SAint Paul was now a Prisoner at Rome for the sake of the Gospel, when he wrote this Epistle to the Colossians, but his mind was at liberty; And the compass of his thoughts and cares was so far from being confi­ned within the Walls of a Prison, that it reached not only to the Churches of Asia planted by him­self, as those of Ephesus and Galatia; but to those which had never seen him, as the Colossians and Laodiceans. For, saith he, I would that ye knew Coloss. 2. 1. what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in [Page 2] the flesh. Had not he trouble enough with the Churches of Rome and Greece, and those he had conversed with in other parts, but he must take upon him to interpose in the affairs of those Churches he had never seen? But such was the largeness of the Apostle's mind, the fervour of his Zeal, the extent of his Charity, that the care of all the Churches was upon him; but especially those which had been planted by his means, al­though not by his personal endeavours; among which, in all probability, this of the Colossians was one. For this Epaphras whom St. Paul calls a faith­ful Coloss. 1. 7. Minister of Christ to them, was imploy'd as an Evangelist under him; and particularly in the Cities of Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse, which were not far distant from each other in Phrygia; and for the Churches there setled, S. Paul testifies, that he had a mighty zeal and concernment: From whence it arose, that hearing of S. Pauls 4. 13. Imprisonment at Rome, he resolves to take a Jour­ney thither to acquaint him with the State of those Churches, and to desire his Advice and Di­rection in the present danger they were in, of be­ing seduced from the simplicity of the Gospel, by the plausible insinuations of false Teachers, who pretended to give them a more refined Systeme of Religion, by a composition of Law and Gos­pel and Philosophy all together. S. Paul under­standing [Page 3] by him the dangerous circumstances they were in, although Epaphras himself was made a Fellow-Prisoner with him; as appears by the Epistle to Philemon, sent at the same time with this; yet Philem. 23. he finds means by Tychicus and Onesimus to convey this Epistle to them. Wherein by an admirable art of insinuation, far above the eloquent exordi­ums of the Heathen Orators, he lets them under­stand, how passionately he was concerned for their welfare; and what an Agony he suffered in his own breast for their sakes, lest under some artificial colours and very fair pretences, they should be drawn off from the Love and Unity and Sincerity of the Gospel. For after he had told them what conflict he had for them that had not seen his face in the flesh, he immediately adds, that it was, that their hearts might be comforted, being knit together Coloss. 2. 2, 3. in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of under­standing, to the acknowledgment of the Mystery of God and of the Father and of Christ. In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And when he hath thus set forth the excellency and sufficiency of the Gospel; he then lets fall an intimation of his design, And this I say, lest any man should beguile V. 4. you with enticing words. But lest they should suspect from hence that ill offices had been done them, and they had been misrepresented to S. Paul; in the next verse he tells them, that at that distance, [Page 4] he did rejoice, beholding their order, and the stedfastness V. 5. of their faith in Christ. And therefore exhorts them, As they had received Christ Jesus the Lord, so to walk in V. 6. him: i. e. to adhere to that faith which they at first embraced; as he explains it, in the seventh Verse. Having thus removed all jealousy and suspicion as to their present stedfastness, he doth more openly address himself to them; in giving them caution against the most dangerous and de­ceitful errours. Beware lest any man spoil you through V. 8. Philosophy and vain deceit, after the Tradition of men, after the rudiments of the World, and not after Christ. Not as though there were the least prejudice to Christianity to be imagined by mens searching into the Works of God, or the Nature of Moral Actions, or the digesting our own thoughts or conceptions of things, which is all that is under­stood by true Philosophy; but that the Model of Religion which they were in so much danger of being deceived by, was made up, partly of Phi­losophical Precepts, and partly of Jewish Tra­ditions and ritual Observations; by which the false Teachers endeavoured to corrupt and adul­terate the Gospel of Christ. Accordingly in the fol­lowing Discourse, the Apostle first disputes against the necessity of keeping the Ceremonies of the Law, now under the Gospel, and sums up the force of it, v. 17. Which are a shadow of things to come, but [Page 5] the body is of Christ. And having thus dispatched the hardest Question about the Obligation of the Law of Moses, he enters upon the debate about other Inventions, which they endeavoured to re­commend to Christians.

(1.) About the Worshipping of Angels, as Media­tors between God and Men; which was an Opi­nion then generally received among the corrup­ters of Christianity, the Gnosticks and Judaizing Christians; who were not so vain in their imagi­nations, to believe them to be supreme and indepen­dent Deities; for this they utterly denied; owning one only supreme God the Father of all: but they thought access to him was to be had by the Me­diation of Angels, and therefore they brought in the Worship of them. Baronius indeed denies, that A. D. 60. n. 17. Christian. Lup. in Ter­tul. de prae­script. c. 33. Nat. Alex. Saec. 1. p. 52. Tertull. de praescript. c. 33. Epiph. haer. 21. p. 58. the Gnosticks introduced any Worship of Angels; but therein he is justly confuted by some late Writers of the Roman Church. For Tertullian condemns the Gnosticks for a Magical Service of Angels; and Epiphanius saith, that their impure Sacrifices were sup­posed to be offer'd up by Principalities and Powers, to the supreme Father of all. Which doth evidently prove, that the Gnosticks did give Worship to An­gels as Mediators. And although Baronius endea­vours likewise to clear the Cerinthians from this guilt (lest the Church of Rome should be found to tread in their steps) because Cerinthus acknow­ledged Bar. ib. n. 20. [Page 6] one supreme Power above Angels, and because he had a bad Opinion of the Angel which gave the Law; yet, why might not they worship the Angels as Media­tors between that supreme Power and them; and even that Angel which gave the Law as well as the rest, since they contended for the necessary observation of the Law? But besides, all the Ju­daizing Christians were not followers of Cerinthus, there being different Sects among them; as ap­pears by Irenaeus, Epiphanius and others; and Ba­ronius himself grants that the Pharisaical Jews of that n. 16. and following Ages did Worship Angels as the Host of Heaven. And the Essens had their Angels of Prayer; and made their prayers to the rising Sun, whom they looked on as on the rest of the Stars, as animated and intelligent Beings. And why the Judaizing Chri­stians should not retain their former Superstitions, as well as their other Traditions and Observati­ons, I do not understand. Especially, since Theodo­ret so expresly affirms, that those who then pleaded for the keeping of the Law brought in the Worship of Angels, which custom, he saith, continued a long time in Phry­gia and Pisidia; and at last the Council of Laodicea, made a Canon against praying to Angels.

