Section, 2. Superstition in the general notion of it, is not un∣fitly 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 Aqui∣nas himself, * 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 him∣self, 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 Divi∣nity, 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 defi∣nition 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 re∣vive Abolished-worship: which yet is contrary to another notion of the * Doctor; [when these absti∣nences (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 Wor∣ship Page  67of God, [in any abolisht manner, to be a spe∣cies of Superstition.] By those words out of Aqui∣nas, prout non debet, in that manner which he ought not; I understood not, uncommanded Cir∣cumstances, 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 Illegitime∣worwip, (that's the title of that Question in Aqui∣nas,) the other of Ʋndue-worship, those are Do∣ctor Ames his words. Yet the Doctor taking that to be our sense, flies out in this manner; [If Ame∣sius 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 Wor∣ship: he sayes, *[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 Command∣ments. Not any one minute part of sound Do∣ctrine in all this? Then sure most of our reform∣ed 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  68particulars; when we hear what he sayes to them.

[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, &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 Com∣mandment: Yea, this is the principal matter, or object of the Commandment, in the express words; God alone, is to be worshipped; without any ri∣vals to, or in that worship: For the Command∣hath two parts, a Negative, no other Gods; an Af∣firmative, 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 Wor∣ship, 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 Com∣mandment Page  69hath three things in it. 1. We must have a God. 2. Him for our God. 3. Him a∣lone, 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 re∣solve there is no other God before, or beside him.

But see the force of Truth,* compelling her adver∣saries to confute themselves. Hear what the Do∣ctor 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 Affirma∣tive.] Is not this to confess, 1. That the princi∣pal matter of the first Commandment, is a right object, God alone, without any rivals? 2. That there may be Superstition and excess in that Com∣mandment, if not in the Affirmative part, yet in the Negative part, there may; yet the Doctor would acknowledge no excess to be Superstition, or Su∣perstition to be excess in Religion.

[In the second,*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  70and he will finde his evidence to be very question∣able, if not, none at all: ad pag. 34. n. 10. Ha∣ving 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 de∣termine in general the matter of that Command∣ment? 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 bend∣ing the knee to the true God, and none else, obser∣ving 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 con∣tradiction 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, *[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 probi∣bition 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  71hath found it, upon a second reveiw; [If an affir∣mative part be to be understood, must it not be, how∣ing 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 Wor∣ship, as is confessed. But 3. One thing must not be forgotten; That he makes Idol worship, here for∣bidden, [An appendant to (the first Command∣ment) 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 Su∣perstition forbidden in that Commandment is— the taking in other rivals to that worship &c.] And now he sayes, [The Prohibition of Idol-wor∣ship, 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 be∣longs to the true God incommunicably: ergo, Idol-worship is forbidden in the first Command∣ment, and so our Catechist hath joyned with Pa∣pists, 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 Do∣ctor,) 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 him∣self, by yielding an Affirmative and Negative part Page  72of 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 Command∣ment, is, a right matter of Worship.] Of which the Doctor cannot see one word there; I shall gra∣tifie 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 Command∣ment: * [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 fur∣ther thing is set down, Col. 2.23. Invented-wor∣ship: for (to make) in this place signifieth to in∣vent: 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 Do∣ctor may finde, the general sum of this Precept, and the Affirmative and Negative parts; what is for∣bidden, what is commanded. If this be not clear, and home enough, I shall pleasure him with another as learned as he; * the renowned Archbishop of Armach: whose words are these, on the second Command∣ment. [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  73to, 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 re∣quired to Worship God? 1. That we give unto God, that Worship, which he himself hath pre∣scribed. 2. That alone, without addition, or al∣teration. What is forbidden? 1. The neglect of his ordinances. 2. *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 some∣thing I have learned from the Doctors own Cate∣chisme, (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. * [The word Idol signifies an Image, Sculpture, &c. But be∣sides, these two things, 1. The Heathen Gods, under the notion of false (together with the Tem∣ples, wherein they were worshipped.) 2. The same again, and their Worships,*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 Command∣ment, which prohibits (sayes the Doctor) onely Idol-worship. This confounds and jumbles the two first Commandments together, 2. If the Tem∣ples 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  74Worship, and then the Commandment may, by the same reason, forbid any other kinde or sort of Worship, tendered to the true God: as it com∣mands 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 pre∣judicial 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, be∣cause he hath in his Catechisme, glossed it another way. He sayes therefore; [I had thought our Sa∣viour,* 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 other∣wise; and perhaps the Doctor himself sometimes: I know how he hath expounded this Command∣ment 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 Savi∣our, first, layes down the false Interpretation of the Pharisees, * as if nothing were meant by [Taking of Gods Name in vain] but forswearing and perju∣ry: 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 di∣vers wayes: as 1. That it was lawful, for a man to Page  75swear in ordinary discourse, if they did not for∣swear themselves; against this our Saviour oppo∣ses, [Swear not at all.] 2. That they allowed swearing by other things, the heavens, earth, tem∣ple, &c. Even to esteem it no perjury, though false, to which our Saviour opposes; [Swear not by hea∣vens, &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 in∣terprets the words: so that our Saviour had no respect directly to the third Commandment, but as swearing and forswearing, were particular bran∣ches of sins there forbidden, and of Taking Gods Name in vain. * But the Doctor sayes peremptori∣ly; [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. * The Bishop of Win∣chester: 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, * 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. Pray∣er. 8. The whole Worship of God, in all his Or∣dinances, 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 un∣doubtedly, 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 pre∣cept. What then does the Doctor mean, by swear∣ing, simply taken, &c. That it was sometimes law∣ful to swear upon just occasions. That's allowed also in the Gospel: our Saviour came not to void that Law; or that *simple swearing, either without perjury, or ordinarily, by the Name of God, was permitted the * Jewes by Moses? This I suppose, he will not say. Yet faintly sayes the contrary. [Perhaps foolish, wanton (sure, prophane, blasphe∣mous) 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 blasphe∣mous using of Gods Name be forbidden in that Commandment, so much, as by reduction, if the Page  77taking Gods Name in vain, be undoubtedly, no more, then thou shalt not forswear thy self? Can∣not 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, blasphe∣mously) 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, be∣cause 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  78appointed day: Which he does not, cannot deny, for he hath granted it elsewhere; but yet hath somewhat to say. * 1. [Sure not so, as to prohibit all others, there were other, Fast and Feasts ap∣pointed, 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 speak∣ing of Worship, he knows. In Religion or Wor∣ship 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 ano∣ther 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, no∣thing, 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 pre∣scribed the seventh year Sabbath, or any other par∣ticular Holy-day. The Doctor himself hath grant∣ed, 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 Wor∣ship. 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 in∣stitutePage  79the Lords day, according to the fourth Com∣mandment, one day of seven, but neither they, much less their successors, can produce any Com∣mission, 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, *[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, *[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 no∣tion (which he does at last, when he hath suffici∣ently flouted me.) Any of these had becom'd him better, then to make himself mirth, by others (un∣deserved) shame. I shall not blush, to confess, there was an Inadvertency in me in passing those words. For those words (the Commandments of God ha∣ving a Negative and Affirmative part) were need∣less 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  80thus, 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 ex∣cess, (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 Command∣ments 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, * 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? * 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  81Plaister 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 exemplifi∣cations, 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 an∣swers his own question, *[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 Wor∣ship 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 Cir∣cumstances) are excess against that Command∣ment: as I have proved.

