Apostles age is the first that writes about it and all he says is from certain Epistles received by Tradition n. 3. he sayes All the Provinces of Asia observed it on the fourteenth day as from a more ancient Tradition and a custome long before delivered to them which says the Doctor considering the time wherein this question was agitated at the end of the second Century can amount to little less then Apostolical But more then this in the Epistle of Pollycrates to Victor he says Many Biships of Asia observed the fourteenth day according to the Gospel keeping exactly the Canon of faith no way wavering from it A good while after comes Nicephorus no very credible Authour and says n. 10. Following the Apostolical tradition upward or from the beginning and that expresly from Saint Peter the Apostle which says the Doctor most confidently still leaves the matter most evident and irrefragable that this feast of Easter which sure is a Christian Festival was observed and celebrated by the Apostles c. This was spâ—ken for the practice of the Western Church whâ— kept on the Lords day but the Eastern observation might fall on any other day of the week as the Jewish Pasch did But Socrates in his time observed n. 16. That several nations had their several customes of observing Easter That is as his words are As in many other things so also the Feast of Easter by custome in every nation had a peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 private observation because none of the Apostles gave to any a Law about it Now these things hang not well together I shall propound some considerations to cool the Doctors confidence to weaken if not to break this his standard of all other Festivals and to make it more then probable that it is not Apostolicall 1. The best and onely ground he findes to pitch his Standard on is but Tradition unwritten Tradition not the least title of Scripture consequence but that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which by and by The plea is the very same with Papists for their Festivals and other Ceremonies Socrates who relates the debate between the Eastern and Western Churches and their plea on both sides from several Apostles addes But not a man of either side could produce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a written demonstration of these things They all plead unwritten uncertain Tradition Whereas a standard for all Festivals should have at least one foot standing upon a written word It is too much though too ordinary for the Doctor to comply with Rome in the countenancing of unwritten Traditions 2. Traditions Apostolical do sometimes imply their written Institutions and instructions Hold the Traditions * Traditiones vocat doctrinae institutu Religionis Christianae c. Estius in locum which ye have been taught by word or our Epistle 2 Thes 2.15 which no doubt were both the same But the Doctor though in the Authorities pleaded he is content they shall use the words Apostolical Tradition often yet himself waves it and never calls his Festivals an Apostolicall Tradition but an Apostolical observation * The words of Nicephorus in the margine p. 242. n. 5. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolical Authority which is more then custome practice c. not Englished by the Doctor custome practice n. 10.17 18 19. The reason is because an Apostolical Tradition to the Churches to keep might well infer an Institution and so Divine Authority which he knew he could never prove and therefore pleads Onely the Practice Apostolical and not their commanding it by Law n. 17. But say I Apostolical Practice onely makes it more uncertain and more unable to bear his Standard because they practised many things not as Christians or to be conveyed to Christian Churches but meerly too comply with the Jewes their countrey-men to win them the better as was said above 3. p. 242. n. 5 6. Yet what is that less then an Apostolical Divine Institution which Polycrates and his fellows plead for their custome All which saith he observed the fourteenth day according to the Gospel not at all transgressing but following the Canon of Faith But then it might be feared and inferred that Peter and Paul transgressed both against the Gospel and Canon of Faith in their contrary custome Let him see to that Is it not very probable that Paul who was often and long in Asia would have withstood Philip and John to their faces as he did Peter the prime Apostle in a like case Gal. 2. for judaizing and complying with the Jews in the Festival who had set up another Day in the Western Church or rather had cryed down the observation of such dayes in other Churches Rom. 14. Gal. 4. 4. If it were I say not of Apostolical Divine institution of Apostolical observation and practice as a Christian Festival would they have differed so in their Tradition of it to the Churches being guided all by the same Spirit would Philip and John observe and leave to the Eastern Churches the Jewish day and Peter and Paul the Lords day all of them jointly having appointed in all Churches a weekly day for the commemoration of the Resurrection which is also made the foundation of Easter day It 's nothing probable 5. If the Eastern observation of Easter was according to the Gospel and Canon of Faith how came it to pass that that custome was abolished as it was and the Western was established was not this to set the Churches together by the eares both of them pleading Apostolical Tradition 6. The Romish plea for their custome from Peter and Paul may reasonably be judged to be forged as their primacy of the Pope is For 1. it's most probable that Peter was never at Rome but uncertain and false Tradition so would have it as our best Divines do make it appear 2. It s most improbable that Paul who was so vehement against all observation of Feasts except the Lords day should institute or practice the same Festival and that at Rome and so build again what he had destroyed Rom. 14.6 Gal. 4. 7. It s no way credible that the Apostles all or any of them would first cry down the Festivals as Jewish and presently set it up as Christian or 2. set up an annual day for the commemoration of the Resurrection the Lords day being before set up for the same end 3. Or lay such a ground of difference to the succeeding Churches by different timeing of it Credat Judaeus apella Non ego 8. How came that contest between Victor and the Afiaticks about the day when the same difference was between him and the French and Brittain Churches No less then a threefold different observation of Easter in the Western Churches as was noted 9. Why does not the Dr. endeavour to recover the day which Philip our Apostle and first planter by some sent hither by him endowed us with and that according to the Gospel and
are his words then he does affirm they may not be abolished by any person or Church Yes upon better reasons they may then they had for using them This were very hard to finde in any after Church that they should be wiser then the Apostles to finde greater reasons for the abolishing then they had for using them He should have said instituting them not using them for we are speaking of a power to institute and abolish And yet here he forgat himself and talkes of reasons Whereon this Festival was supposed to be instituted Which word he hath warily waved all this while and pleaded onely Apostolical Practice and not Institution but let it go He therefore hasten'd to examine the present reasons of abolition of this Festival whether they were as important as those whereon this Festival was supposed to be instituted viz. that of the pious and thankful Commemoration of the Birth of Christ 2. Whether the reasons for abolition were not fained those of Will-worship and Superstition c. I shall answer first to the second question The Doctor may vainly hope that he hath evidenced them to be fained but will finde them stick too really upon his Festivals in his own opinion and practice which if it be made good I shall venture to say to the first that the reasons of abolition were as and more important then of the Institution because Superstition and Will-worship are most abominable to God and the birth of Christ may be piously and thankfully commemorated upon any other day