Those of the Church of Rome are so sensible of the force of this Testimony of Theodoret against their practice, that they are driven to desperate shifts to avoid it. Bellarmine saith, that he speaks Bell. de S. B. c. 20. [Page 7] against the Gnosticks; whereas Theodoret mentions on­ly those who were for keeping the Law. Baronius saith in plain terms, Theodoret was mistaken, and that there were no such Hereticks then; but this is so gross, that Bellarmin and others contradict him in it. O­thers therefore say, that the Worship of Angels here spoken against, is the Worshipping of them as Makers of the World. But that is more than St. Paul saith, for he speaks againstthat Worship which arises from Humility, and nothing so proper for that, as the Worshipping them as Mediators between God and us. Some think it is when Angels are pre­ferred before Christ, which is likewise more than the Apostle saith; and they who chuse other Me­diators, by whom God is more accessible by us, do prefer them in Use, though not in Dignity: O­thers, as the Jansenists in their New Testament, say Jansen. Pre­face Ep. Aux. Coloss. it is, When Angels are set up as Mediators in opposition to Christ; but that cannot be the Apostles mean­ing; for then his great business would have been to have proved Christ to be the true Mediator, and not Angels; and if any Religious Worship of An­gels had been agreeable with the Christian Do­ctrine, the Apostle would never have thus in ge­neral condemned it, but with such restrictions and limitations as made it to be evil. Therefore to avoid these difficulties, some conclude that by the Worship of Angels is understood such a Worship [Page 8] as was introduced by a pretended Revelation of Angels; but against this, we have the concurrent testimo­ny of St. Chrysostome, St. Hierome, St. Ambrose, Chrys. in l. Hier. Algas. q. 10. Oecumenius, Theophylact, who all agree that it is to be understood of the Worship given to Angels. So impossible it is for those who either give them­selves, or justifie and allow the giving by others, any Religious Worship to Angels, to escape falling under the Apostles censure, of being Seducers and corrupting the Gospel of Christ.

(2.) About stricter Abstinence and greater Severi­ty of Life. For these Seducers gave out that the Christian Churches were yet very defective in this matter: And that there were several Societies of Men, both among the Jews and Heathens, which went very far beyond them: as the Essens, the Py­thagoreans, the Gymnosophists and others; who far outstript the Christians in Watchings and Fastings, in the hard usage of their Bodies, and a total absti­nence from Wine and Flesh, and other lawful Plea­sures of Life. On which account these false Teachers represented the Christianity, as yet re­ceived in these Churches, as too soft and gentle an Institution, and not answering the Character that was given of it; but if they had a mind to set it off with advantage, it would be necessary for them to take in some of the strictest Precepts of those Societies, especially relating to Meats [Page 9] and Marriage, Touch not, taste not, handle not: which they magnified as the greatest Instances of true Religion, Self-denyal, Humility, Mortifica­tion; without which they despised the Christian Institution as a mean and ordinary thing, requiring only the belief of some great things done and suffered by Jesus Christ in Judea, and the adhering thereto till Death, and doing those Offices of Hu­manity and Kindness to each other, and those Duties of Religion to God, which all Mankind thought fit and reasonable to be done.

But these pretended refiners of Christianity, were not contented with such common things; they must set up for something singular, and ex­traordinary; so Epiphanius observes of the Gno­sticks in the beginning, that they condemned Marri­age, Epiph. Haer. 23. p. 63. and abstained from Flesh, that under these preten­ces they might draw others into their snares. And like­wise of the Ebionites, one of the Sects of Judai­zing Haer. 30. p. 139. Christians, that they carefully abstained from all Flesh, and were every day Baptised, and celebrated the Eucharist only in Water, for fear of being defiled with the taste of Wine; wherein they were followed by the Encratitae, Aquarij, and several others, who affected something out of the way, as a badge of more than ordinary Sanctity. And there are scarce any of those who are mentioned as the Au­thors of great Mischief to the Church, but were [Page 10] remarkable for something of this Nature; as ap­pears by Marcion, Montanus, Manichaeus, Severus, and others. And which is observable, this sort of singularity prevailed no where more, than in these parts of Phrygia; where the Encratitae very much encreased and continued so to do in the days of Epiphanius. So very little effect had this wise and timely caution, given by the Apostle in Epiph. haer. 47. p. 339. this place, upon those who were willing to be deceived in that, or following Generations.

Cajetan confesses himself to seek what sort of Men those were the Apostle discourses against; but it seems most probable to me, that they were a sort of Judaizing Christians, who endeavoured to introduce the Customs of the Jewish Essens into the Christian Church. For when St. Paul speaks of Philo p. 876. the Jewish Customs he mentions no other, but such as were in esteem among them; he takes no no­tice of Sacrifices which were disesteemed among Epiph. p. 42. them; But let no man judge you in Meat, which a­mong V. 16. them was only Bread and Salt; or in Drink, which was only Water; or in respect of a Holyday or New Moon, or the Sabbath Days; which as Philo Philo p. 877, 899. relates, they were great observers of. And when he speaks of the Customs they would bring among the Christians, they were no other than such as were strictly observed among them, viz. great abstinence, hard usage of their Bodies, and some Reli­gious [Page 11] Rites with respect to Angels. Concerning which the Apostle delivers his Judgment two ways.

1. He grants that these things have a shew of Wis­dom in them; i. e. that they make so good an appear­ance to men, as is apt to raise an esteem of those persons in whom it is. First, Because they seem to flow from a forwardness in Religion, so I render [...], which we call Will-worship; but that being a thing of an ill Name, doth not so well answer to the shew of Wisdom; for what shew of Wisdom is there in doing an ill thing? This is there­fore a readiness of Mind to do any thing in Re­ligion which men think pleasing to God, whether required by him or not. So Hesychius expounds [...] by [...]; and [...] by [...]. And other Greek Words of a like com­position, do imply no more than a voluntary incli­nation; as in [...], which Plato useth for a Plato Sym. service out of good Will, and free Inclination: [...] is the same with [...] and [...] in Xe­nophon: Xen. Cyr. Paed. 2. And St. Augustine observes, that in his time, a Man that affected to be Rich, was called Thelo-dives, and he that desired to be thought Wise Aug. Ep. 59. Thelo-sapiens; so according to this Analogy, a Man that would be thought very Religious, would then have been called Thelo-Religiosus; ta­king Religiosus in the sense of Massurius Sabinus, A. G [...]ll. l. 4. c. 9. [Page 12] and not of Nigidius Figulus: i. e. in a good, and not in a bad sense. And so [...], is a desire of appearing more Religious than ordina­ry; which is not a thing evil in it self, but de­pends on circumstances. The next is [...], Humility, a Vertue so graceful, so be­coming Mankind, with a respect to God and to each other, that whatever makes a Shew of that, doth so of Wisdom too. The third is [...], not sparing the Body, but using it with hard­ship to keep it under. [...]. Which Words have such a hard­ness in their construction, as hath caused great variety of interpretations; which I shall not re­peat. That which seems most natural, is, that Honour implies a regard to the Body and so it on­ly explains what was meant by [...]; the sense being, not with any regard to the Flesh for its satis­faction: which hath a farther appearance of Wis­dom, not barely in the subjection of the Body to the Mind; but as it seems to argue a Mind so elevated above the Body, that it hath little or no regard to the necessities of it.

