Page 66
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