as well as this And now n. 9. was it not more policy to say no worse then piety in him to wave all my discourse concerning the power of a Church to institute Ceremonies and to take leave to pass it over untoucht Which by the Laws of disputation would not be granted him For does it not concern his Festival neerly to know whether the Authority instituting it was sufficient if not its void ipso facto If so it behoved him to manifest it having asserted that this or any Church of the like foundation is invested with unquestionable power to institute Ceremonies for its self which consequently may not without great temerity be changed and abolished by any However this being excepted to and that as I think upon very good reasons it concerned him to have given me and the Reader satisfaction herein But let us hear how he colours his tergiversation The two branches of his proposition were no way concerned in any part of my state of the question 1. That a national Church planted by the Apostles or their successors may lawfully use a Festival for the commemorating the birth of Christ c. 2. That such an usage when it hath gained a reception ought not to be declaimed against as Antichristian or laid aside by persons under authority c. For this latter there is scarce one word of it in his proposition and for the former it must necessarily be founded upon this supposition That such a Church hath unquestionable power to institute such a Ceremony such a Festival Which if it be not proved as it is meerly begged let the using or usage be never so ancient having concurrence of other Churches yet it wants Authority for the continuance of it For the Doctor must know that its one thing To use a day for the Commemorating of the birth of Christ and on it to pray to praise God c. exhorting all good Christans to partake thereof and to lay aside their ordinary labours c. and another thing to institute a day as a Religious Festival making it as sacred as the Lords day Sabbath a part of Worship and a sin to work upon that day as Papists and the Doctor do And consequently if such Superstition and Will-worship be gotten into the observation of such a day it may be declaimed against in those respects as Antichristian and laid aside by those that have power in their hands which whether they had sufficiently who laid his Festival aside I leave to the Doctor to debate it with them as not concerning me who do believe that I have sufficient Authority from the word of God I say not to abolish an usage or custome not to observe any such day as is guilty of Superstition and Will-worship But to satisfie his credulous Reader who takes all his words as an Oracle he slurs my four leaves discourse thus n. 10. I shall omit now to take notice of the infirmities which this discourse of his is as full of as from any writing of no greater length may well be expected If it were so though others judge it not so it was the easier for him to have answered his charity uses not to hide or spare my infirmities In his 8. and 9. Sections p. 252. n. 1. c. there is little of moment to our main business some jerks and squibs there are not worth taking notice of and therefore I shall as he did with much more material things of mine take leave to pass them by untoucht and proceed to the next That I proved what I said p. 255. n. 3. That the first and purest ages of the Church did not observe his Christmas is the scope of my 6 and 7. Sections of Fest 1. By disproving the Antiquity of Easter to be Apostolical by three arguments which are again applied Sect. 27. to his Christmas and the Doctor ought to have taken notice of them 2. By the utter filence of the most ancient Records of the usages of the Church for the first 200 years at least which is most improbable they would not take notice of if then in use and practise Truly to use his own words my eyes or my memory very much fail me or he hath not in any degree out of any the most Ancient Records given any one instance of any one Father that speak one word of his Christmas Festival All he pleads is but the Analogie of it with that of Easter which hath been sufficienty spoken to and will again here which might plead something though not much for the observation of it when it was once set up but nothing at all for the Institution or Antiquity of it n. 4. And therefore he finely puts it off thus The dimness or want of stories of those times makes it not so evident of this of Christmas yet the Analogy holding directly between them the argument remains as firm that the laying aside those Festivals is a separation from the Apostolick purest times But first the Doctor speaks of the dimness of the first ages which sure is a figure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dimness for cimmerian Egyptian darkness The stories of those times would have been as clear for Christmas as for Easter if such a solemnity and usage had been in being in Ignatius and the next to him or in * Tertullian a man of great learning a diligent observer and recorder of the Customes and Practices of the most
whole Church in a manner runs madding into these very great abuses But said I this is pretty untempered morter and the sowing pillows under profane mens elbows For 1. For the eating part I meant the Riotous part he knows the Apostle did abolish the Love Feasts themselves not stay to reform the great and general abuses of them 2. For the sporting part such as was much unbeseeming the Festivity of such a Saviour the Doctor will not yeild that that shall be abolished save in case onely of great and general abuses Nay 3. not for great and general abuses Till they be so great as to out-ballance the good uses and so general that the whole Church runs madding into them 4. Those abuses I said have been long so great that they have out-ballanced the good uses and so general that the whole nation hath run mad into them and yet the eating and sporting part the riot revellings was never attempted to be reformed for those too common unreformable abuses the like whereof were found in and caused the abolition of those Love-feasts as he said p. 270. n. 18. Yet see again his good will and and respect to the Lords-day thus he says I as heartily wish a devout p. 272. n. 24 conscientious profitable observation of the Lords-day as of any other Festivity c. How greatly is God and his Day beholden to his liberality He says not I could wish the Festival days were as devoutly c. observed as the Lords-day that had prefer'd it a little as the standard of observation of Holy-days But his way depresses it below his Festivals and makes them as he did Easter above p. 243. the standard of devotion to the Lords-day And it 's very like his practice in observation of the Days was answerable for he told us of Christmas day That it was observed with much more at least as strictly as any Lords-day in the year Equal strictness was too much but more is more unequal and unjust This he would evade by interpreting the words by those which follow In frequenting the services of the Church in use of the Liturgy Sermon Sacraments c. without prejudice to the Lords-day on which the Lords Supper was not constantly celebrated But this confesses the fact that besides all that pompous shew in Cathedrals of Vestments and Musick c. the * The Sacrament of the Lords Supper I make an ingredient in the strictness of the Celebration of of the Festivity numb 27. pag. 172. Lords Supper which he knows was anciently celebrated every Lords-day and somewhere oftner should be enjoyned strictly to be celebrated on Christmas day and was by some so observed and not on the Lords-day This imported some greater Holiness and Honour to that day above the Lords-day and we then might have wished as heartily as the Doctor does now that the Lords day might have been kept as devoutly c. as the Festival day and fit it was it should have had some preheminence as being of Divine Institution which his Festival had not The Apostolical Institution of the Lords-day was I thought granted by the Doctor Fest Sect. 31. and Apostolical Institutions to be Divine was also asserted Quer. 1. s 22. p. 273. n. 30. Yet how willingly would he and how subtlely does he retract what he had granted to make either the Lords-day equally