2. Notwithstanding all this fair shew of Wis­dom, the Apostle doth really condemn these things as not pleasing to God, nor suitable to the Christian Religion. For,

(1.) He saith they have only a shew of Wis­dom. [Page 13] [...], saith St. Chrysostome, who certainly understood the force of the Words; the Shew, saith he, not the Power, there­fore not the Truth of Wisdom. Imaginem rationis, hu­manaeque sapientiae, saith St. Jerom. [...], saith Theodoret; so that notwithstanding the fair Shew they make, they have no real Wisdom in them.

(2.) This new way of Worship, though it hath such a specious shew of Devotion and Humility; yet it reflects on the Honour of Christ, as Mediator; and therefore the Apostle charges the introducers of it, with not holding the Head. If the Cerinthi­ans V. 19. did advance the Angels above Jesus Christ, they were so much the more guilty; but if these Ju­daizers did only look on them as nearer and more agreeable Mediators to us, yet therein they brought a great disparagement upon him, whose Office it was to be the sole Mediator between God and Men. Mankind was very excusable in com­parison, for finding out other Mediators, before God had declared to the World that he had ap­pointed his Son to be our only Advocate and Inter­cessor; but for those who own his Mediatorship, to make choice of others besides Him, is to call in question the Wisdom of the Father, or the Suf­ficiency, Interest or Kindness of the Son. For if God hath appointed him for this end, and he be [Page 14] able to go through his work, and willing to help all that address themselves to him; what need to call in other Assistants? yea, what a Dishonour is it for him to stand by, and Applications be made to them to do that Office, which he was appointed alone to discharge?

(3.) These new inventions though never so plausible, are a disparagement to the Gospel, as not containing sufficient, or at least not the most sublime and perfect directions for Humility and Mortification. For our Blessed Saviour was so far from being remarkable for these affected singula­rities, that the freedom and easiness of his con­versation, was a great offence to those who un­derstood little or nothing of Religion beyond these things. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a Man Gluttonous, and Matt. 12. 19. a Wine-bibber, a friend of Publicans and Sinners. Not that he gave way to any thing like Luxury, or Intemperance, who was the most exact pattern of all true and real Vertues; but because they saw nothing extraordinary as to the severity of his Life in these Matters, they looked on him but as one of the common sort of men, making no appearance of more than usual Sanctity, as to eating and drinking. And when Johns Disci­ples who were bred up with greater austerity, were really offended that Christs Disciples did [Page 15] not fast as they did: our Saviour puts them off with a Parabolical Answer; Can the Children of the Bride-chamber fast, as long as the Bridegroom is with Matt. 9. 12, 13. them? which answer might puzzle them more, as not understanding why fasting should be incon­sistent with his corporal Presence; yet to let them see that he did not look on Fasting, as a Duty un­sutable to his Religion, he tells them, the Days would come, when his Disciples should have their times of Fasting. But the Days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. So that it is not Occasional or Anniversary Days of Fasting, which are condemned here by the Apostle, as Will-worship, or neglecting the Body; but the imposing a new and severer course of Life upon Christians, as a way of greater perfection of Mortification, than what was required by Christ or his Apostles. This is that which the Apostle calls being subject to Ordinances; and living after the V. 20. Commandments and Doctrines of Men. Theodoret ob­serves that he doth not mean the Law by this, but the unseasonable Doctrine of these Seducers; and it is e­vident from the foregoing part of the 20. v. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the World: i. e. if ye are freed from the Yoke of the Law, what reason is there ye should submit to another, which depends only on the Authority and invention of Men? But what then? Doth [Page 16] S. Paul make it unlawful to submit to any Orders or Rites appointed by the Church in which we live? By no means. For neither doth the Apostle speak of those who had lawful Authority, but of Sedu­cers; nor doth he speak of things appointed meerly for Order and Decency; but of such things which are supposed by the Imposers to have more of true Perfection and Sanctity in them; more Hu­mility and Mortification; and consequently to be more pleasing to God, than bare obedience to the Precepts of Christ and his Apostles. Whoever in­troduce any such things into the Christian Church, and maintain any such opinions of them, are justly censured by the Apostle here, and fall under the condemnation of Seducers.

(4.) These things, whatsoever shew of Wisdom and Humility they make, are really the effects of Pride and Folly.

(1.) Of Pride: which appears,

1. By a great presumption of their great Skill and Knowledge in the Mysteries of Religion, and of what is most pleasing to God; Intruding into V. 18. those things which he hath not seen, vainly puft up by his fleshly mind. So that here was a great outward appearance of Humility and Mortification; but within nothing but Pride and Vanity. It hath been long observed, that those who strive to exceed others in the outward shews and appearances of [Page 17] Humility and neglect of the Body, have been most li­able to the Temptations of Sp ritual Pride; i. e. to a high opinion of themselves, and a contempt of o­thers, which they have manifested by an invin­cible stiffness in maintaining their own opinions; a readiness to impose them upon others; and im­patience of contradiction from any.

2. By an affectation of greater Humility, than appears in others. These Seducers, we see, pre­tended to nothing more than Humility. Their Wor­ship of Angels was from Humility; their neglect of the Body from Humility too: they made so much shew of it, as gave reason to suspect Pride lay at the bottom. For it is more real Humility to be con­tented to be thought Proud unjustly, than to la­bour for such an opinion of more than ordinary Humility, as these Seducers did.

(2.) Of Folly; in two things.

1. In placing the main of their Religion in things that would not bear the weight of it, which the Apostle intimates in those Words, Which all are to perish with the using: i. e. as the Greek In­terpreters V. 22. Vid. Theod. Theophyl. explain it, the matters of eating and drink­ing are no such great things, that so much ado should be made about them. For as our Saviour saith, Not Matt. 15. 11. 17. that which goeth into the Mouth defileth a Man; for it goeth into the Belly, and is cast out into the draught. And therefore saith the Apostle, The Kingdom of Rom. 14. 17, 18. [Page 18] God is not Meat and Drink, but Righteousness and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost; for he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved of Men.

