with joy and Feasting in the Citie § 30. The like may be said of the Festivities at marriage which were not indeed instituted by God nor need to be being that Marriage it selfe is a Civill thing and not Religious and in things of that nature if they were soberly and temperately observed Christ was never scrupulous to conform to the customes of the places where he came But Christmas day is made a piece of Religious service and a voluntary oblation to the honour of Christ by others and by the Dr. himselfe sect 28. § 31. These Instances then are both impertinent what hath he more pertinent to the present purpose Why that which I still expected to meet with is his strongest plea for this he saies It must be remembred that the weekly Fast of the Resurrection the Lords day was not instituted by Christ or God himselfe but by the Apostles of Christ and that the mentions of the first day of the week are no prescriptions or Law for the observing of it c. Before we hear more le ts consider this For first there want not learned men who thinke that Christ himselfe did institute or designe the day But secondly if the Apostles did institute it as the Doctor grants that 's more than some of his Colleagues will grant and thank him for it and more than he dare peremptorily say of his Christmas day Hee speaks it doubtingly either of the Apostles or succeeding Church Secondly if the Lords day was instituted by the Apostles of Christ do not their Institutions carry in them a Divine prescription or Law for the observation of it And if they instituted the first day of the week to be the Lords day or Christian Sabbath do not at least some mentions of the first day of the week imply their Institution of that day to be holy and require withall the observation of it as 1 Cor. 16.2 in the judgement of some no great Favourers of the Lords day Sabbath Le ts now hear what hee saies more If any thing of that nature as a law be there sought for it will rather appear to belong to the Annuall than weekly Feasts So 1 Cor. 5.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the paschall Festivity is annexed immediately to Christ our Passeover c. and to that also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lords day Rev. 1.10 is thought to belong To which I say 1. The vulgar Latin authorized by the Church of Rome as willing to make Easter of Apostolick Institution as the Doctor did not find this Law for it in this text That renders it onely epulemur let us keep Feast though the word signifie also festum diem agere and is by some no mean ones glossed thus Because on Festivall daies there were solemn Feasts of slesh observed Estius in locum hence this word is used for to celebrate festum solemne epulum asolemn Feast or Banquet by allusion to the typicall Paschall Feast Before him the learned Aquinas In locum could not find Easter here Epmlemur scilicet manducantes Christum c. let us feast viz. eating Christ not onely Sacramentally but spiritually Before them Saint Chrysostom was not so quick sighted to find a Law for Easter here but an every day Holyday for so he saies The Apostle saying let us keep the Feast he said not because the pasch or Easter or Pentecost was present but shewing that all or every time is a Festivall season to Christians And presently after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every day is a Pestivall to us yea all our life Not much unlike doth Saint Ambrose interpret the word Hoc est laetitiam habentes renovationis facta vetera fugiamus That is having the gladnesse of renovation let us fly our old works c. Serm of Resurr I adde but one thing more The learned Bishop of Winchester who pleads as strongly for this Easter Feast as any yet founds it not upon this text though he had occasion to name it but upon the Custome of the Church 2. It is proved above out of Socrates that the Apostles instituted not any Holydaies except the Lords day therefore nor this of Easter 3. That the Lords day Rev. 1.10 should belong to the Easter day is the fancie of some who of late have laboured to depresse the honour of the Lords day contrary therein to all the antient and modern writers In a word as was said afore the difference in observation of it in the severall Churches argues it not to be Apostolical Which difference the Doctor notes in this Section § 32. It s true that Aerius is by Epiphanius branded as an Heretick for some opinions justly if they be truly charged upon him But it is well known to the learned that all is not Heresie that Epiphanius calls so Nor all Aerius opinions justly censured as Heretical Epit. Hist Cen. 4. cap. 47. as the Doctor or any may see if he consult with Osiander the Epitomizer of the Centuriators And he is found in some of those opinions to be seconded by divers antient Fathers as is asserted by some of our learned Modern Divines if it were not unnecessarie here to manifest 2. As for the Festivities of the Martyrs it is granted they began betimes as Superstition ever attends Religion and Devotion which though they were intended for good ends yet as things of mens Inventions do they produced in time much Superstition not onely in multiplication of Holydaies but in opinion of more Holinesse more * As the Romans did s 67. efficacie of prayers on such daies and at last flat Idolatry both in dedication of the daies to those Saints and Martyrs and to Invocation and praying to them Which at first were onely times of commemoration of their vitues and encouragements of Imitation of them And this might suffice for answer to the next