Ecclesiastical with his Festival or his Festival equally Apostolical with the Lords-day For I having charged him to assert Sect. 57. The Lords-day to be by the same authority appointed viz. of the Church See how he shuffles to avoid it first I did grant it though I know not in what words of Scripture that Institution of the Lords day is set down Was he not then too rash to acknowledge what he could not by Scripture some way make out He pleads Infant Baptism to be the institution of Christ of Apostolical Practice though he cannot tell where to find either of them in Scripture He might have gratified the Lords-day with the same allowance especially having the mention of the Lords-day there and observation of it by the Apostles which presupposes an Institution which the other wants 2. He takes off the objection from s 57. thus p. 273. n. 30. Those words there used Though the Lords-day be by the same authority appointed do not belong to the stating of the question and no affirmation that the Lords-day is not instituted by any higher authority then Christmas-day c. Let the Reader turn to the place and judge He had said The same Church or any other authority equal to that obliges c. Then follows And though the Lords day be by the same Authority appointed that must needs be the Church which obliges c. 3. But he goes on and says He is confessed in my Margent to have said the Apostles instituted the Lords day and he speaks as plainly Sect. 57. of Christmas day that it hath it's Institution and usage from the universal Church But I ask if he equivocate not with us does not this put a plain difference between the Institution of the Lords-day and Christmas-day the one Apostolical the other Ecclesiastical or else he must make them both of the same Authority and was not that his designe without any calumny Here yet more 4. Either this is a calumny in the Diatribist or else that the word Church must be taken so as to comprehend that part of it of which the Apostles were rulers in person and then what harm hath been in that speech thus interpreted the Church of the Apostles Instituted the Lords-day and either they personally or their successours used and delivered down the other Festivals of Easter c. But this is a miserable prevarication For 1. What means he by the Church of the * See p. 39. n. 4. Universal Church including the Apostles chief pastors thereof or the succeeding Churches with their Governors Apostles which instituted the Lords-day either the Apostles themselves as it 's usual with some to call the Rulers the Bishops onely the Church and then it is of Divine Institution and so differs sufficiently from Institutions of the succeeding Church or Rulers Or the Church without or with the Apostles but he cannot shew any such power in the Church to institute Ceremonies as parts of Worship without them or with them neither then could it be called an Apostolical Institution but Ecclesiastical rather if the Apostles were not considered as Apostles but as Governors of the Church and so not of Divine Institution 2. Yet how doubtfully he speakes of his Christmas Either they personally or their Successours used and delivered down the other Festivals If not they personally but their successours then behold a different authority again they personally instituted the Lords-day but not his Christmas then they are not both by the same authority appointed 3 Yet more warily They or their successors used and delivered down the other Festivals He should have
a Religious Feast Truly he must be very partial whom this will convince All these may be found in a civil Feast A day of rest from ordinary labours An assembly at the Common Halls or places of meeting or places of the vulgars recreations A day of Feasting and gladness c. Onely one thing the Doctor would insinuate which certainly was not at Shuphan portions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as in a Sacrifical Feast Which Sacrifices might be onely at Jerusalem This he did to make it seem a Religious Feast which had it been done would not make the Feast Religious as was said above 2. If it was a Religious Feast others answer Mordecai was a Prophet and so directed by God to make it so which the Doctors Festival wants If that Feast of Purim had not such Divine Authority and yet made a Religious Feast as the Doctor will needs have it I dare still say they went beyond their commission and the Doctor shall justifie my assertion who condemnes all new sorts of Worship as unlawful Concerning the Institution of the Lords-day to be Divine whether by Christ himself or the Apostles enough hath been said in another place and I shall not renew that debate at this time And how odious the frequent comparisons if not preferment of his Festivals with the Lords-day were hath been manifested above The Doctor cannot yet forbear but he must either level the Lords-day to his Festival or advance his Festivals into the same Chair of Estate with the Lords-day for thus he says p. 284. n. 5. He teaches his Catechumene thus from Acts 20.7 That the Lords day was the time so early set apart to the Lords Supper and such holy duties and for collections Pract. cat 2. ed. p. 273. The parallel that I set betwixt the Lords-day and Christmas was onely this that as neither of them was found prescribed or by law commanded in Scripture so the want of such law should be no prejudice to the one more then to the other as long as by some other way it appeared of the one that it was derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church as of the other that it came immediately from the Apostles Now 1. These last words spoil his parallel that the Lords-day came immediately from the Apostles and that as an Institution Divine whereas his Festival came not at all from any Institution of the Apostles but from the usage of the succeeding Church 2. That the Lords-day had a law to found it on the fourth Commandment for one day of seven of Divine appointment as was shewed above and needed onely a Divine designation which was done by Christ or his Apostles but his Festival had no law to found it on but rather a prohibition if made a part of Worship But yet the Doctor goes on If the Apostles usage gave to one a Divine Authority the usage of the succeeding Church must be next to that though not Divine and the latter lawfull yea and obligatory as well though not in so high a degree as the former Here are misadventures enough for so few lines 1. He now secretly waves the Apostles Institution of the Lords-day and brings it to their usage that so it might be equal to his Festival an usage onely 2. Then he would have it supposed for he is excellent at suppositions that will not be granted him that the usage of the Apostles will make any thing Divine which is most unreasonable unless he will again recal and establish as Divine the old Sabbath and other Jewish Ceremonies 3. He hath much ado to forbear to say The usage of the succeeding Church must be Divine also next to that and lawful and obligatory almost as much as that of the Apostles as well though not in so high a degree 4. If the Authority for instituting of the Lords-day and his Festivals be the same as he hath asserted often and both derived from the Apostles then either the usages and Festivals of the succeeding Church are Divine or those of the Apostles are but humane and Ecclesiastical And then the usages of the succeeding Church are not onely lawful and obligatory as well as those of the Apostles but as much and in as high a degree also the Authority being the same But the Doctor is engaged and cannot fairly go back that the Lords-day is of Apostolical Institution and their Institution also Divine and does not that carry in it Divine prescrition or Law He will help himself by a distinction n. 6.284 If by institution be meant giving law for the observation of it then there is no doubt of his proposition n. 7. But 't is possible that Institution of the day by the Apostles may signifie that the Apostles practice in assembling weekly on the Lords day should have the force of an Institution or Law with the succeeding Church though the Apostles gave no law for it or no such law appears from them Never I think was it heard that an Apostolical usage was called