of the particular Church, (each of which ought to have their authority with us, though that in different degrees) all this while I offend not, because the holiness which I place in them is still proportioned to the ground of it, the authority of him that thus separated them.

And so again, if my voluntary oblation I perform as a voluntary oblation, and only expect that God that hath promised to accept such, will, if it be as it ought, accept this; and in case of resolution and vow, add that respect in my performance, which is due to such, all this while I am not blameworthy.

But if I strain either of these any degree above its rank, elevate an Ecclesiastical or human Constitution into a divine Praecept, &c. then I shall acknowledge this a fault, and that fault perhaps capable of the title of Superstition: which yet must not be extended thus far, that the giving of the like obedience to one as the other, is this fault, (for obedience being due to both Divine and Human laws (keeping their terms of subordination) I am alike bound by Christ to obey both, and I must not make any difference in that Obedience, but do both for Conscience sake) but that the confounding the grounds or foundations of my obedience, which ought to be distinguished, is in it self an error, and that which may prove of ill importance, by making me equal them, when perhaps they come in competition with (and so thwart) one another; in which case the inferior ought to give place to the superior.

If to this it be replied, that though I do not elevate this above its pitch, do not thus attribute more holiness to this or that then it deserves, yet Papists or other Superstitious persons have done so, and therefore the thing is become Superstitious, and consequently must be forborne by me also. To this I answer First, That the ill use of any will not, corrupt a thing in it self either commanded, or but laudable, or only innocent before; and consequently though the Papists be superstitious, yet will not everything from them be sufficiently proved to be superstitious unless it have some other crime beside their using it, for otherwise, not only the Creed and Pater-noster, but even the Scripture it self must be superstitious also.

This inconsequence being acknowledged, I ad, Secondly, that there is nothing which can oblige me to abstain frō that which they have used superstitiously, unless either the danger that I be thought to do so too, to be as Superstitious as they, or the possibility that others following me in doing it, may follow them in doing it superstitiously, and either of these dangers being supposed, will not yet come home to prove it Superstitious, (which is the only thing we have now to consider) the most that they can do, is to make it scandalous, and (beside that this belongs to another matter and is abundantly handled in another Discourse on that Subject) I shall add one thing more that this consideration of the danger or possibility, is not so much a religious as a prudential one (for an act of prudence it is to weigh and ponder whether this be a probable danger or no) and so belongs to the higher powers to consider of (not to every private man) who if they think fit by law to forbid it, I must not then venter on it; if (non obstante this appearance of danger) to command it, though 'tis possible they may do amiss in so doing, yet I (having nothing to do in that act of theirs, unless I am of Counsel advised with in it) may be innocent enough in so obeying, and if they have thought fit neither to command nor forbid, then am I left free in my own particular, and may do either, so I do it with those cautions, that in the tract of Scandal are set down.

To which if it be replied, that though this be true in thesi, yet in hypothesi 'twill not be pertinent in this kingdom. The laws of this kingdom have taken away all Ceremonies used in the Roman Church, save those that are named in those Laws, and so have left no man any such liberty. I answer, They have taken away the obliegingnesse, but not lawfulness of them, unless of those which either our Church or some higher principle hath pronounced unlawful; my meaning is, that whatsoever laudable performance was taken up by the Papists, and by them commanded, now though that command be taken away, and so we free from the obliegingnesse or burden of it, yet 'tis not therefore made unlawful or prohibited to us (for that were to restrain our liberty also, and only to exchange one burden for another) or if it were, I should then think myself obliged to abstain also.

The Conclusion from all this discourse will be, that if some men, as they will abide no Rites, so they would avow no quarrels but what Scripture will give them particular directions or commands for, and consequently if they would not judge or damn their brethren, when neither Christ and his writ, nor the authority of the primitive universal Church, nor the orders of the particular within which they live, nor the indecency of the thing it self (of which yet every private man must not be allowed a competent judge) condemns them, it might be hoped that truth and peace and justice and charity that have taken their joint flight from this earth together, might together return to it again, which till it be done it must be still expected that they who have learned one of the Devils attributes, that of Satan, Adversary, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 enemy Man, will also advance to another, that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 calumniator, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accuser (as of the brethren. i. e. true believers soe) of every Christian or innocent action of theirs, and that if there be no known plain sin to be charged on them with any probability, then some unknown, obscure, misunderstood name shall supply that place, and as once Aerodius observed that there was a Law made that no crime should be capital but treason, but then every the least misbehaviour, or even innocent harmless action, in such whom they had a mind to punish, was brought in under the title of Treason; and so every thing became capital by that means, so now it 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, every rite or gesture or motion in them whom they please to quarrel with, shall be accused and arraigned and sentenced under that title.

It were to be wishit that the pains that is taken in defaming all bodily worship, under the morma of Superstition, were more profitably employed, either in finding out means to increase our inward attention and fervor in performing that great duty of prayer (to which purpose (I am confident) fasting, and humility of bodily gestures, those two main branches of the moderne Superstition, will not be found unprofitable) or else in the search of that spiritual pride and uncharitableness and contention, that filthiness of the Spirit, which is apt to steal into and defile the best men's hearts, and if it may please, of one real, blasting, damning, and yet (as if out-dated) little considered sin, you may take your option, either that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sacrilege. Ro. 2. 22. or that other of irreverence and profaneness.

Take heed that no man deceive you with vain words.

ERRATA.

PAg 2. lin. 35. read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p 3. l. 35. r Rom. 1. 25. p. 4. in marg. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p. 5. in marg. Char. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . p 5. l. 15. p. 5. l. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p 7. l. 3.for, men we, r. many so. p. 9 l. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . l. 9. r. • ome beyond. l. 11. for, souls r. Gauls. l. 13. r. There lies (saith he) in their Temples • . l. 22. r. not touching. p. 12. l. 37. r Superstitiosus. p 15. l. 36. r. since that others. p. 21. l. 4r. have placed) p. 22. l. 36. for them r. thence.