section § 33. Yet when he would inferre from this example of the Martyrs Festivities Where will be no reason to doubt that so the daies of the death or Martyrdome of the Apostles themselves were formerly solemnized by them and that this early c. he presumes too much upon his own reason not able it seemes to produce any Testimonies of those or former times for such observations which I the rather take notice of because the Doctor uses not to wave any Testimonie that doth but look that way and allso because I observe that the learned Chemnitius a man of vast reading having reckoned up the Festivalls Vbi supra p. 263. that were in observation in the first four hundred years can find none by name of any Apostle but referres them to the time of Carolus Magnus Anno 800. or at least to Constantines time which was in the begining of 400. § 35. That Christmas or the Feast of the Nativitie was not Apostolicall hath been made appear before That which he now alledges from the Constitutions called Apostolicall will weaken his cause the more
who bring them into the Church On the other side it will not follow the Apostolical Church had a custome to observe the Sabbath of the Jews when they came amongst them to circumcise sometimes to abstain from blood c. to avoyd offence and winne the Jews ergo they that go about afterwards to lay down these are contentious this will no wayes be admitted The reason is because the Apostles afterwards repealed those Jewish customes Two cautions therefore must be added to make the Affirmative constringent 1. That the custome which is pleaded for be brought into the Church by the Apostles themselves for Gospel worship For he saies We we have no such custome nor the Churches of God The Gospel Churches by us planted 2. That the custome pleaded be grounded truly if not so clearly upon the Word of God For this is no good argument against a rational Disputant The present Church of Rome suppose or any Church some centurie or more of years after the Apostles hath such or such a custom ergo we must receive it unless we will be counted contentious But this is thought a good inference The Apostolicall purest Church had a custom to observe the Lords day the first day of the week Act. 20.7 1 Cor. 16.1 2. instead of the old Sabbath ergo that day was instituted by the Apostles and they that reject it or prophane it are more then contentious even sacrilegious And upon these considerations fiderations the Doctor hath consulted ill to his own cause to produce this Text for his Festivall For hee dare not say it was instituted by the Apostles nor can prove it was observed by the prime and purest Church though he oft assert it then the inference is strong against him The Apostle prime Apostolicall Church had no such custom as the observation of Christmas ergo they are contentious who plead for its continuance It matters not then what the ancient usage of the Church of England hath been if it began not with the Apostles in the first Churches Which of the Feast of Christs Nativitie cannot I think be proved I am sure is not performed by the learned Doctor Nor yet that the Church of England was extant in the Apostles times or if it were that this custome of Christmas was from the begining of the plantation of the Gospell amongst us which yet he undertakes to manifest § 2. The latter he first begins with And that it is thus ancient he will prove By one objection against viz. the retaining of some heathen usages in the observation of it which are undeniable Testimonies of the Antiquity and un-interrupted continuance of this practise even from the time of our first conversion For otherwise it is not imaginable how any heathen usage should be found adherent to it But this is no way constringent For they might bee added together with the Festival it self some good while after the first conversion of some part of this Island the better to winne the rest to a liking of Christian Religion by conforming to them in celebration of Festivals as the like was done to winne the Jewes in observing the old Sabbath Pentecost c. The Apostles saies the Doctor to attract the Jews to the Christian Religion Sect. 71. did gratifie them in retaining many of their customs That was for a time but after cast them off And this Festivall being substituted instead of the old Saturnalia in the same Month as is confessed by many Sect. 63. and the Doctor himselfe no marvaile if some heathen usages stuck close to it and could not since be gotten out For those heathen usages continued by the ruder multitude and others too though they have been no part of the office of the Feast yet doe they fully hold out these two things 1. How easie a thing it is for such ill usage to creep into humane Ordinances 2. How hard it is to get them out when once got in being ready to plead prescription Seeing after so long a time as fifteen or sixteen hundred yeares continuance as the Dr. thinks they still attend the Festival people being more tenacious of customs received by the Tradition of their Fathers 1 Pet. 1.18 then of the very Institutions of God § 3.4 For the former that the conversion of England was early is very likely but not so early as is pretended but not proved For as the Histories and Monuments are very obscure and doubtfull differing much one from another so the Doctor himself is very uncertain where to place the beginning or who was the Instrument of our conversion It may be beleeved either Apostolical or very near the Apostles times Faine would hee have us think it was by some Apostle if he