2. In supposing the following their own Inven­tions to be more pleasing to God, than the obser­ving his own Commands. For this seems to be at the bottom of all; these Seducers made no que­stion, but they had found out ways much more pleasing to God, than those which were in com­mon esteem and practice in the Christian Church­es. So that which is called here [...], is by the Latins rendered in Superstitione: i. e. in an opinion of pleasing God by some par­ticular Rites of their own; in making much of their Religion to lye in forbearing some things and doing others, which God never required, and are made no parts of the Christian Religion by Christ or his Apostles. So that here are two parts of the Superstition here spoken of.

1. Forbearing some things as unlawful, which God never made unlawful by any prohibition, Touch not, taste not, handle not. The root of their Superstition did not lie, as some imagin, in sup­posing the things which they did forbear as in themselves abominable, as some Hereticks did; but in an opini­on, that God would be so much pleased with the meer forbearance of them, that those who [Page 19] design to please God, were bound to abstain from them, although he had never forbidden them. And there is a material difference between these three things. (1.) Abstaining from things as in themselves unlawful to be used. (2.) Preferring the Abstinence before the Use, on some particular Seasons and Occasions. (3.) Making the forbearance of them as unlawful (though not sorbidden) as necessary to the pleasing of God. There were such who did utterly for­bid the use of Marriage and Meats, of whom the Apostle speaks, 1 Tim. 4. 3. And the Christian Church, as S. Augustine observes, doth not fall under this censure of the Apostle, when in some cases it prefers Abstinence from both. Ille prohibet, saith he, qui hoc malum esse dicit, non Aug. c. Faust. l. 30. c. 6. qui huic bono, aliud melius anteponit. But yet there may be a Superstitious Abstinence, without that Su­perstitious opinion; or else the Christian Church had no reason to condemn the Abstinence of the Montanists, who, as Tertullian pleads for them, ut­terly rejected that opinion. Neither was it meerly Tert. de Jej. c. 15. because Montanus wanted Authority to make Laws of Abstinence. But Tertullian acquaints us with o­ther arguments against it, chiefly from the unsuitable­ness of it to the design of Christianity. And to im­pose such Abstinence as necessary to the pleasing God, is that which the Church condemned in [Page 20] Montanus; and the believing it is a Superstitious opini­on; though of another sort from that wh ch made the Use of them in it self unlawful. For they did it upon an extravagant fancy, that no living Crea­tures were of Gods making, but were produced by some other powers in opposition to him; as appears by the Gnosticks, the Marcionists, the Manichees, and the En [...]ratitae. But the same reason could not hold as to those Judaizing Christians, who believed the World and all living Creatures were produced by the Power of God. For Irenaeus saith, that the Iren. l. 1. c. 26. Ebionites did hold that God was the Maker of the World; and therein they differ'd from the Cerinthians, as well as in some other opinions; yet these Ebionites pretended to be Christians, and universally abstained from Flesh, as Epiphanius saith: not that they had Epiph. haer. 30. p. 139. any reason to account Flesh abominable; but they had learnt from the Essens to abstain from it, and thought it greater Sanctity so to do.

2. Their Superstition did lie in supposing that God would be mightily pleased with their doing some things of their own invention, as the Worship of Angels was; which was so far from being com­manded by God in the Law of Moses, that they had thence many arguments against it: but not­withstanding they thought there was so much of Humility and Complement to God Almighty in it, that he could not but be very much pleased with [Page 21] it. And when men lay a great weight of Reli­gion upon doing or forbearing things, neither com­manded nor forbidden by the Law of God, that is so far from being a pleasing Worship of God, that it deserves no other name but that of Supersti­tion and Will-worship; as they do imply a shew of Wis­dom, without the Truth and Power of it.

But here arises the main difficulty; ‘How shall we put a difference between what is pleasing to God, and what is not; or between true Religion and Superstition? For since the Apostle implies that some things may have a shew of Wisdom in them, i. e. may seem pleasing to God, which are not so; and other things may be more pleasing to God, which do not make such a shew of Wis­dom to Men; it seems to be a matter of as great difficulty as concernment to us, to understand the just and true bounds between Religious and Superstitious Worship.’

This is an enquiry of so great moment and con­sequence, for the easing our minds of many trou­ble ome doubts and fears, and setling in them a true notion of Religion; that I shall from hence apply my self to the consideration of the true difference between the reasonable Worship of God, and Superstition.

Superstition in the general, is nothing else but an unpleasing Worship of God. I do not speak of that Worship which relates to a false object; which [Page 22] is more properly Idolatry; but when that Wor­ship is ultimately referred to a true Object, as in the Worship of Angels as Mediators, then it is Su­perstition too; it being an undue way of giving Worship to the true God. I shall not trouble my self with an enquiry into the Etymology of the words in Greek or Latin, it being well observed by Aquinas, that in this matter we are not so much to Aq. 2. 2. q. 92. observe the Etymology of Superstition, as the use of the Word. And that hath been different according to mens notions concerning Religion.

Those who believed no God at all, or at least no Providence, accounted all Religion to be nothing but Superstition. And it is a weak and silly Apo­logy a late Commentator on Lucretius makes for his saying, so much mischief hath been done by Religion; Tan. Fabr. Not. p. 294. by Religion, saith he, he meant Superstition; for he accounted all Religion to be nothing else but Su­perstition. And those in our Age, who can find no other difference between them; but that one is allowed, and the other not; or one is what we like, and Leviath. ch. 6. ch. 11. the other what we dislike; do destroy any real dif­ference between them; and make only Religion a Superstition in fashion; and Superstition a Religion out of fashion. Whereas if there be a God and Pro­vidence, there must be such a thing as true Reli­gion: i. e. there ought to be some Acts in us a­greeable to the Conceptions we have of the Di­vine [Page 23] Nature. For, His Majesty and Power re­quires our Fear; not an amazing, confounding, unaccountable Fear, arising from a perplexity and disorder of our imaginations; but a just, reasonable, prudent Fear, springing from our most serious thoughts and deepest consideration of things. For, if it be impossible for any thinking man to satisfie himself in the train of Causes, but he must come to this thought at last, that there is some Cause, whereof there is no former Cause, but is Eter­nal; which is that we call God; then it is impossible if this man pursues his own thoughts, but the first Consequence from hence will be, that if this God be the first cause of all things, his Power and Majesty is so great, as to command a due Reve­rence and Fear from us his Creatures. This is not such a Fear as Men have in a storm, or when a sudden calamity seizeth upon them, which makes them at their wits end, and to run they know not whither for present help; but it is a settled, calm, composed temper of mind; a Fear without consternation; an Awe and Reverence of the Divine Majesty, without terrour and astonishment. For, as the mighty Power of God begets fear in us, so the infinite Goodness and Wisdom of God, not only keep up mens minds from sinking into slavish Fear, and horrible despair; but fills them with com­fortable hopes, and a patient and humble Trust [Page 24] and Confidence in his never-failing Providence. And this is the Nature of true Religion in the Minds of Men.