by the name of an Apostolical Institution Or that the Apostles practice was ground sufficient to make an Institution or Law to the succeeding Church Yes sayes he n. 8. The Aposiles examples are the onely way of conveying some usages to us without any their prescript Law and in this sense I consent to the Diatribist that their Institutions carry in them Divine prescription or a Law But I shall not thank him for this consent and shall enter my discent against this last proposition That the Apostles examples c. He should have instanced in some such usages onely that carry in them a Divine Law and have no other grounds of Scripture to import a Divine Institution And if such usages carry in them a Divine Law why hath he not spoken out and told us that his Festivals being derived from the Apostles or the succeeding Church are Divine Institutions and not onely Apostolical usages Yet he growes confident to demand this as granted n. 9. That whatsoever else shall be in the same manner derived to us through all ages of the Church from the times of the Apostles themselves may be acknowledged also to carry a Divine impression upon it He means as well as the Lords-day This this is the Helena the Doctor so contends for to stablish by Tradition that which cannot be proved from Scripture But I would say 1. There are not many things so derived to us from the Apostles through all ages except the Lords-day and Infant Baptisme though this latter hath not in Scripture Apostolical practice as the former hath But had not both of them sufficient grounds in Scripture to infer a Divine Institution Infants communicating in the Lords Supper continued six hundred years in the Church sayes Dr. Morton Appeal l. 2. c. 13. s 3. I for my part should not be much perswaded by a meer Apostolical usage through many ages from the Apostles themselves For it s known the Apostles
in all his Ordinances c. I spare to produce any more of our Divines and return to the Doctor He says 1. Thou shalt not take the Name c. is undoubtedly no more then thou shalt not forswear thy self 2. Swearing simply is not reduced to this Commandment I demand then to what Commandment was common rash ordinary swearing reduced or were the Jewes indulged swearing as some of the Fathers seem to hold and to swear by the creatures also The Law Deut. 6.13 c. Thou shalt swear by his Name imports two things 1. That swearing there was not meant of Ordinary swearing in common discourse but upon just occasions before a Magistrate c. 2. That when they did swear they must swear by the Name of God that is by God himself and no other creature or thing That Law of Moses was not a permission as the Doctor calls it but a precept What then does the Doctor mean by swearing simply taken c. That it was sometimes lawful to swear upon just occasions That 's allowed also in the Gospel our Saviour came not to void that Law or that * See p. 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all is forbidden by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 3. Com. As if it were allowed by the Law before simple swearing either without perjury or ordinarily by the Name of God was permitted the * Seep 46. n. 12. Voluntary swearing at all is forbidden by Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 3. Com. As if it were allowed by the Law before Jewes by Moses This I suppose he will not say Yet faintly sayes the contrary Perhaps foolish wanton sure prophane blasphemous using of Gods Name may be resolved to be there forbidden by reduction Is it but perhaps foolish and wanton using of Gods Name may be resolved to be there forbidden It 's well he will yield that profane and blasphemous using of Gods Name is there forbidden Yet I would be bold to ask my Catechist one question more How can I say not foolish and wanton profane and blasphemous using of Gods Name be forbidden in that Commandment so much as by reduction if the taking Gods Name in vain be undoubtedly no more then thou shalt not forswear thy self Cannot men profane and blaspheme Gods Name but onely when they forswear themselves or have foolish and wanton using Gods Name by common swearing any thing to do with perjury I would but propound this argument To use the Name of God unreverently was ever a Sin against some moral Law but to use the Name of God foolishly wantonly much more profanely blasphemously is to use the Name of God unreverently and vainly ergo If against a Moral-law I ask again Against which Commandment if not against the third To shut up this the Doctor sayes Pract. Cat. p. 121. Swearing by other inferior things are now utterly unlawful What now onely were they not so in the Old-law It seemes not by the Doctor for he sayes this is something that Christ hath added to perfect the Law A Christian must not use any of those Oaths Belike a Jew might But why not a Christian now Hear his reason Because every of these are Creatures of God whose whole being consists in reference to him not to be subjected to their lust to be tost defamed by their unnecessary oaths Will not the same reason serve against the Jewes swearing by inferior Creatures were they not then the Creatures of God and the rest Why might not the Doctor have given this reason because it is a taking of Gods Name in vain which is much made known by the Creatures and against the Commandment which requires that when men do swear they swear onely by his Name But these would have marred his new gloss I leave it to him And now we are come to consider the subject of the fourth Commandment the right time his own appointed day Which he does not cannot deny for he hath granted it elsewhere but yet hath somewhat to say p. 44. n. 6. 1. Sure not so as to prohibit all others there were other Fast and Feasts appointed besides the weekly rest c. 'T is true but then they were of Gods own appointment who may dispense with his own Lawes and if appointed by men they were but Circumstances not parts of Worship as the Doctor confesses But I was speaking of Worship he knows In Religion or Worship of God four things are considerable the last whereof is a right Time his own appointed Day viz. as a part of Worship and so all other Days are forbidden But then secondly he hath another elusion Under the New Testament the first day of the week certainly was not the last which the Decalogue prescribed c. This will prove the Doctors mistake common to him with others That the fourth Commandment prescribed nothing but the seventh or last day of the week Which if it be true the fourth Commandment is as fully void as that Commandment which prescribed the seventh year Sabbath or any other particular Holy-day The Doctor himself hath granted that the fourth commandment requires that we give God not less then one day in seven which if it be true the principal matter of the fourth Commandment was not that seventh day for that is void sayes he say all but one day in seven but still of Divine appointment as being a part of Worship The Lords day then being one of seven and confessedly of Divine Institution by the Apostles whose appointments were Divine There is no asking why the Apostles should not either they or their successors institute other dayes as parts of Worship that must be minded the reason is because the Apostles had Divine Authority to institute the Lords day according to the fourth Commandment one day of seven but neither they much less their successors can produce any Commission to institute other dayes I say still as parts of Worship if as Circumstances onely of Worship it is nothing to the purpose as I have often said And now for all that is said the Subjects of the four first Commandments are distinct and clear as I have propounded them and will be a ground sufficient to build that on which is intended p. 44. n. 7. That Superstition may extend to the whole first Table when there is a nimiety or excess in any one of them To the further confirming whereof I now proceed But first the Doctor is willing to expose me to the scorn of all Readers for want of Ingenuity or Charity to make the best construction of my words He sayes n. 8. to perswade that assertion afore he commends one observation to us but such as I think never slipt from any man before him Surely the Doctor hath met with some Errata's in some Authors Printed which are as unreasonable or as much non-sense as these of mine are He might have said either it may be the Printers fault or some Inadvertency in the