knew how to make it out Some affirm it was Simon Zelotes Sect. 6. And there was some colour for the affirmation of Simon Metaphrastes That St. Peter stayed in Britaine sometime converted many and constituted Churches ordained Bishops in the twelfth year of Nero's reign But he slurs his Author thus The authority of this Writer is not great He might have said Nothing worth being contradicted by so many others and by the Doctor himself by and by Yet it might be near the Apostles times by some Apostolicall men some say rather by Joseph of Arimathea for so Mr. Camden reports from as ancient Records and credible as any we have for we have none very ancient or very credible That Joseph of Arimathea planted Christianity here coming out of France Belike Crescens sent him hither to convert she Britains if he did not come and doe it himself For so the Doctor would have it and proves it out of Scripture 2 Tim. 4.10 Crescens sent by St. Paul was gone into Galatia where Galatia may signifie France as some Authors take it and the Doctor is willing to beleeve it For presently though others contradict hee takes it for granted when he sayes What is so early affirmed in Scripture of the communicating of the Gospell to France i. e. by Crescens which is so near to us removes all improbabilitie from those Histories which record the plantation of the Gospel in these Islands in the Apostles times It s easie to beleeve that Crescens if he were in France might quickly step over into Engl. but the former is yet to prove For the Doctor knows very well that very learned men deny that Galatia was there taken for France but for a part of Asia which is far enough from England Yea they demonstrate it as they think that it was not meant of France for which I referre him to Estius on the place 2 Tim. 4.10 However whether Crescens were ever in France or no sure he was not in England to convert the Nation Hear the Doctors own words This which he had said before is an evidence that neither Peter nor Paul nor Crescens nor any of those that usually accompanied either of those two Apostles did bring the Christian Faith to
whole works of our Redemption by him was instituted by himself or his Apostles by him authorized and inspired for this very end comes about once in every week To limit it therfore to one day in a year to remember that Mercy is not an exaltation but a derogation from it If this were done on his owne designed Day wee need not fixe another day 2. The exercises done upon the day are acceptable duties any day therefore upon this True but then any day whereon these duties are done is as holy a Day as Christmas day or if he think the duties are more acceptable for the Dayes sake or for the voluntary dedication of it by men I feare they will be so much lesse acceptable to God and no better than Superstition 3. There may be excesse and Superstition in setting out a day every year as Holy as a woship of God as Super statutum where God requires but one in seaven as Holy for men to command more is too much presumption His reasons against it are invalide 1. Because a dutie cannot be performed without time True but without a set a fixed holy time it may Here 's a fallacie from time as a naturall and necessary adjunct of an action to Time as Holy as Worship Which yet is not observed by the Doctor For he with others seemes to hold Time in the 4th Commandement to be onely an Adjunct of worship as of any other action but we think Time in the 4th Commandement is a part of worship And this I think they do make it in this present case For they doe not onely make the duties praying praising preaching c. a part of worship Sees 48. which they are every day when they are performed but the very Dedication and observation of the Day it selfe to be a voluntary oblation a Freewill-offering an honour and service to Christ as wee shall hear 2. Abraham saies he rejoyced to see this day and the Angells rejoyced on the very day c. So would we if wee knew the Day but this does not prove that they intended to set that day apart as Holy without command from Christ the Lords day being appointed for that end 3. The abstaining from labours is partly though not onely the excesse for it makes it necessary as a duty of an Holy day when God hath not made it necessary having allowed 6 daies for mens own works though Rest be agreeable to holy duties Festivities and Fasting daies of Gods command yet then it presupposes a Command of God for those Duties and Daies Or if the Time be onely an Adjunct of those duties then Rest is necessary onely naturali necessitate not moralj because no man can solemnly for any time wait upon God in holy duties and his labours too But this is necessary any day when holy duties are performed 4. For the 25 th day of December to be the day of Christs birth wee shall speake to it hereafter ad sect 36. Onely wee observe what he saies upon the mistake of the day That the mistake will be very pardonable in those who verily think they are not mistaken They doe perform the businesse of the day as compleatly and substantially on a mistaken day as on the true one and the excuse of blamelesse ignorance will wash away greater errours than this if an errour Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists Doctrine of veniall sinnes It puts me in mind of a subterfuge of Bellarm. and others when we object upon their owne confessions that there may be danger of Idolatry in the Sacrament if the bread be not transubstantiated into the body of Christ They answer There is no danger of it to one that