But because it tends to the honour of our Ma­ker, and the incouraging one another to Acts of Piety and Devotion, that this inward sense of our Minds be expressed by such external Acti­ons as are agreeable thereto, from thence came the necessity of the publick Offices of Religion, wherein we offer up our Prayers and Praises to the Divine Majesty in acknowledgment of our Dependence upon him for what we have, or are, or hope for. And there is nothing in all this, but what is highly just and reasonable, and this is true natural Religion.

But then we cannot deny, that there is too great a natural proneness in Mankind to Supersti­tion. For, when men cannot shake off the ap­prehension of a Deity, and yet are conscious to themselves that they have offended him; the ve­ry thoughts of him prove so uneasie to them, that they would be glad to believe there were none at all, and give all the advantage to A­theistical Objections which a willing mind can do: And as Plutarch observes of Superstitious Men, they would be Atheists if they durst. But find­ing still an inward dissatisfaction, and an impossi­bility of rooting out the fears of a Deity; the [Page 25] next thing is, to think upon some ways to please him, and to mitigate his displeasure against them. And we can hardly imagine any thing so pompous and ceremonious, so mean and servile, so cruel and barbarous, so ridiculous and foppish, but Mankind have made use of it to atone the anger of their Gods. For, the first effect of Supersti­tion, on Mens minds, was; that they durst not make immediate Applications to the Supreme Being, as being too great and powerful for them: there­fore they pitched on some inferiour Beings to me­diate, and to offer up their Devotions and Sacri­fices to him, whom they thought it too great pre­sumption to approach. When thus Superstition in the most proper sense of [...] had in a great measure supplanted true Religion in the World; then it proceeded to find out such ways and me­thods of Worship, as they thought would be most pleasing to these inferiour Deities. They erected Temples and Altars to them, and set out their Ima­ges with all the Art and Splendor they were ca­pable of; and upon extraordinary Occasions they were carried with wonderful Pomp and Solemni­ty through the Streets, all Orders of Men attend­ing them with Supplications and Prayers and cost­ly Sacrifices to avert their Wrath and Displeasure. And they were not content with promiscuous Sa­crifices, but they studied by all possible means to [Page 26] find out what Sacrifices would please them best; if they fancied it must be something very dear and precious to them, they stuck not at offering up their very children to appease them; and contrived by loud Musick to stop their ears from hearing the hideous cries of their Children while they were roasting in the flames. And in their ordinary Sacrifices, they were extremely scru­pulous, lest any spot or blemish, or number, or unfit season, or so much as colour should be dis­pleasing to the Gods they offered them to: some must have white and uneven; others black and even sacrifices; some must have their Sacrifices of­ferd at the rising, some at the setting of the Sun; some must have one sort of Beasts, and some a­nother; and some no less than Mans flesh would satisfy; which inhumane Sacrifices, on some oc­casions, did almost universally obtain, before the Christian Religion prevailed in the World. But again, other Deities were presumed to be so nice and squeamish, that nothing was to be offered them but Milk, and Wine, and Honey, and some Fruits of the Earth. It were infinite to relate the Rites and Customs of their Sacrifices, and all the ways they used to please their Gods, and to find out whether they were pleased or not; by the po­sture, the tongue, the entrails of their Beasts; by the flying of Birds, the feeding of Chickens, the fall­ing [Page 27] of a staff, the holes of a sieve, &c. and in­numerable ways of Divination, by which they flatter'd themselves that they understood the good Will and Pleasure of their Gods, which did not so much satisfy their curiosity, as fill them with perpetual fears, and oppress them with the hor­rible Bondage of Superstition; which exalted al­most every thing to the honour of a Deity, and made themselves miserable by seeking to please them.

But although this were the deplorable state of Mankind, forsaken of God and left to their own inventions; yet such is the weakness and folly of Men, that when God himself had given a Law to the Israelites to regulate their Worship, with as much condescension to their weakness, as the Wisdom of his Laws would permit; yet so great was the Witchcraft of Superstition, that they were always almost hankering after the Dotage of their neighbour Nations. And although they often smarted severely for it; yet the rod was no soon­er off, but they were ready to return to their for­mer Superstitious vanities, and were so obstinately bent upon them, that nothing could move them; not their former experience; not the un­reasonableness of the thing; not the terrible de­nunciations of Gods heavy judgments against them; till at last, when there was no remedy, [Page 28] the whole People were carried into Captivity; from whence the greatest part never returned, and their very memory is lost by a mixture with other Nations. Those who returned, have been so wise ever since, as to abhor that provok­ing sin of Idolatry; which their Ancestors suffered so much for: but by degrees they fell into other kinds of Superstitions. For it was thought a mean thing among them to keep to the Law; but the Traditions of their Elders were looked upon as pre­cious things; and happy was the Man that was strictest in the observance of them. Their fre­quent Washings, their additional Fastings and Prayers, their Garments, their Postures, their ve­ry Looks had such an appearance of Sanctity a­bove other Mens; that a man who kept only to the Law, was of no regard or esteem for Piety and Devotion.

This was the state of Religion among the Jews when Christ appeared, who laid open the fop­pery and hypocrisie of these great pretenders to extraordinary Sanctity. He directed men to the love of God and their Neighbours, as the main sub­stantial parts of true Religion. And next to his making a propitiation for the sins of Mankind by the Sacrifice of himself, his great end was to re­store true Religion to the World, which had been so long buried under the heap of Superstitions. [Page 29] And there needed so great an Authority as his was, to assure Mankind, that nothing was so pleasing and acceptable to God, as unaffected Pi­ety, and universal Goodness; which compre­hends under it all the Duties of Temperance, Righteousness and Charity. And it is one great Argument of the Providence of God watching over his Church, that he hath caused the Discour­ses of our Blessed Saviour to be preserved by the Writings of the Evangelists; without which in all likelihood, the Christian Religion had been long since lost in the World. For the Jewish Chri­stians who corrupted Christianity, had represented St. Peter as so favourable to them; and so mis­represented St. Paul; that unless Christs Doctrine had been preserved in his own words, and that by the concurrent Testimony of different Wri­ters, the Christian Religion had preserved little more than its name in the World.