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

[All perjury,*(and (by Christs,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,) voluntary swearing at all) is forbidden in the third Commandment, but how come Rites and Ceremo∣nies, 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 for∣bidden 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 ridicu∣lous: 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 in∣stituting 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 in∣stituting other Holy-dayes: as is proved else∣where.

I gave an instance of an excess in the fourth Com∣mandment, *[In Jeroboams Feast, Instituted by himself, like unto the Feast which was in Judea,] of Gods institution: what was it, that made that Page  83criminous? 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. *[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 Reu∣benites 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; *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 Circum∣stance 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  84and did draw away many mens hearts from some part of Gods prescribed worship, by putting more ho∣nor 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,*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 re∣quest, 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 sa∣crifice, himself sayes, [It was contrary to the ex∣press 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 considerati∣ons) and he carried away some of that earth, and with it, built an Altar, yet it might be, as the Reu∣benites, 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 follow∣ed him in it, but onely to take down his confi∣dence, Page  85in interpreting Scripture; and to discover the grounds of his mistakes, in setting up Festi∣vals, 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, *[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 Chri∣stian Festival, &c. will not prove to be any of those excesses.] We have answered twenty times I think; it is not uncommanded Circum∣stances, but uncommanded Worship, that is proved guilty of excess.

But soft and fair; The Doctor sayes, *[By the way, I am not sure that in every Commandment of the ten, there are such excesses: I shall sup∣pose Chastity the duty of the seventh Command∣ment: Fornication, &c. the*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 Supersti∣tion, &c.] This is a meer perverting of the que∣stion, which is not of the ten; but of the four Commandments of the first Table: And there∣fore 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  86should make himself ridiculous, that would ima∣gine 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 ex∣tremes, and so one in the defect, another in the ex∣cess. 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 ex∣cess; say the same of the 7.8.9. Command∣ments: 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 ex∣tremes, 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 Omissi∣on, 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 lea∣ving undone, what is commanded, (which is doing too little) the two extremes, in the excess and de∣fect? 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, *Plutarch, by name; who bewails [the Page  87weakness and infirmity of men, not keeping with∣in due bounds; but running one while into Super∣stition and vanity, another while into neglect and contempt of Divine thing:] Where, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are op∣posed, as the excess and defect, and presently after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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.