fimply beleeves it is and worshiping after his wonted manner For in such things humane certitude is sufficient So Jacobs lying with Leah instead of Rachell ignorantly was not guilty of adulterie c. This is saiesacute Chamier not to take away Idolatrie but to stupifie the Idolater can any ignorance be blamelesse against a Law of God or wash away an Errour without the blood of Christ Would not Christ have revealed the very day if he had intended the day to be kept holy as a worship of himself But I shall put him a case Suppose the Jews had mistaken the day of the week for the Sabbath or the day of the month for the Passeover had they not sinned because they thought they were not mistaken Had the business been as compleatly and substantially performed on a mistaken day as on the true one When the very day was as strictly commanded as the business it self Let him consider it I shall here insert the judgement of the learned Chemnitius who though he allow the observation of this and other Festivals as a Lutheran with a reservation of Christian liberty Exam. Conc. Trid. p. de diebus Fest p. 265 without necessity of obligation c. yet he notes no less then thirteen wayes or kinds of Superstition in Papists observation of Holy daies We note some of them 1. In placing Holinesse in the dayes which God hath not placed in them 2. Esteeming the services then done better and more holy and acceptable then if done on other dayes 3. Placing the worship of God on them in ceasing from labours and frequenting of Churches 4. Forbidding of labours on those daies when they hinder not the publick Worship 5. In the Necessity of observation 6. In the multitude of them To which may be added that 7. They discriminate persons to be more or lesse holy as they observe or neglect them And lastly as more grace and blessing is expected from such voluntary uncommanded observances Now how far many men amongst us are guilty of all or some of these kinds of Superstition it remains to discover First for placing holiness in them equall with the Lords day and above other dayes It appears both by mens words and deeds By word in calling them Holy daies and equalling them with the Lords day See Sect. 59. To be esteemed above other daies of the year c. consecrating it from common to sacred uses as both of the Churches instituted The Doctor himself sect 20. calls this Festival most sacred and sect 24. tels us The day hath been observed if not much more certainly as strictly as any Lords day in the year c. And so it was in all Cathedrals at least with more solemn services with stricter cessation from sports then on the Lords day on which sports were permitted but no touching cards or dice that day Sect. 77. being more then lawfull pious in it self Ibid. Secondly not onely the services but the observation of the day also was esteemed an higher piece of service than that of the Lords day more acceptable then commanded worship because more voluntarie So the Dr. often Thirdly Sect. 59. An oblation to God in honour to him c. Treat of Wilworship sect 29. See sect 59. people may not
3. The third is That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or will-worship is nothing but voluntary worship as innocent as the Freewil-offering c. Which seems a contradiction in adjecto that voluntary worship and uncommanded should be innocent For 1. It s expresly against the second Commandement which forbids all worship not commanded by God 2. Voluntary Worship is an Addition to the Rule of worship and eo nomine Superstition and that 's sinfull 3. Why is the worship of Angells of Saints c. criminall but because it was worship invented and added by the will of man but that 's granted to be sinfull Yet they do not urge it as a Commandement of God 4. If Wil-worship be innocent I cannot see how all that rabble of Superstitious worship at Rome can be condemned for they are not held out as Commandements of God but as the Traditions of men 4. The last ground of Mistake is that the Doctor takes for granted That a Church or particular person hath power to institute observe worship not commanded by God Which remaines upon him to prove before he can vindicate his Festivall as he and others maintain it from the double crime of Superstition and Willworship which I prove by this one argument If all Additions to the word in matter of worship be criminous and sinfull as prohibited by God Deut. 4.2 and elsewhere then no man or Church can without sinne adde any worship to that commanded by God But the first is true ergo These I take it are the principall grounds of the Doctors Misprisions and are more largely shewed in the Tracts themselves To shut up this If Superstition be an excesse of Religion as allready it is proved to be and more hereafter if Willworship or uncommanded worship be an Addition to the Gospell Rule as cannot well rationally be denyed I see not how the Doctor can wash his hands or his Holiday from those two crimes For he makes the consecration observation of the day to be a part of uncommanded worship the day to be more holy than other daies as holy as the Lords day places virtue in it by pleasing God by it and of more acceptance because voluntary all which and more appeare in the Tract it self which if they be not Additions and excesses against the second and fourth Commandement I leave to the judgement of the indifferent Reader when he hath seriously considered and weighed what hath been and shall be spokâ—n hereafter OF SVPERSTITION Section 1. IN a just and Methodicall order of Translation the Discourse of Superstition should precede that of Will-worship that being more generall this last a Special under it Which that we may discover we shall before we debate it with the Doctor enquire and as well as we can resolve what Superstition is And this cannot so well be found by searching into the Monuments of Heathen Authors Latine or Greeke which is the Doctors way from the Names and senses by them given they being apt to misleade themselves and us in this search as by the judgement of Divines the matter belonging to Religion the chiefe and last of all Arts They that never knew what true Religion meant are all judges of Superstition which is the worke and worker thereof in the excessive part § 2. Superstition in the generall notion of it is not unfitly defined by the learned Schooleman A vice contrary to Religion Aquin. 22. q. 92. a. 1.2 in the excesse as profanesse is the other contrary in the Defect Not that a man can be too Religions indeed in the commanded worship of God Dr. Ames in medul on second Commandment Aquin. ibid. with respect or in order to the formall vertue of Religion but as one explaines himselfe in order to the Acts or externall meanes of worship superadded by the wisdome or will of man when a man tenders worship either to whom it is not due or not in that manner which he ought Now in Religion or worship of God in generall as distinct from Justice or Charity in the second Table foure things are considerable according to the foure Commandments of the Table 1 A right Object God alone 2 a right Matter commanded worship 3 a right manner with all due Reverence 4 a right Time his owne appointed Day and answerable Superstition may extend to the whole first Table Superstition is that which adds humane indeavours to divine precepts Vrsin in 2 precept More then is appointed by the law of God D. Fulk in Act. 17. s 4. Worship without Gods commandement M. â—erk on the second Command when there is a Nimiety or excesse in any of these For the Discoverie whereof we must observe that the Commandements of God having every one of them a Negative and an Affirmative part expressed or understood the Duties of Religion doe stand in the midst as vertues between two extremes As e. g. there is a double errour against the first Commandement one in the Defect that 's Atheism having no God at all the other in excesse that is Polytheism having too many 2 In the second Commandement there is first a Defect not observing Gods prescribed worship than an excesse in adding and observing devised worship 3 So also in the third Commandement there is a Defect in want of Reverence due to the Divine Majesty which is sometimes partly called profanesse and an excesse in additions of Ridiculous rites and ceremonies or gestures and the like 4. In the fourth Commandement there is a Defect in observing no Time when Gods designed Sabbath is neglected and an excesse when men institute other Holy Dayes and Times as Jeroboam did 1 King 12.32 He ordained a Feast like unto the Feast that was in Judea Thence it is apparent that in this generall sense there may be Superstition in or against all the Commandements of the first Table in the excessive part and it were easie to observe that many Divines especially doe call the excesses of any Commandement by the name of Superstition § 3. And hence it may appeare that some are too short in designing the Species or kinds of Superstition As first the learned Schooleman who makes but three kinds of it Idolatry Illegitimate worship and Divination The first and last whereof Ibid a. 2. in corp are referred by Divines to the first Commandement and the other illegitimate or uncommanded worship to the second For Idolatry properly so called is either the worship of a false God instead of the true or of many or other Gods with him And Divination being a consulting with the Devill is a giving of that honour to him which is due onely to God and so the worst kind of Idolatry So he limits Superstition D. Ames Medul on the second Commandement only to two Commandements But I find another Reverend Doctor restraining it to one Commandement viz. the second when he designes it thus Superstition is a vice whereby undue worship is tendered unto God Hee means that
because they were more devout or pious impious rather in worshiping the true God ignorantly in a false manner then their sinne was against the second Commandement and in both it was Superstition in severall kinds § 20. What Festus meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 25.19 is not much materiall its like he spake it with scorn enough not of Pauls onely as the Doctor seems to limit it but of the whole Jewish Religion Sect. 12. for so the words may import and are so translated by ours But to make the latter part of the verse to expound the former of one Iesus that was dead putting him under the vulgar notion of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dead Heros and so meaning the worship of him by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is I doubt a strain of the Doctors Criticism compounding things which are in the Text distinct For Festus saies they had many questions both concerning their own Religion Superstition and also concerning one Jesus which was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive but not a word there of worship of him as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Heros which may the better be beleeved because hee was accused of questions of their Law cap 23.29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chap. 24. where