And yet with all this advantage, such was still the fondness of Mankind for their own Inven­tions, that even under the Apostles eyes, most of the Churches began to be tainted with these cor­ruptions; partly by the Judaizing Christians; and partly by the followers of Simon and Menander. But they all agreed in something new and myste­rious, and more pleasing to God, than the dull and common way of Faith and Obedience. After [Page 30] the Apostles decease, the corruptions still multi­plied, and any new pretence to Revelations and Mysteries, especially being joined with greater Abstinence and severity of Life, took wonderfully a­mong weak and injudicious Christians, and made them apt to despise the Churches Devotions, as too cold and flat, and not having that Life and Spirit, that Strictness and Austerity which appeared a­mong the new pretenders. What disturbance on this account did the Spirit of Montanus give to the Churches of Phrygia, Galatia, and Cappadocia? The meer pretence to Revelation had never done it, had it not been for the stricter Laws of Fast­ing and Mortification, and greater Severity of Di­scipline than was used in the Catholick Church. It was this which made Tertullian swallow the bait he had despised before; and the force of all his Ar­guments against the Church is, we are stricter than you. But notwithstanding all these pretences, the Christian Church still kept it self within its bounds, making nothing necessary to Salvation, but what Christ and his Apostles had made so; yet recommending the Practice of Fasting, as there were just Occasions, especially before the great so­lemnity of Easter; wherein both the Sacraments were administred with more than ordinary De­votion, and the Penitents reconciled to the Commu­nion of the Church.

[Page 31] If we look at this day into the state of the Christian World; how great a part of it is relap­sed into almost Heathen Superstitions, in the Wor­ship of Images, and Saints, and Angels as Media­tors? and no great difference in the outward So­lemnities and Processions, save that their Sacrifices are turned into a Consecrated Wafer, which is car­ried in Procession, as the Heathen Gods were wont to be. It is true, there are great pretences to Will-worship, and Humility, and neglecting the Body in several Orders of Men; and those are looked on as ways of greater perfection, than living in the World, and doing good in it. Which we have no reason to think agreeable to the Doctrine of Christ or our Apostle here. But where there is not only Sanctity and Merit, placed in such obser­vations, but Supererogation too, they flatly contra­dict S ^t Paul; for if that be true, these things have far more than the shew of Wisdom; for what wiser thing can any man do, than not only to provide for his own Salvation, but for others too?

In the Eastern Churches, the best part, I fear, of their remaining Christianity, lies in the strict observ­ing the Fasts and Feasts of the Church. They mightily despise the Fasting practised in the Ro­man Church, as not deserving the name of Fasting, because they end it at noon, and allow Wine and Fish for their repasts. Although it is said [Page 32] that of late the Greeks break the strict Fast at noon; Mich. Nau. Eccl. Graec. Effig. p. 260. Bas. hom. de jejun. Chris. hom. 6. ad Pop. An­tioch. but in St. Chrys. and St. Basils time they account­ed it no Fast wherein they did not totally abstain till night. The more Eastern Christians allow neither Fish, nor Wine, nor Oyl in their Lents, and they keep more in the Year than the Latin Church V. Job. Ludolph. Hist. AEthi­pic. l. 3. c. 6. n. 8 [...]. Thom. à Jesu de Convers. omnium Gent. l. 7. c. 18. Cotovic. Itiner. Hi­erosolymit. & Syriac. p. 207. Franc. Quaresm. Elucid. Terrae Sanctae l. 1. c. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58. Eustrat. Zialouski de Eccles. Orient. Graec. p. 39. Me­troph. Critopul. c. 18. Haud scio, inquit Methodius Graecus (apud Mich. Nau. in Eccles. Graecae ef­figie Dial. 13) unde factum sit ut vos Latini a reliquis Christi­anorum Nationibus, sic in jeju­nando recesseritis, ut nulla vobis nè Maronitana quidem, quae tota vestra est, consentiat. Jejunatis sabbato, feriâ 4. Non abstinetis ab esu Carnium; pisces, & qui­busdam in locis, lacticinia, qua­dragesimali tempore comeditis, solvitis meridie jejunium, &c.

In the Church of England, which approacheth nearest of any in the World to the Pri­mitive Church, the Duty of Fasting is recommended upon its true Grounds, not as though there were any peculiar Sanctity or Merit in it, which are Superstiti­ous Conceits, but to keep the Body in Subjection to the Spirit. It lays no snares upon the Con­sciences of Men; it gives no Countenance to hypocritical pre­tences to Fasting; but it sets be­fore us the example and practice of the Primitive Church, and ac­cording to the temper and Mo­deration then used, leaves per­sons to judge of their own strength, occasions, times, manner and degrees of Fasting; except­ing the Fast on good Friday or the true ANtepaschal Fast (which some kept longer than others) which Ter­tullian [Page 33] saith, was universally observed by the Christian De Jei. c. 2. Church, as a necessary Fast, and had been so from the Apostles times; but as to other times a greater liber­ty was allowed,

Yet even this Church, that is so wise, so moderate, cannot escape the charge of Will-worship and Su­perstition, for the Orders that are observed in it. But wherein is it that we are liable to this charge? Do we make the Orders of the Church any parts of our Religion? Or think that God is any other­wise displeased with others violation of them, than as it argues a froward, restless, unpeaceable Spirit? But what is it then? God, say they, hath not commanded these things, therefore they are Will-wor­ship and Superstition.

This is an Objection, which for the honour of our Church I must remove, before I proceed to what remains. The true Case among us is this, The Church appoints such Orders to be observed in it, which have no express command in Scripture; some utterly refuse them as unlawful, though no where forbidden in Scripture; the Question is, [Page 34] Whether of these two sorts, those who practise according to these Orders, or those who utterly refuse, are liable to the charge of Will-worship and Superstition?

To clear this, we must state the notion of Will-worship and Superstition as they are here used by the Apostle, and then apply it to the present Case.

(1.) Will-worship I have shew'd, is nothing but a forwardness to do something that relates to the pleasing of God; and is said by the Apostle to have a shew of Wisdom, and therefore can be no more evil in it self, than Humility, or neglecting the Body; but whether it be good or evil is to be de­termin'd by circumstances.

(2.) Those circumstances which make it ill are, when men make those things a part of their Religion, which God hath neither commanded nor forbidden; and think God is pleased with their meer doing or abstaining from doing them, and this is true Superstition. For there are two things necessary to the Notion of it.

1. That the matter about which it is con­versant relate to the pleasing of God. Superstition I grant, hath been taken by Plutarch and others from him, for a dreadful apprehension of the Deity; but that is rather the foundation of Superstition, than the definition of it. For a Superstitious Man [Page 35] doth both think God to be angry without just cause, and beyond reason; and to be pleased a­gain without reason. If he thought God inex­orable upon his Displeasure, he must presently despair; but because he thinks he may be easily pleased again, therefore he bethinks himself in what way he may best do it; and so devises se­veral ways of his own, and useth any means suggested by others, though never so unreason­able in themselves, in hopes to please God by them. Thence Plutarch mentions such Mens, [...], uncouth ways of Worship; and he observes, that at the same time, [...], they flatter and reproach God; they think unworthily of him, as of one that is [...] ve­ry easily provoked; and yet that he is [...], as easily changed; and that is the reason why a Su­perstitious fear puts men upon finding out any ways and methods to please him, though never so unreasonable; for they looking upon God as a peevish, angry, humoursome Being, they have no certain Rule to judge what will please him, and therefore follow their own fancy and imagi­nation about it.