particular Church as we should place only in those of Divine institution by Christ and his Apostles And so commonly men do account the Church as Holy as the Temple was and Festivals as Holy as the Lords day and are not by the Doctor taught their due proportions Many things were there propounded to his consideration Sect. 39. which we cannot but take ill to be slighted as not concerning him to take notice of first whether any but God can make a thing properly Holy 2. What proper Holiness is 3. The diffâ—…ence of Holiness given by the different Auâ—… c. and the rest there propounded The Doctor waving all these for what reason he best knowes catches at an advantage from some words of mine I said In times or places separated by God or men there is this difference besides others that those sanctified by God require holy duties to fill them up but those by men are to wait upon holy duties This he sayes without consideration is not so Prayer and Fasting c. were not appointed for time or places sake c. He clearly mistakes me for I meant thus The Sabbath and the Temple being made Holy by God required Holy Services to fill them up But times and places set apart by men have respect to the Worship of God and are appointed for the Worships sake not the Worship for the time and places sake That 's it that I said a little afore men cannot make any thing properly Holy but onely improperly with respect to Holy things or Duties And that is to make any time or place when and where those duties are performed as Holy as any other time or place that is the one no more Holy then another But this Holiness I doubt will not serve the Doctors turn yet it must if he be constant to his principles For he professes not to make his time and place Festivals and Churches parts of Worship but circumstances onely of Worship which any Day or place is as well as his separated Dayes and places and so one as Holy as another p. 87. n. 13. But to this he hath to say The time and place instituted by God himself is as truly a circumstance of Worship as when instituted by men and duty is equally the Substance c This is another of his mistakes not that time and place instituted by God are not as truly Circumstances as those by men but that they are more even parts of Worship so was the Sabbath and Temple but so are not his Holy-dayes and our Churches Art thou a Master in Israel and knowest not these things And now he may take home his * The Doctor uses the word till for fill the Printers fault to give me a flout and that twice Absurdity put upon me to himself I said I had thought Apostolical and Divine had been both one with the Doctor and so they are sometimes but I perceive he makes them differ c. He answers It is soon dispatcht p. 88. n. 14. by saying I do not think the Apostles to be God Too soon dispatcht indeed Did ever any man charge him to think so when he made Apostolical institutions to be Divine and infallible Is not this a miserable subterfuge when he knowes well enough how to distinguish between Immediately Divine so were Christs own Institutions and mediately The Scripture was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Divine inspiration or God inspired yet writ by holy men 2 Pet. 1.21 by commission from him and Inspiration from the Holy Ghost so were the Apostles Divine Why then did he speak thus Sure it was either to bring Apostolical down to Ecclesiastical or to advance the latter to the Authority of the former and to make them equal But is it not uncharitable for me thus to judge No not at all knowing him so well as I do For he sayes expresly hereafter His Festival and the Lords day are founded both on the same Authority Fest 5.57 Then either Ecclesiastical is Divine for so is Apostolical or Apostolical is but Humane for so is Ecclesiastical unless the Doctor will joyn with Papists and make the Churches Sanctions to be Divine as was said afore But more of this hereafter Yet before we part with this Section one thing the Doctor is desired in his next to satisfie how he will avoid that in the close By this distinction aforegoing of his the Papists may excuse their grossest Superstition in placing Holiness in things times places they may borrow the Doctors answer They may say they account them Holy but either by the authority of the general or particular Church of Rome and that is no Superstition sayes he say they Something would be said to this Sect. 40 41 42. But he goes on If my voluntary oblation I perform as a voluntary oblation c. THese three Sections the Doctor passes over with an easie touch because it touches too near upon his Will-worship and therefore tells me I beg the question p. 28. n. 15. to take it for granted that his voluntary oblation is an eminent species of Superstition against which punishment is denounced in the second Commandment when his whole Tract of Will-worship undertakes to demonstrate the contrary c. I could answer for my self that at my first draught I placed his and my own Tract of Will-worship before that of Superstition as he did and so took it for granted I had proved his Will-worship to be a Species of Superstition But I say the place is proper enough here having in my discourse of Superstition held out Will-worship to be a species of Superstition by the Judgement of of the best Divines though much more remaines to be said of it And I adde further that the Doctor hath yielded Vncommanded Worship to be unlawfull and superstitious but his voluntary oblation Worship he meanes is Uncommanded Worship ergo let him take heed of the punishment threatned to such Worship Yet I shall say I am not much troubled that he reserves this to the next Exercitation if I were sure he would look back to these three Sections and answer them there but this I fear is but an avoidance of what he is not willing to answer We shall observe his performance Sect. 43. And now the Doctor may be pleased to review and if he will recall his bitter false uncharitable conclusion c. HOw the Doctor hath vindicated his Doctrine against me the indifferent Reader p. 89. n. 4. must now be Judge not we our selves It onely remaines to see how he will vindicate his charity in his bitter conclusion which he goes about first by his Rhetorick craving to premise that it was but a severe Satyre against a vice and not a person c. I shall with him desire the Iudifferent Reader to review those two last Sections and then give Judgment whether he doth not even point at the persons whom he meanes not in particular naming the men but in a plain
is spoken of but one when it is spoken of both yea here both are one the will-worship is meant of those Gnostick Abstinences and those Abstinences were this will-worship these had a shew but neither power nor truth of Wisdom and said I can that be taken in a good sense Here I produced the Interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Latine Fathers Ambr. Simulatam Religionem Hierom. Superstitionem so vulg and all Popish Interpreters what was it that these Authours say was Superstition counterfeit Religion Sure it was those Abstinences and so they were both one that will-worship in Abstinences c. had neither power nor truth Yet hear what he says will-worship is rendred by Piety and unless Piety it self can be taken there in an ill sense will-worship must be taken in a good sense He had said before n. 3. The Gnostick Doctrines cannot have so much as a shew of Piety in will-worship unless will-worship real be Piety real and appearance of will-worship a foundation of an appearace of Piety But did not the Doctor say just now That the Fathers said it of the Doctrines of Abstinence That they had neither power nor truth of Piety Now he sayes VVill-worship is rendred by Piety not the Abstinences The truth is those Abstinences had a shew of Wisdom or Piety but were but Superstition so the word is most commonly rendred or Voluntary Religion which a man forges out of his own brain willing to seem Religious as Estius hath it that is say I will worship If then Superstition and such voluntary Religion cannot be taken in a good sense no more can will-worship which is the very same thing And the Doctor does but beg the question all along this debate That there is any real or true will-worship There is indeed a real salse will-worship in those Abstinences together with an appearance of Piety or wisdom I end this as he does certainly I need adde no more 't is pitty I should be required to say so much of this matter I had said the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies false Religion the composition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or will of man with it makes it worse He asks worse then what then false Religion p. 142. n. 7. This is fairly to resolve that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of the true God is worse then false Religion i. e. then Idolatry or Superstition I will not question the Doctors Learning here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Superstitiose Deo colo Suidas on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Thracians but his Ingenuity I do and that twice 1. That I meant worse then false Religion when I meant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or will made the word worse which he could not but see had not prejudice and a desire to slur or slander me blinded his eyes which appears more in the second 2. That I must fairly resolve that the use of any thing uncommanded in the service of God is worse then false Religion c. When as his conscience knows and his pen hath often testified for me that I understand the question not of any thing n. 8. as he but of uncommanded Worship not of Circumstances of worship as kneeling in Prayer c. as he most injuriously would make his Reader believe Hence I do not conclude so absurdly as he would make me n. 9. All Inventions of men are Idolatry and worse then Idolatry but all invented Worship by men is Idolatry or Superstition and then this proposition is convertible I dolatry or Superstition is invented Worship and Invented Worship is Idolatry or Superstition Now Will-worship and Superstition being both one in some sense it will follow in spite of all gain-saying that all Will-worship is Idolatrous or Superstitious And he still begs that there is any Will-worship not Idolatrous or Superstitious And this may satifie that which follows n. 10. he that useth an uncommanded Ceremony in the Service of God provided it be not made a part of Worship doth not take upon him to be wiser then God but he that useth an uncommanded Worship As for his acts of uncommanded Devotion we shall speak to them in due time let him in the mean time consider how weakly he hath vindicated his third Argument and see if he can strengthen it better Here are some other things yet considerable but very briefly As first that he would fain get the learned Daille to be of his minde who is an enemy I believe to all Will-worship whereas his Interpretation is the same with our Divines He sayes p. 144. n. 15. The false teachers had a threefold colour of Wisdome 1. Will-worship 2. Humility 3. Austerity to the body for which three things they admire these doctrines of men But I pray what Interpreter Papist or Protestant does not so expound it By the way note he calls them doctrines of men not Commandments of God So had the worshipper of Angels a double colour of wisdom 1. Of Humility voluntary humility 2. Of Worship voluntary Worship will worship yet his practice was never the better for that and that Humility and will worship false and impious as hath been confessed But sayes the Doctor he defines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cultum sponte voluntariè assumptum nulla cogente Dei lege Why so does Beza Bishop Davenant and many of our own yet take voluntary worship in an ill sense as the learned Chamier his countrey-man also does whose sense no doubt Mons Daille knew well enough What more He sayes They were voluntarily undertaken out of abundance of zeal and Holiness And so in his opinion if abundance of zeal and holiness were taken in a good sense will worship must be resolved to be so takens As if all Idolaters the worshippers of Angels and Saints as Papists c. did not undertake their superstitious Worships out of abundant pretended zeal and Holiness Those Abstinences spoken of granted to be Gnostical and abominable were they not undertaken out of abundant pretended zeal and Holiness Thus Daille is easily vindicated As for Ambrose he is as much against him as any man he had best question the Authority of those Comments under his name For his words are these Englished by the Doctor Hence they think themselves to have some appearance of Wisdom p. 145. n. 18. because they apply the name of Religion to humane tradition and it is called Religion when it is sacriledge He speaks this of that will worship in those Abstinences where observe first He renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wisdom not piety as the Dr. does that he says they gave the name of Religion to their will worship 2. That this which they called Religion was but an humane tradition not held out as a Commandment of God 3. That this Religion or will worship of theirs was but Sacriledge what can be said worse of will
some others with little less if not the same Superstition and Will-worship besides the Riot with them at Rome And however the Doctor say p. 248. n. 3. That nothing could be more unjust and improbable at once then what is suggested of corruptions in the most ancient primitive Church Yet himself is more unjust in straining and misconstruing my words For I spake not of the primitive Apostolical Church but of some ages after wherein I supposed those Festivals were invented suppose in the third or fourth Century and it were too easie to prove that corruptions crept into the Churches both in Doctrine and Worship in those ages though more in after ages And though its true the Governors of the Church did oppose all fundamentall errours n. 4. against the * Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbu lentarum personarum scandala devitanda improbare non audeo August Epist 1 9. p. 249. n. 7. Natures and Person of Christ c. as the Apostles had done yet corruptions in Worship might and did creep in Good men being loath to oppose them thinking them errours that would increase piety as the Dr. Faulk observed And though the Church did oppose and censure corruptions in Doctrine and Worship as she was able yet had she in all times some undutiful Sons that corrupted both and of their Errours I meant the Church of Rome and the Romish Religion as distinguished from the Reformed is a bundle And what great advantage thereby I have given to Papists by this Affirmation I see not For this is not at all an agnition that the most accused Romish practices now adays are the same which were delivered to them from the primitive Church They were not delivered to them by the †The gates of hell in idle Ceremonies did assault the Church The Fathers in them declined from the simplicity of the Gospel Doctor Pulk Rejoyn'd to Mart. ar 1. see also a. 3. Church of any age much less by the Primitive but they like flies fell upon and followed the corruptions of former times and like Spiders suckt poison out of sweet flowers If the Doctor enter his discent to this I am sure many as true Sons of the Church of England as himself have said as much and will subscribe their Assent unto it Sure I am he hath given them much more advantage against the true Church of England in justifying their Superstition and Will-worship in their Festivals by his Pen and Practice as will appear ere we part The next debate p. 249. n. 1. in order should be about the power of a Church universal or partiular to constitute ceremonies for it self as it shall judge most useful c. and in special to constitute Holy-days and Festivals The Doctor let fall those words That this Anglicaene Church was invested with unquestionable power to institute Ceremonies for it self which may not without temerity be changed or abolished by any To this I put in a demur and desired to see it proved as tending much to the decision of the present controversie To which end after some explication to state the question right I gave in some arguments for the Negative All which the Doctor will not touch with one of his fingers but wisely leaps over four leaves of mine together but goes on to beg the question in three particulars 1. n. 2. That this Church of ours was first planted by some either Apostle or Apostolical man which cannot easily be proved 2. n. 3. That the Feast of Christmas was set up that 's an Institution but corrected or celebrated by those that first planted the Faith here i. e. some Apostle or Apostolical person which is more improbable 3. That what was by so good authority introduced having no equal reason to supersede it may not without temerity now be abolisht by any c. And this is the main question which being founded upon the two other unproved suppositions falls together with them Yet the Doctor will prove this last by induction Not by any other persons Pope p. 250. n. 4. or Consiscory because none hath power over a Church founded by the Apostles and not subjected to any But this supposes it founded by the Apostles and that that onely makes a Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 her own supreme head whereas if she were planted neither by an Apostle nor Apostolical man but by an ordinary Minister she was free from subjection to any other head Not says he by the Church it self What may not the Church it self alter her own Institutions are her Canons unreversible No because it cannot be now supposed to have any such persons in it as may be fit to compare with the first founders of it But then the Feast of Easter on the Jewish day might not by the after Church be abolished as it was because no such persons as John and Philip could be supposed there And besides it would make all the Apostles observations unchangeable and Divine yet there 's one help left Not without some greater reason for the changing and abolishing then they may appear to have had for the using of it This will come again in hypothesi to be considered I shall onely ask now what better reason had Constantine to change the Jewish day to the Lords day when the Asian Churches had the Gospel and Canon of Faith to found their custome on But see the Application of his discourse 1. I granted the English to be subject to no forrain power n. 5. he demands Whether it be subordinate to it 's own Sons or to any but the legal Fathers of it and then goes on with his scornful language sufficiently To which I shall give no other answer but this to demand whether it be subordinate to its own Fathers the Bishops for them he means and the reason why I ask it is because he said even now That which was by so good Authority introduced as his Christmas he says was by some Apostle c. may not without temerity be abolished by any not by any person not by the Church it self for reasons there given unless he will say his Bishops are persons fit to compare with the first Founders otherwise neither Sons nor Fathers might change or abolish it But I question'd the unquestionable power of the Church to institute Ceremonies and to make them unchangeable n. 6. The Doctor complains of change made in his inference he never assirmed of those Ceremonies once instituted that they might not upon good reasons be changed and abolished His words are may not be changed and abolished by any Of Fest s 9. and he n. 4 not by any person not by the Church it self by the same power which instituted them But if it be impossible to finde the same or equal power in the Church with them that instituted them it cannot be supposed to have any such persons in it fit to compare with the first Founders
of most high concernment is in the Church we must grant that she hath power enough to institute what Ceremonies she shall think usefull in the service of God But he is yet more liberal 2. The fourth Commandment being given to the Jews for one day in seven as a fit and moderate proportion of time it might equitably be inferred that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for our great Christian purposes c. But his Colleagues say that proportion of time in the fourth Commandment was Ceremoniall and so void and one day in eight or ten might be sufficient if the Church so pleased And what is this equitableness the Doctor speaks of not just and necessary it may not be less yea must be so much at least but fit and convenient to be designed by the Church nay by every Christian for so he says For if he should yeild it necessary by this Commandment to set apart one day in seven he grants the fourth Commandment to be moral for so much time which ere long he will as others do deny There would then remain nothing to be done but to finde out that particular day of seven to be assigned for God and his service and who hath power to do it For that he is yet more liberal then some of his partners The first day of the week and accordingly he supposes it instituted by the Apostles of Christ Surely this is one of the Doctors Free-will-offerings and we if not God are much beholden to him if he would not retract this gift which he will do anon founding the Lords-day and his Festivals on the same Authority of the Church But I take what he grants kindly If the first day of the week was by Apostolical that is Divine Institution as one of seven I ask by what Rule or Commandment did they make that day necessary and moral if not by the fourth Commandment and then it 's moral not onely for some time but for one day in seven which will hardly be yeilded And again if the Lords-day be of Apostolicall divine institution according to the fourth Commandment it is Holy above not onely all other days in the week but above all his Festivals for which he hath nothing in the fourth Commandment nor can prove them of Apostolicall Institution the most he pretends to is but Apostolical practice and observation And therefore fearing he hath yeilded too much he starts back and says As among the Jews n. 7. beside the weekly Sabbath required by the fourth Commandment they had many Festivities some appointed by God himself others instituted by men Yet constantly observed without prejudice to the fourth Commandment So nothing hinders but under the Gospel the Church may ordain Christian Feasts c. As for those Feasts appointed by men they have their place below where they shall be spoken to For those of Gods appointment we do not think the fourth Commandment exclusive to hinder God for appointing what dayes he pleases onely it presupposing the power of ordaining Holy-days to belong to God it excludes men for setting up any as holy without his leave It cannot therefore be inferred reasonably God had power to appoint what Holy-days he pleased to the Jewes ergo the Church under the Gospel may appoint as many as she will Besides those Festivals of the Jewes beside the weekly Sabbath were typical and Ceremonial and a part of their yoke which being taken off by Christ it becomes not the Church to put the same and a greater upon the necks of Christians Adde to this that those Festivals were not properly reducible to the fourth Commandment requiring but one in seven whereas the Doctor will fetch them all in under his fundamental morality of some times to be assigned for Gods service by the fourth Commandment that is such as the Church shall appoint and yet pleads the fifth Commandment to justifie obedience to them not as an act of Will-worship but of honour and observance to this ordinance of the Church and so a duty of the fifth Commandment Which sure needed not if the fourth Commandment be morall for assigning some times for Gods service by the Church for that Commandment will both command and justifie their obedience That we Christians are by Christ reduced to the fourth Commandment as for one day in seven to be holy so for our allowance of six days for our own works p. 263. n. 8. he says 1. It hath not the least appearance of truth in it where did he reduce us to the fourth Commandment Did not the Dr. say even now n. 6. That it 's equitable by that Commandment that a Christian should at least set apart one day in seven for more then one in seven let him look for authority one in seven shall serve our turn And I ask by what Rule or Authority does the Doctor presume to take the allowance of the six dayes for his own occasions if not by the fourth Commandment and will he not by the same Commandment allow God one of seven But where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment I answer in Matth. 5. where he professes he came not to destroy but to fulfil and stablish the Moral Law whereof the fourth for one in seven is one But then says he 'T is visible what the consequence must be even an obligation to the Jewish Sabbath for that certainly was the subject of that Commandment Hath not the Dr. As he did the second Commandment above ad p. 44. n. 8 The Dr. leaps from p. 152. of mine to p. 157. now destroyed one Commandment more out of the Decalogue which Christ came to establish or is not this the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Dr. that the subject of the fourth Commandment was that seventh day Sabbath for if so it is as fully void as the commandment for the Paschal Sabbath or else the Doctor must turn either Jew and observe that day or Anabaptist and Quaker c. and make no Sabbath but every day a Sabbath I leave it to his choice The rest that follows in this Section is impertinent to the main business Some thing he says about the mistake of the day and venial sins not fit to be passed by For venial sins n. 11 12. he hath this passage He that talks of venial sins must be presumed not to exclude the blood of Christ c. I spake of venial sins in the notion of Papists but sure they do not include the blood of Christ when they talk of venial sins but rather exclude it saying That men need not ask God forgiveness for them but themselves may satisfie for them by an Ave Maria a Pater noster or a knock on the breast c. And the Doctors language is too like theirs The excuse of blameless ignorance will wash away greater errors then this if an error As holy water washes away venial sins with them As for the mistake of the
yet after all this confidence see his diffidence where to place the Original of his Chrismas for thus he goes on In one of which ranks Apostles or succeeding Church though I have no reason to doubt but this of the Nativity is to be placed Yet because we have not those evidences of the Fact which we have of Easter and others I shall not build upon any degree of uncertainty nor affirm more then what the Tratise hath shewed out of the Ancient Fathers that this Feast is deduced to us early from the first antiquity Parturiunt montes c. Sure the first Antiquity was from the Apostles dayes but he dare not lay it upon them certainly Though Constant in the fourth Cent. did make orders for the observation of the Lords day and other days yet not a word of Christmas which is very strange if then in usage because of uncertainties and yet affirmed confidently it was derived from them Socrates tells us the Apostles did not settle any Laws for Festivals then not for this of the Nativity how then was it derived from the Apostles And if derived from the Apostles authority how is it not an Apostolical Institution The Doctor shifts off this by their observation which of his Christmas can never be proved Thus he shakes off also his friend the Lord Falkland who in all probability hath discovered the Original of this and other Festivals He is also silent to what I said of his reasonable Inducement for the Institution of this Festival concluding with his old mistake if I may not call it a calumny That all uncommanded performances are here again blasted by the express words of the second Commandment and Col. 2.23 Which was spoken onely of uncommanded Worship But sure to use his own words we have formerly spoken enough and too much of this arguing Concerning the Feast of Dedication I shall not need to be long p. 277. n. 1. First I said there were reasons to think it was not a Religious Festival but civil as that of Purim seems to be Est 9.21 22. For first it 's certain of this last that it was not observed with Acts and Services of Religion Sacrifices c. because those must be observed onely at Jerusalem upon the Altar there which was demolished at that time but this of purim was observed at Shusan where had they an Altar they might not offer sacrifice See supra p. 46. n. 14. p. 281. n. 20. or keep a Religious Feast by the Doctors own confession 2. It 's said they kept it as they ordered it A day of Feasting and joy and sending portions and gifts to the poor Without any mention of Religious services The like is said of the Feast of Dedication They ordered it should be kept yearly with mirth and gladness but no command or order for Sacrifices in after times the Doctor is very confident that it was a Religious Feast and would prove it from the text 1. Maccab. 4.56 They rose up early and offered Sacrifices according to the Law c. And the people fell down upon their faces worshipping and praising God c. But first the Doctor joyns things together which are distant in the text for he says n. 8. Ordaining that it should be so kept for the future from year to year So kept is not in the text as if they ordain'd it should be kept with Sacrifices as at first it was but only kept with mirth and gladness 2. Sacrifices at a Feast made not the Feast Religious there were Sacrifices offered every day at Jerusalem when they kept a civil Feast As amongst us the birth days or coronation days of our Kings were but civil Feasts to be kept with mirth and joy suppose there were any prayers or preaching on those dayes these would not make those Feasts Religious The fifth of Novemb. was commanded to be kept as a day of joy and rejoycing and prayers and preaching onely in the morning but yet I think the Doctor will not call it a Religious Feast At our private Feasts the Lord Majors day or days of the Companies Feasts they meet at Church and have prayers and preachings yet those Feasts are not called Religious Feasts but Civil 3. Those Sacrifices offered are said to be according to the Law that may be understood either with respect to the Altar now reedified where they were by Law commanded onely to offer or with respect to the kinde of offerings which were all ordered by Law May not says he burnt-offerings according to the Law approved and commanded be used in a Religious Feast No doubt they may and must if so commanded But the question is whether offerings of that kinde might not be used also in a civil Feast among the Jews and the Doctor must not beg it And if those Sacrifices were commanded by the Law they were no Free-will offerings which onely pretend to Worship which mirth and gladness the other ingredients of that Feast could not do In all this hitherto said there was no great conviction p. 279. n. 10 to prevail with me That this was a Religious Feast instituted by the Church I shall try once more to convince the Doctor that either it was not a Religious Feast or not approved by God Thus I argue To make a new kinde of Worship not commanded by God is unlawful and not approved by God But to make a Religious Feast not commanded by God is to make a new kinde of Worship ergo The Major is the Doctors own concession above The Minor is proved because a Religious Feast was and is a part of Worship as is evident in all the Feasts of Gods Institution then it follows that either they did not make the Feast of Dedication a Religious Feast or if they did they transgressed the Rule and could not be approved by God That the Doctor makes it a Religious Feast is evident by his earnest pleading for it under that notion and disclaiming it as civil If he shall say as it 's all is left to say they made it not a part of Worship but a Circumstance of worship he first makes it not a Religious Feast for which he hath so much pleaded and then hath lost his instance of this Feast to his purpose for then it was no more an Holy-day then any other day of the year And now he may consider how well he hath demonstrated the vanity of all my three Diatribees of Superstition Will-worship Festivals and the rest For he makes his Festival a Will-worship that is a Worship uncommanded and so a Religious Feast and a part of Worship and so will be found guilty of Superstition and Will-worship in observation of his Festival which is supra statutum an Addition to the word against the second and fourth Commandments and Col. 2.23 n. 11. And thus I shall assert If his Christmas Feast be answerable perfectly to this of the Dedication and hold analogy with that as he says