Tertullus laies in his charge against Paul there is not one word of this but other grievous crimes Sedition Seducement profanation of the Temple c. v. 5.6 But the Doctor having taken liberty as oft he delights to doe to vary from the common Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their rendring it by his and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reading Religion to qualifie at least Superstition he goes on to make his Comment sutable that Pauls Religion was in worshiping of Iesus as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dead Heros Whereas Paul affirmed him to be alive not in part as those departed Daemons were supposed but in the whole man as raised from the dead § 21. What Epicurus Doctrine was or what Heathens thought of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee are not much Sollicitous The Doctor having shewed a great deale of Reading and Learning for many sections together from the 14. to the 27. to little purpose except to cloud the businesse now in hand to lead us away in a mist of his owne making from the true and proper sense of the word Sect. 17 18 19. amongst Christians Yet it seemes the Heathens did often take the word in an ill sense branded Religions which they did not like by that name Plutarch taxes the Jewes for their Superstition in two things remarkable 1. That they were tyed by their Superstition as with a net that when they were invaded they would not rise from their seates on their Sabbath day which was an Excesse against the fourth Commandement and grosse Superstition For necessity was priviledged to break the Sabbaths Rest 2. Their killing and sacrificing their Children to Moloch which being a horrid superstition was as the former intended as a worship of the true God and yet was interpreted no better than sacrificing to Divells Psal 106.37 as all Idolatry was by the Apostle 1. Cor. 1◠12 which though in other respects it was against the first Commandement grosse Idolatry so in making it a worship of the true God when hee commanded it not neither came it into his heart as somewhere he saies it was a kind of Superstition against the second Commandement And in a word the Etymologist speakes fully our sense The word among the Heathens is taken for a good thing but among Christians for impiety Sect. 23. cited by the Doctor § 22. From that large discourse about the word at last Sect. 27. the Doctor comes to apply it to his purpose and to discover three inconsequences in our customary use of the word Superstition Sect. 27. First that it is inconsequent that Superstition simply and abstractly taken should be resolved in all Authors to signifie somewhat which is evill that since particularly which is false worship But with his favour this is not the question between us but whither in the Scripture and Orthodox Divines commenting upon that word it doe not alwaies signifie something evill and particularly excessive and false worship What the Etymologist thought of it as the common opinion of Christians wee newly heard And this is the more probable because even most of the Popish Commentators doe take the word in an ill sense Vulg. superstitiones Act. 17.22 and render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Superstition without any pretence of a good sense of it which no doubt they would be glad to hear to colour and cover their own Will-worship and Superstition The Doctors reasons for his opinion have been considered afore but briefly now again 1. Those that use the word to expresse their owne worship conceive it to be a creditable word or else would not call it by that name No doubt but Heathens did think well of their own worship But it being a false worship it was never the better for that See Quaer of divorce sect 58. Blaming this in another And it is observable that in all the Doctors former large discourse hee brings onely Heathens to shew the meaning of the word bad enough sometimes but not one Divine Greek or Latine Father or any Moderne writer Papist or other who take it in a good sense which was not I believe for want of good will but something else 2. His next reason is when Saint Pauls Religion was called by that name Act. 25.19 it appeares not that Festus did use that word as an accusation or in an ill sense but in generall to signifie Pauls Religion c. Something hath been said to this above Sect. 20. and now we adde It appears rather to signifie something ill in his opinion For Festus was not a man of so much Religion or had any such esteem of the Jewish Religion as to give it any credit and therefore spake of it Superstition was made matter and reproach to the Romans sect 22. as of a Superstition as men use to call all not of their own Religion by way of defamation as the Doctor saies Sect. 24.3 The third reason is Saint Paul himself Act. 17.23 saith of the Athenians they did worship the true God though ignorantly taking him for a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And is not worshiping of the true God ignorantly with their own devised worship a Superstition justly to be condemned was it not grosse Idolatry and sinfull Superstition in the Israelites to worship the true God in the Golden Calfe 4. Than other men is the Doctors gloss it may as well signifie more than is meet and that 's too Religious in the excesse He calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more Religious than other men not in relation to any vitious rite but to their worshiping the unknown God which worshiped others not But this as it begges the question so is it