2. That they be mistaken in their judgment concerning what they believe to be pleasing to God, that is, that they judge that to be so, which really is not. So Superstition is an excess or over­doing [Page 36] in the matter of Worship; that which doth modum legitimum cultus superstare & excedere, saith Vossius; which Etymology he thinks much bet­ter Voss. Etym. Cic. l. 1. de N. D. than any other. Cicero saith, that Religion is pius cultus, Superstition timor inanis Deorum; i. e. one is a reasonable, the other an unreasonable Worship. So A. Gellius saith, it is inepta & impor­tuna Religio; a foolish and troublesome Religion. Festus applies it to those things which are done, praeter morem Civitatis; against the Custom prescrib­ed Fest v. Reli­gios. by Law. As those of the Church of Rome do, to things done against the commands of the Church: and so not fasting upon Saturdays, and fasting up­on Sundays are both Superstitious in their account; but all the Trumpery of the Mass, and Follies of their Worship are by no means Superstitious, be­cause required by the Church. Which however helps us with a good argument to prove that the Worship of Images, and Saints, and Angels are re­quired by their Church; or else by their own con­fession they must be Superstitious. But their Di­vines Aq. 2. 2. q. 92. Art. 2. q. 98. Art. 3. do all agree with Aquinas, that men may be guilty of Superstition in the Worship of the true God; i. e. when men make choice of something unfit or un­reasonable to express their Worship of God. And Sua­rez Suarez de Rel. tr. 3. l. 2. c. 1. quotes Cajetan, as allowing this Text to be extended to all Superstitious Worship not founded in right reason. And Cajetan upon the place saith, [Page 37] that although they have a shew of Wisdom; yet not in any honour, saith he, i. e. they deserve no esteem, being only for the satisfying of the flesh: i. e. of a car­nal desire as to these external observations.

(3.) The Superstition here condemned, lay in the supposing God to be pleased with the for­bearance of lawful things; touch not, taste not, handle not. Which if we understand either of Meats or Marriage, was a forbearance of things in themselves lawful; but they supposed God would be far better pleased with their forbearance of them. I do not say, it is Superstition for any man to abstain from doing what he apprehends to be unlawful by vertue of a general command: For that is a Moral Duty, and obedience to those places of Scripture which bid us abstain from all kind and appearance of evil. But yet it is plain here was a Negative Superstition in the forbearance of lawful things: And so it was in the dispute between Christ and the Pharisees about healing on Matt. 12. 10. 12. the Sabbath Day; they thought it unlawful: Christ declares it to be lawful to do good on the Sabbath Days. Here was no positive observance on the Pharisees part; Yet here was Superstition in them; and therefore the true notion of Supersti­tion doth extend to the forbearance of things in themselves lawful as displeasing to God.

But how shall we know, when such a for­bearance is Superstitious?

[Page 38] By these Rules:

1. If such a forbearance be thought to bring some special honour to God. For then, even Dr. Ames himself grants it to be Superstition, to abstain Fresh Suit, p. 101. from lawful things though accounted unlawful by the Per­sons who abstain; when some singular service and ho­nour is by that abstinence intended: For then he grants it to be a kind of Ceremonious Worship. The que­stion then is, when this case happens; for our Abstinence from Popish or Mahumetan Superstitions, is not any special Act of Service, or Honour to God. But if we lived where those Acts of Wor­ship were required by lawful Authority; and we refused to comply with them, that would be a special Act of Honour and Worship to God; it be­ing a declaration of our Minds, that we thought God dishonoured by such Acts, and therefore durst not comply with them. It was once a great Question among the Papists, whether they might lawfully come to our Churches, or not; and if not to our Prayers and Sacraments, yet to our Sermons, to avoid the severe Penalties of the Laws. And after great debate both by a Commi­ttee of the Council of Trent, and afterwards at Rome; it was resolved in the Negative, upon this Reason, because in our Circumstances, it was signum di­stinctivum cultûs, a mark of distinction as to Reli­gious Worship, and therefore it was an Act of spe­cial [Page 39] honour and service to God to forbear. To abstain from pouring out Wine, and throwing Incense in the fire, is in it self no Act of Worship; but when the Heathen Emperours commanded the Christians to do it, in token of compliance with their Religion; their abstaining then from it, was a singular Act of Worship to God. So in the present Case, when men are required by lawful Authority, to do things which in them­selves are lawful, to testifie their union and conjun­ction with us in Religion; their refusal in this Case is a special Act of Worship; and being with­out Ground, is nothing else but Superstition.

2. When men value and esteem themselves as more holy and more in the favour of God on the account of such forbearance. As the Phari­sees did on the account of their Traditions, who believed that God had no such people upon Earth as they were; and despised others who were far nearer to the Kingdom of God than themselves, as mere Publicans and Sinners. And it is very natural to Mankind to set a great value up­on themselves, for the sake of their affected sin­gularities in Religion; and in a transport of pride and vanity, to tell God himself, as the Pharisee did, That they are not like other Men: But this is a certain sign, whatfoever they pretend, that they look on the forbearance of the things which o­thers [Page 40] do, as a part of Holiness; and if they do so, it is undoubtedly Superstition. For, on this ground we charge the Papists with Superstition in their Ce­remonies, because they place holiness in them. It is true, they say they are the Instruments to convey some degrees of holiness to them; but this makes no material difference; for those who ac­count themselves more in God's esteem for the sake of such things, do attribute some real effica­cy to such distinctive Characters of themselves, as to the obtaining the favour of God.

3. When they forbear necessary Duties of Re­ligion rather than comply with others in lawful things, as Communion with the Church they live in, in Prayers and Sacraments: which cannot be denied to be necessary Duties; but if men resolve rather to forbear these, than to join in such Cere­monies and Prayers as do accompany the perfor­mance of them, it is a sign they prefer the follow­ing their own imaginations before the joining in Communion with the Church in the most unque­stionable Duties of Religion: As in the Case of the Encratitae of old, who thought it unlawful to taste of Wine; and therefore refused to commu­nicate in the Eucharist, unless they might have it in Water alone. Was not this a great Superstition in them, rather to forbear communicating with the Church, than not to observe their own fancies [Page 41] in what they thought most pleasing to God, as to the manner of doing it?

Now to apply this to our own Case.

We are often blamed for laying too great weight on the Ceremonies of this Church. But cer­tainly, never any Church laid less weight upon its own Orders, supposing that it believes them to be just and reasonable. It places no holiness, no merit, no efficacy in them, as to the obtaining the Grace and Favour of God: It expects obedience only for Order and Peace-sake; It hath taken great care by Prefaces and Canons and Rubricks, to prevent any misinterpretation of its intention and design.

But on the other side, those who dissent from us, lay so great weight on their scruples, that they will rather hazard breaking a Church in pie­ces, ruining our Religion by our differences, lo­sing all the benefit of Communion with a Church, whose Doctrine they approve in all the Duties of religious Worship; than they will yield to the al­lowance of those circumstances of our Commu­nion which our Church requires. And now on which side the charge of Superstition more justly lyes, let all that are impartial judge.

So much I thought necessary on this Occasion to speak, in vindication of our Church from this com­mon imputation of Superstition, by those who so little understand what it means.

[Page 42] Nothing now remains, but to make Application of all to our selves. You see how much mischief the shew of Wisdom was like to do in the Apostolical Churches; let us all have a care of being deceived by it. It was long since observed by Menander, That things which were like Truth were more easily believed by the gene­rality [...] Men. of Mankind, than Truth it self. So I am afraid it is about Religion, which is the Wisdomhere spo­ken of, that which makes a great shew of it to the World, is more apt to prevail among persons of weak and well disposed Minds than true Wisdom. For the shew of Wisdom strikes more upon the fancy and inclination of such Persons, than sober, calm and well-weighed Religion; which seems dull and flat to those who have more warmth and zeal than judgment and discretion. And I do not at all question, but many of the corruptions of the Christian Church came in, from an apprehen­ded necessity of complying with the heat of some over-zealous people; who were not contented with the plain and excellent Religion of Jesus Christ; but they must, as they thought, heigh­ten and improve it, till they had mixed with it the freaks of Enthusiasm, or the dotages of Super­stition.

In the Church of Rome there is in many things a shew of Wisdom, in Will-worship and Humility, and ne­glecting [Page 43] the Body; And in some of our Sects, that seem to abhor Will-worship so much, that for fear of it they will not give civil respect to men; yet they pretend to shew of Wisdom in Humility and ne­glecting the Body, but after a different manner: o­thers have a shew of Wisdom too in a wonderful, I had almost said, superstitious zeal, against what they call Will-worship and Superstition. But what is to be done in this Case? How shall we avoid be­ing led aside by such a shew of Wisdom, on every side? I shall only lay down some Directions, and so conclude.

(1.) Fix a true Notion of God and the Chri­stian Religion in your minds. If you judge aright of the Divine Nature, it will ease your minds of many uneasie thoughts, troublesome fears and su­perstitious fancies. He is not capable of being flattered or deceived by us; God is neither taken with outward appearances, nor is he pleased with any thing we do, merely because it is displeasing to our selves, The righteous God loveth righteousness; and he is pleased best with the innocency, integri­ty and holiness of our hearts and lives. And for the Christian Religion, take not your Notion of it from the different and uncertain opinions of Men, but from the Doctrines of Christ and his Apostles. Men do not read the Scriptures as they ought to do, with a design to know their Religi­on [Page 44] by them; but to justifie what they take to be Religion from them. One would think it were impossible for any one that considered the sayings of Christ or his Apostles, to place his Re­ligion in being for or against any particular Modes or Ceremonies of Worship; whereby he may so easily see that it lies chiefly in an excellent temper of mind, holy, spiritual, humble, calm, peaceable, charitable, and a suitableness of action to this temper. This is so plain and easie to be un­derstood, that he must read the New Testament with a very ill mind, that doth not find it out. And if you have settled this Notion of true Reli­gion, it will be a continual Touchstone about you to judge of all Pretenders.

(2.) Set not an equal value on things that are good in order to other things, that you do upon things that are good in themselves. For the one are but the Instruments of Religion, the other are properly the Duties of it. He hath shewed Mic. 6. 8. thee, O man, what is good, viz. to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God. And this was spoken when very costly Sacrifices were offered instead of it; no less than thousands, and ten thousands; yea the first-born, and the fruit of their Bodies. And therefore God sets a high value on these Duties, and so ought we. No one that hath any sense of Religion can despise the imme­diate [Page 45] Duties of Divine Worship; it being a good Saying of Pythagoras, mention'd by Cicero and Plu­tarch, that we are never better than when we ap­proach Plutarch de Superst. Cic. de Le­gib. l. 2. c. 9. to God; or, as Cicero expresses it, when we do rebus Divinis operam dare, are employed in the Duties of Divine Worship: But yet to do good is better than Sacrifice, and to forgive an in­jury than the fat of Rams. It is a wise Observa­tion Porta Mo­sis p. 201. of Maimonides, That the intention of the Law of God is to keep men within the just Bounds of Vertue; but when men found a stronger inclina­tion to one extreme than to another, they made use of remedies proper to reduce themselves from that extreme, by great severities towards them­selves, by Watchings, and extraordinary Fastings, and other hardships: But when Fools saw Wise men do these things, they imagined presently that there was an Excellency in the things themselves, and that if they did the same things, they should pass for very good men, and be highly in the fa­vour of God. Which, saith he, is just like an ignorant Fellow, who observing the Physicians prescribing Physick to his Patients, and forbid­ding eating to them, and finding them to recover upon it, should presently conclude, that surely it is the best way to live upon Scammony and Aloes, and such like, and to keep himself with the same strictness that was prescribed to the Sick; which [Page 46] instead of preventing a Disease, would certainly bring one: so, saith he, do those who use the remedies of diseased minds in a state of health, they spoil a good constitution of their souls, and make it uneasie and troublesome.

(3.) Judge of mens pretences, not by their out­ward shew and appearance, but by the Spirit and Temper that goes along with them. This was the course the Apostle here took; he regarded not their shew of Wisdom and great appearance of Humi­lity and Mortification; but he pursued these things to their Fountain-Head, and there he found no­thing but spiritual pride, and vanity of mind. We Ver. 18. must not judge easily nor rashly concerning this; but where the evidence is notorious, we have great reason to sleight and contemn the most san­ctimonious appearance, i. e. if there be great un­charitableness and censoriousness towards all who do not comply with them; great scorn and con­tempt of all other ways but their own; great ma­lice and spight against all who go about to oppose them; where these are, whether in the Church of Rome, or elsewhere, whatever the shew of wisdom be, this wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sen­sual, Jam. 3. 15. Ver. 17. devilish. But the Wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easie to be entreat­ed, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisie.