and commemorate Christ on that day What could passion or interest or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have suggested more unadvisedly then this His 2d dislike and exception is that having formerly founded times or dayes designed to publike worship on the equity of the 4th Commandment I should now devolve the observation of this festival to obedience to the lawes of the Church and so reduce it as a duty to the 5th Commandment and upon this as an especial advantage he is pleased to expatiate But the matter is clear enough and was so till he had taken pains to involve it The difference is very conceivable and intelligible betwixt time or times for Gods service generally considered and this or that particular time That God should have some times assigned for his service is of the very law of Nature and so much of morality there is fundamental to the positive precept of the weekly sabbath in the 4 Commandment Nay farther the 4th Commandment being given to the Iewes for the observing one day in seven as a fit and moderate proportion of time to be required of every Jew it might equitably be inferred that a Christian should at least set a part one day in seven for our great Christian purposes the first day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead And accordingly I suppose it instituted by the Apostles of Christ But then as among the Jewes beside the weekly sabbath required by the fourth Commandment they had many other times of festivity and fasting some appointed by God himself in the time of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others instituted by men and yet constantly observed by Gods people and accepted by God and some approved by Christ himself and all this without any prejudice to the fourth Commandment though not by any force of that so now still under the Gospel nothing hinders but that the Church of God by the power left to and deposited with them may ordain Christian feasts and fasts and obedience be paid thereto by all dutiful meek sons of the Church and this obedience be in them that are thus under authority no act of Will-worship or spontaneity but of honour and observance to this ordinance of the Church and so a duty of the fift Commandment As for that which he addes in this matter that we Christians are by Christ reduced to the fourth Commandment as for one day of seven to be holy so for our allowance of six daies for our own works 1. It hath not the least appearance of truth in it for where did Christ reduce us to the fourth Commandment and t is visible what the consequence must be in affirming it even an obligation to the Jewish Sabbath for that certainly was the subject of the fourth Commandment 2. It is no way pertinent to the matter in hand for supposing Christians allowed six daies for their own works t is yet visible that some of these six may by the free act of particular men be used or by the power of the Christian Church be set a part to Christian uses as well as some days were not only by God himself but by the Governors of the Jewes Judas Maccabeus and others set a part for the publike service of God in the old Testament at which time t is by all confest that the fourth Commandment was in force in all parts of it A second exception I shall note in this § p. 157. when upon these words of mine concerning the possible mistake of the day that that will be pardonable in those that verily think they are not mistaken and that in them that do performe the businesse of the day as compleatly on a mistaken day as on the true the excuse of blamelesse ignorance will wash away greater errors then this he presently replies Does not this sound somewhat like the Papists doctrine of venial sins and upon that occasion is put in minde of Bellarmines defence against the peril of idolatry in the Masse in case the bread be not transubstantiated And then he askes Can any ignorance be blamelesse against the Law of God or wash away any error without the blood of Christ But to this the answer is obvious and the fallacy presently discoverable For 1. he that talks of venial or pardonable sins must not be presumed to exclude the blood of Christ those sins are pardonable under the Gospel for which that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was paid and such are all sins that are reconcileable with true repentance or the sincerity of a regenerate state But then 2. I am no way assured that it is a sin so much as of ignorance to mistake in the day of Christs birth every mistake is not a sin but only that which is a breach of some law and therefore I suppose it is that the Diatribist was compelled to say Can any ignorance be blamelesse against a law of God But then I professe not to know any law of God against which it is a sin though but of ignorance to mistake that day for the annual day of Christs birth which really is not the day And I now desire to be informed of which of the ten Commandments or any other law of Gods in the Old or New Testament this is a breach When he tells me this I shall attend him more diligently to the remainder of this Section and answer his instance of so weighty consideration about the very day of the Jews passeover of which he acknowledge that the very day was as strictly commanded as the businesse it self and so the error must be an error against a law whereas he as certainly knowes that this day of Christs birth is by none so much as pretended to be so commanded What remains concerning Chemnitius's charge of Superstition on Papists observation of their holy daies is all answered before it be produced by this one consideration that Chemnitius as a Lutheran is by the Diatribist confest to allow this and other Festivals For then hath he granted all that I contend for who undertook not to be advocate for the Legend or Calendar of the Papists Sect. 15. Of riot Christian joyes no way contrary to our Festivals Riot as separable from Christmas as the Lords day Heathen customes cannot be objected Gods judgments vainly urged for arguments The charge of want of hospitality on those that retain festivities The hospitality at Christmas a pledge of it all the year after Reformation of excesse without abolition of the Festival Attempt to reform previous to abolition The Agapae no example for abolishing Festivals Cures for diseases excisions only for desperate spreading evils No cards on Christmas day as much strictnesse on Christmass not more sacredness then on the Lords day No design of making the Lords day no institution of the Apostles Neither Superstition nor hypocrisie in abstaining from Cards on Christmas day WHat now followes in the 17th § and so on to the 27. is all to the head of
or five years some one either by himself or by his missive at least that the tidings of that blessed newes should finde the way hither into this Island I shall now adde no more of this Lastly when in the setting and translating the supposed words of Eleutherius to King Lucius the Diatribist chargeth me for leaving out or not translating nuper which the Latine in my margent retained adding that I did it wisely I suppose on some designe to assist my cause and leaving others to judge why it was done this is but a calumny all this while For 1. having as he acknowledges set down the word nuper in the margent that was a fair evidence to any charitable person that there was no treachery designed the Reader for it being certainly foreseen by me that my Readers would easily understand so much Latine as the rendring of nuper would amount to I had been by any such designe engaged to conceal the Latine also the setting down that was the certain way of discovering any such supposeable treachery and so sure no artifice or master piece of wisdome which the Diatribist imputes to me but at once an act and punishment of folly such as I heartily desire may alwaies attend such enterprises But I need not such prelusorie answers as these the matter is plain to any man that hath eyes in his head My English translation was not verbum verbo yet by way of paraphrase perfectly answerable to the Latine the Latine is Suscepistis nuper miseratione divinâ in regno Brittanniae legem fidem Christi and the English is as explicite to every minute part of it that before that writing of his is not that the full paraphrase of nuper without defining what is not there defined how long or how little while agoe this was but only before the writing of Elutherius's Epistle the kingdome of Britain had received by Gods mercy the law and faith of Christ I see there is no hope of approving my self to this Diatribist If there were I should not have fallen thus causelesly under his severest discipline for such I must esteem this his suggestion and the insinuations accompanying it And yet after all this if I had done the utmost which he can suppose viz. not rendring nuper at all on purpose that this conversion of the Island might be thought to be long before the time of Lucius and Eleutherius which was above 140 years after Tiberius's decease I hope it is by this time plain by what hath here been said of our conversion by some Apostle particularly by Simon Zelotes that I should not much have abused the Reader That the faith was not first preacht in Lucius's days but revived after the death of the first planters of it I refer the Reader to learn from Sir Henry Spelman p. 12. out of our ancient records And for the truth of the passages between Eleutherius and Lucius as I never had ingaged my self so if from thence as the Diatribist pretends any inconveniences be now found consequent toward the support of the Romanists plea to our subjection it will be his not my concernment to fence himself against them having here thus farre acknowledged the truth of the story that Lucius sent to Eleutherius for some to baptize him and his people withall from hence concluding that Christianity was not here planted from the Apostles times And here let me adde in reference to his sixth § that if I should yield what here he doth that this Nation first received baptism not from any Apostle or Apostolical planter but in Lucius's days from Eleutherius Bishop of Rome it could not well be imagined how our ancient British should be found so different from the usages of Rome in the celebration of Easter c. as it is known they were before and at the time of Augustines coming hither For certainly the Western manner was conveighed to all who had their Christianity or baptisme from Rome And indeed as to the other concernment what would it avail us to prove that we had not our Christianity first from Rome in Augustines time if we be yielded to have had it first from Rome in Eleutherius's time I desire the Diatribist which even now foresaw the danger will now see to it What to this he saith viz. that the Eastern Christians which kept their Easter after the Jewish manner kept it not so in the Apostles times is neither proved to have any truth in it nor if it had would it give any account of the reason of the British retaining the Jewish and Eastern custome in case they had their baptisme from Eleutherius for as to the latter of these though this difference were granted to be of a later original then the Apostles times yet what possibility were there that the British should have the Eastern Jewish custome from Rome when the Romish was constantly the contrary or that receiving Baptisme from Rome we should have our most ancient rites from Greece quite contrary to the usages of Rome Sect. 4. The keeping of Easter in the Apostles times Polycrates 's Epistle to Victor The Asiatick way from Philip and John From Philip derived to Britanny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The testimonie of Socrates against Festivals examined AS for the truth of his negation § 6. that the Eastern Christians which kept their Easter after the Jewish manner kept it not so in the Apostles times It will deserve considering a while and the rather because this of Easter being certainly a Christian Festival the annual commemoration of the resurrection of Christ and that observed by the Asiaticks on any day of the week on which the quartadecima Lunae should fall and not only on the Lords day if that shall be found to be so kept by any of the Apostles themselves this will be no small prejudice to the Diatribists pretensions who will not must not allow any other festival among Christians but that of the weekly sabbath or Lords day as t is by him deduced from the fourth Commandment And accordingly in his reasoning here against it his arguments proceed not only against the Jewish manner but against the feast it self being observed in the Apostles times as will presently appear Now then for the clear trial of this negation of his on which his cause so much dependeth I appeal to the history of that question or controversie betwixt the Eastern and Western Church as it is set down with very little difference by Eusebius l. 5. and Nicephorus l. 4. And first t is Eusebius affirmation of it that all the Provinces of Asia observed it on the fourteenth day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as from a more ancient tradition and again as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a custome long before delivered to them which considering the time wherein this question was agitated at the end of the second Century can amount to little less then Apostolical But I need not lay weight on this
law concerning it The short is Socrates saw that several Nations had their several customes of keeping Easter some saith he from Iohn others from Peter and Paul setting down the very story as we have given it out of Eusebius and from thence he collects how truly it matters not that no Apostle had given any binding law to all Christians concerning it And so I that speak only of the practice Apostolical and not at all of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanding it by law am no way incommodated by this testimony And for any more then so practice and custome Apostolical it will be hard for the Diatribist to produce any evidence for the weekly Christian sabbath or Lords day sure the New Testament hath no where any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving of law concerning it His 3d proof taken from the difference of the observation of it in the Eastern and Western Church which saith he makes it evident that it was not instituted by the Apostles hath sure now been competently answered for though that difference conclude against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or appointment of the day by universal law yet it no way prejudgeth the practice Apostolical or the derivation of the several customes from this original How true or pertinent to his purpose that is which followes that the observation of Easter hath better antiquity then this of Christmas though not Apostolical doth already sufficiently appear the Apostles practice for the one being so evident on all hands by the confession both of the Eastern and Western Christians the several practices being derived from several Apostles that there can be no doubt in that matter And then the analogy holding and the argument proceeding in full force from one Christian festival commemorative of Christs resurrection to another commemorative of his birth or his ascension will certainly justifie the lawfulnesse of the observation though the antiquity should not equally be pleadable for it And so I hope I have fully cleared and vindicated the concludency of this argument Sect. 5. Midwinter-day The Winter Solstice Julius 's Calendar NExt he proceeds to view the argument drawn from the title which our ancient records give Christmasse day calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Midwinter-day and as I now finde in other Saxon monuments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Midwinter-mass or feast and with this he is pleased to refresh himself and to be cheerful How sweetly all agree c. and then to make offer of some answer But the truth is he hath not made any the least discovery by those answers that he adverted at all to that one thing wherein alone all the force of the argument was placed I shall therefore repeat it again for him The Winter solstice falling now many days earlier then the 25th of December the acknowledged day of Christs birth we are in reason to believe that at the time when that title of Midwinter-masse was bestowed on this festival the Sun entred into Capricorn i. e. the winter solstice fell if not upon yet very neer to the 25th of December And then this will drive it very high up to the Apostles and our Saviours time at the year of whose birth though as the learned exactly calculate it the Sun entred Capricorn on the 24th of December at Rome yet t is certain that Iulius Caesar ordering the Calendar 43 years before that and believing that in his time it was as Hipparchus had said viz. that the solstices had anticipated 8. days for so in his time Hipparchus had observed he placed the solstices on the eighth of the Calends i. e. on the 24th of Iune and 25th of December In consonance whereto the difference being yet not great the first Christians might well call this feast Mid-winter masse being indeed so neer the solstice then though the farther we descend from those first times the less exactness of truth we shall still finde in that appellation Now to this Mr. C. is not pleased to make the least word of reply and so hath not qualified himself to expect any syllable of return from me to his 7th § Only I shall tell him for his utmost satisfaction 1. That my argument no way depends on the falling of Iohn Baptists day on Mid-summer day and only mentioned it to shew the agreement betwixt them 2. That if Christmas day were not celebrated till the end of the 2d Century it could not with any propriety be called Mid-winter masse for An. 200. the Winter solstice was certainly at a pretty distance from the 25. of December 3. That though now Mid-winter day be a fortnight sooner then the 25. of December yet in the Apostles times it was not so and so that is an argument for not against the observation of it in or neer the times of the Apostles for else it could not with any truth be called Midwinter day By this time I hope the Diatribists eyes may be opened to discerne some force in this argument and how nothing he hath replied to it Sect. 6. Festivals not Romish The primitive Churches pure from the heresies that sollicited them The Romish corruptions not fetcht from them IN the next place he proceeds to my two inferences the former of which being only this that the antiquity or immemorial usage of any festival in our nation doth no way argue that it hath any of the corruptions of the Romane See adhering to it but the contrary It is freely granted by him And then I may for once congratulate the unexpected successe of that Paper For it seems the use of Festivals is not Romish and Antichristian on the score of which he certainly knowes some who have cast them out and I foresee not how he will ever approve himself to them again after this one confession However he will make no delay to make some reparations For though festivals have none of the corruptions of the Roman See adhering to them yet saith he they may have too much of the corruption of those Churches wherein they were first invented corruptions which crept into those Churches not long after the Apostles days and the Romish religion is a bundle of most of those corruptions To which I answer that nothing could be more unjust at once and improbable then what is here without either proof or diffidence suggested against the most ancient Primitive and next to Apostolical Church That there were many foul and dangerous errors which very early even in the Apostles days solicited and infested the Church there is no doubt that impure detestable sink of the Gnosticks and the several sorts of hereticks which all joined together under that title But then t is most evident that the Governors of each Church by the strength of that depositum committed to them by the Apostles used all care to secure their flocks from such pests as these and were by Gods blessing successful in it noted branded expulst these hereticks and kept the Catholike Church intire from their corruptions And
AN ACCOUNT OF Mr. CAWDRY'S Triplex Diatribe Concerning Superstition Wil-worship AND Christmass Festivall By H. Hammond D. D. LONDON Printed by J. Flesher for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane and for Richard Davis Bookseller in Oxford 1655. A Preface to the READER 1. THat Mr. Cawdrey hath taken great pains to shew me the infirme parts of three little Tracts of Superstition Will-worship and Festivals I am now obliged to take notice and to design the vacancy of a few days to clear those brief discourses from all the misprisions and exceptions to which some contrary hypotheses of his how true shall in due place be examined more then the want of evidence in the Tracts themselves may have rendred them liable 2. What on the two former heads I wrote many years since I confesse I expected not to see arraigned at this time being designed as part of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might help to repaire the breach at least mollifie the Paroxysme by removing two of the five specious charges under which the blameless ceremonies and customary practices and observances of the Church of England were by dissenters oppugned and rendred odious And what was then said as I could not discern wherein it came short of Evidence of conviction if I had I should certainly either have cleared or supprest them so it was never my fortune in nine years space to hear from any that it lay under an ill character but on the contrary that it had in some measure performed what it undertook freed our Church from those two accusations and demonstrated them as applied to us to be perfect calumnies And I have but one Petition to the Readâ—â— at his entrance on these debates that he will calmly review those two Treatises with three more designed to the same end and upon his strictest survey advertise me wherein I have failed in my undertaking 3. But it is come to passe what Arrian long since taught me to expect that as when general discourses come to be applied to particular cases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the contention begins so when the grounds more universally laid for the justifying our Church were in a tract concerning Festivals and especially the day of the Nativity of Christ brought home to the clearing that celebration from either of those two as from all other charges then Mr. Cawdry's hypotheses in which I suppose his way of managing his opinion of the morality of the Sabbath had engaged him found themselves to be concerned then the commemoration of the birth of Christ though but by one anniversary being not easily reconcileable with the grounds which he had laid for the Christians one weekly Sabbath in the 4th Commandment of the Decalogue was solemnly to be indicted and as in a Chancerie bill all imaginable evill to be affixed on it and the customary riot of festivities being not sufficient to render it odious the more formidable charges of Will-worship and Superstition must be revived and by the necessity of this consequence to salve his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that I had said on either of those two subjects though never so clear must now be called to a severe examen and so store of new tasks provided for me 4. And me thinks t is possible that old Nahum's word may not here be unreasonable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even this also for good To which purpose I am willing to remember what Alexander Aphrodisaeus told the Emperors Severus and Antoninus in his Preface to the Tract of Fatalitie and Free will that whosoever would point him out any doubt or difficulty that remained in that matter after the reading of his treatise he would account it a great favour and honour to him rendring this reason for it because it was not easy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one Tract to do two things exactly both dilucidely to expound the matters of which he principally wrote and all those other things also which were usefull to the explicating thereof 5. And the same I desire may introduce my address to this Diatribist and the tasks by him set before me The subjects which he hath chosen to consider with me being such as well deserve some care from each of us that we neither deceive others nor our selves in them I mean perfectly practical concerning a peculiar Christian duty incumbent on us in that of Festivals and again a more universal duty that of obedience to our immediate Superiors and to the universal Church of Christ from which we must not depart or be affrighted upon pretense of Superstition c. and yet ought warily to secure our obedience from that and the like guilts when there is any real danger of them And beside these there is somewhat of a more sublime consideration on occasion of that of Will-worship the freewill offerings which will very well become a Christian to bring to Christ rewardable in a high degree though they are not under any express precept such are all the highest charities and devotions and most heroical Christian practises which shall all not onely be degraded but defamed if every thing be concluded to be criminous which is not necessary if all uncommanded practise be unlawfull 6. Now this Diatribist having undertaken to examine what I then wrote and done it with so little partiality to me that I have no reason to suspect he hath left any minute difficulty unmentioned I shall hope that the descending to a particular survey of all his objections will probably prevent any future mistake in these matters and upon this score as St Augustine thought it necessary for those heathens which deisied all their benefactors to build one altar and pay some homage to their enemies because they deserved to be numbred among their benefactors so have I not grudged the tribute of my pains at least that of a ready though laborious obedience to this call of the Diatribist but apprehended this opportunity of removing all doubts which can recur and require solution entertaining my self with some slender hope that the Reader may reap some small benefit thereby in order to christian practice the one thing which I desire to propose as the end of all my meditations and never to be drawn by the importunity of those which differ from me in opinion into any contention or ingagement which hath not this aime visible before it the seasonable checking and reformation of some vices such sure are those which here I desire to prevent and remove or the confirmation and increase of virtue to the glory of God and the multiplying of fruit to our account 7. That this hath been the onely aime of all hitherto publisht by me even of those discourses which are most polemical I am so fully satisfied in my self that I doubt not to approve it to any that can make question of it where difference of opinion doth not either by close consequence or
What excess Divines mean by Superstition What S. Augustine Obligation to performance without being parts of worship Observers of order more Religious more acceptable then others The reason why Jewish ceremonies are interdicted The Church of England sparing in ceremonies Ceremonies not foreshewing Christ lawful to be retained by Christians The abstinence from bloud long continued in the Church The Saterday Sabbath Negative wholesomness not sufficient to recommmend ceremonies All folly in worship is not Superstition The opinion of the antient Church worth considering No duties appointed for the circumstances sake Time or place instituted by God is a circumstance as well as when by man Apostolical Divine 82 Sect. 11. A Vindication of the Tract of Superstition from uncharitableness 88 CHAP. V. Of Will-worship p. 92 Sect. 1. The state of the Question Wil-worship distinguisht from the circumstances of it The matter of mans will of three sorts The 6. several possible notions of Wil-worship The application of them to the matter in hand The vanity of the Diatribists distinction The scope of the 2d Commandment 92 Sect. 2. The method of explicating difficulties in the new Test 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a good sense and when in a bad no prejudice to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 99 Sect. 3. His entrance on the view of Col. 2. answered The difference betwixt Commands of Magistrates and imposition of dogmatizers What 't is which is said to have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 101 Sect. 4. The Magistrates power acknowledged Inventing new ways of worship Davids appointing the Levites to waite from 20. years old an act of a King not of a Prophet Davids last words 104 Sect. 5. Col. 2. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Placing worship Christian liberty Marriage The Glosses put on the commands of men 107 Sect. 6. The Diatribist's way to make the Doctors words witness against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Placing worship an equivocal phrase 112 Sect. 7. Of Petitio Principii Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being capable of two rendrings The danger from mistake on the Diatribists side My interpretation not singular His no way probable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particle of extenuation no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No shew of wisdome in respect of the folly that is in it The Wil-worship parallel to the humility The prime argument for my interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for piety vindicated from the contrary proofs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Worship of Angels No agreement betwixt Col. 2. 18. 23. or betwixt 23 1 Cor. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 114 Sect. 8. The abstinences how taught by the Gnosticks Their pretenses for them no realities Abstinences may be free will offerings and self-denyals Such may Fasting duely qualified Such may virginal Chastity Pauls judgement of it Chrysostome of things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abstinences positive acts And yet if negative may be acceptable These abstinences not commanded 122 Sect. 9. Compliance with Papists The Diatribists inconstancy 125 Sect. 10. A reply to his answer of my two first reasons for the good sense Humility and Wil-worship associated either both real or both pretended Popish laniations why culpable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fasting a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 far from hurtful or abominable wherein the profit of it consists The true sense of 1 Tim. 4. 8. wherein the ilnesse of it consists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abstinence because of abuses For Religion Marcionites Durand A shew of Piety in Wil-worship All shew of good in respect of somewhat that is good The Diatribists fallacious instances and questions 127 Sect. 11. The Greek Fathers acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An argument of goodness that 't is pretended by hypocrites Religion in a good sense Wil-worship not worse then false worship not abominable All devised worship is not Idolatry doth not pretend to more wisdome then Gods The Latin Fathers cited by Mr. C. The vulgar Translator and the followers thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the vulgar rendred decernitis The authority of Bellarmine and Daillé for the goodsense The testimonies out of Ambrose Theodoret Salmeron Estius Augustine Thomas examined 139 Sect. 12. The fifth reason vindicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius corrected twise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adverbially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius's Glossary concordant to the Scripture use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 5. 4. 149 Sect. 13. Mr. C. His distinction of voluntary Spontaneous A work of love The Testimony of Socrates Worship true or false Nothing unlawfull which is not forbidden Voluntariness no way forbidden The second Commandment 153 Sect. 14. The first occasion of mistaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ill The vulgar translator and Mr. Calvin The Diatribists three exceptions to this shewed to be of no force Wil-worship distant from Superstition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely in a good sense among Christians Three mistakes of the Diatribist All uncommanded is not forbidden 155 Sect. 15. The second occasion of taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an ill sense vindicated The design of the Treatise of Wil-worship onely for ceremonies not for new kinds of worship Whether all ceremonies be forbidden which are not commanded The various reading of Philostorgius Sitting at the Gospel forbidden Chrysostomes Testimony 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Ecclesiastical Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will-worship 159 Sect. 16. The third occasion of the mistake cleared Worship of Angels forbidden not onely not commanded The reviving Judaical worship not called Wil-worship Col. 2. 23. Maimonides's words wrested to a distant sense by the Diatribist Original of Angel-worship Vain worships Clemens confounding of Col. 2. 18. with 23. Worship of Angels c. a forbidden Wil-worship The imposing of virginity and abstinences as from God the onely crime found fault with by S. Paul and the ancient Catholiks Alcibiabes his using and remission of austerity The like of Spiridion and Marcianus Cyrill of meats 1 Tim. 5. 23. explicated 163 Sect. 17. The last occasion of the ill sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Epiphanius Of the Pharisees appellation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dogmatizing and discriminating Epiphanius's words cleared Wherein their hypocrisie consisted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Mac. 2. 42. Asidei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fault 169 CHAP. VI. Of Free-will offerings p. 173 Sect. 1. The use of them in this question The Diatribists discourse of them His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Leviticalness of spontaneous offerings asserted by him in order to denying them among Christians Arguments against this conceit Allowance of days as well as of worship among the Jews Allowance acknowledged by the Diatribist to be as good as commands 173 Sect. 2. A first instance of uncommanded Pieties Davids intention to build the Temple Vindicated from the three answers of the Diatribist 181 Sect. 3. A 2d instance and
them The 20000 slain by Diocletian on Christmass day Objections against the 25. of December answered The controversie in Chrysostome about the day not the Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His words full for the Apostolicalness of both 289 Sect. 21. The Diatribists answer to my conclusion Strictures on some passages in it 292 AN ACCOUNT OF THE 3 ex DIATRIBE CONCERNING Superstition Wil-worship and Christmas Festivall CHAP. I. Of Mr C. his Title Pages Sect. 1. Philosophy Col. 2. 8. Fables and endlesse Genealogies 1 Tim. 1. 4. Tit. 3. 9. The propriety of that Text Col. 2. to Mr. C. his discourse AND first the Title page will deserve a cursory view especially the place of Scripture wherewith he hath chosen to adorn it Col. 2. 4. 8. by which the Reader is directed to look on his threefold exercitation as he is pleased to call it with Dr. H. as an especiall antidote against that Philosophy c. of which S. Paul forewarns men to take heed in those two verses On this occasion I shall not need inquire what provocation Mr. C. had to express such unkindness to and jealousie of Philosophy certainly not the same that S. Paul then had among his Colossians but onely remind the Reader what is elsewhere shew'd more largely that the Philosophy there branded by the Apostle was that which the Gnosticks divinity was too full of taken out of Pythagoras and the Greek Poets Antiphanes Hesiod and Philistion and especially Orpheus his Theologie or Genealogies of the Gods and so promiscuously styled by the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philosophy and vain deceipt in this admonition to the Colossians and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fables and endless genealogies how out of Night and Silence comes forth Chaos c. in his directions to Timothy 1 Tim. 1. 4. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foolish questions and genealogies in his Epistles to Titus c. 3. 9. And then how conveniently this was accommodated to any or all those three discourses concerning Superstition Wil-worship Christmas Festival must be discerned by his answer to all or any of these few questions 1. Whether any Gnostick principle of Theologie hath been discovered in any of those three Tracts which he hath undertaken to chastise 2. Whether it be a piece of Apostatical or heretical pravity a branch of heathenisme or Gnosticisme to maintain the celebration of Christs Nativity to have nothing criminous in it either under the head of Superstition or Wil-worship 3. Whether all institutions of the Church though in themselves never so blameless are yet to be lookt on as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acts of dispoiling Christians and little less then Sacrileges and whether they are all comprehended under that style of Traditions of men and rudiments of the world in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Christ of which the Apostle so carefully warnes the Colossians Lastly whether all probable or concludent nay even demonstrative discourse be to be warded and averted as deceipts and beguilings because capable of that title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle there useth whether we render them literally probabilities of speech or with our translation inticing words When M. C. hath accommodated any satisfactory answer to these few questions all or at least some one of them he may then be qualified to attempt justifying the charitableness of his title page and the propriety of his select Scripture but till then he may give his Reader leave to question one of them Sect. 2. Mat. 15. 8 9. Gal. 4. 9 10. Deum sic colere quomodo seipsum colendum praecepit Christmas no irrational custome THe same reason I have to put in my exceptions to the title pages of his two other exercitations and in like manner 1. to demand how commodiously the words of Christ Mat. 15. 8 9. condemning their worship as vain which teach for doctrines the commandments of men are affixt to the second Diatribe concerning Wil-worship when he cannot but know that that Text is particularly handled in the first leaf of the treatise of Wil-worship and demonstrated neither to belong to humane laws in general nor to any institutions of the Christian Church but onely to the dogmatizing of Pharisaical hereticks and particularly their urging some inventions of their own as commanded and under obligation by divine precept now when the very Judaical commanded rites were so suddenly to be laid aside nailed to the crosse solemnly cancelled and abolisht by Christ And 2. no farther to demand his reasons but to admire his constancy to himself that before the Diatribe of Christmas and other sure Christian festivals he hath thought meet to prefix that text Gal. 4. 9 10. of observing dayes moneths times years so peculiarly restrained by all circumstances to the Judaical Sabbaths New Moons Anniversaries and Jubiles but no more appliable to the prejudice of the yearly feast of Christs birth then to the weekly of his Resurrection To which we shall associate his two Latine sentences the one out of S. Austine of worshipping God as he hath commanded the other out of S. Cyprian of the vanity of irrational customes and remind him that we design no other worship of God upon Christmas day but such as we are sure he hath commanded at all times that of prayer and thanksgiving c. and that the incarnation of Christ was a competent reason to found a custome of commemorating it after this manner we shall finde a perfect harmony and consent in all his discords and that is all I shall return to his frontispices designed to infuse prejudices into the Reader to blast before-hand what he meant to answer CHAP. II. Of M. C. his Preface Sect. 1. His discourse of the causes of my mistakes Comparing of Superstition and Wil-worship to Heresie Accounting Superstition our virtue T Is now more then time that we think of entring and yet there is a Preface still behind which expects to be taken notice of as being a very friendly recapitulation of the grounds of my great mistakes the unhappy causes of those my miscarriages which he hath discovered in the insuing Exercitations But I that am not yet by all his Diatribe so instructed or improved as to discern one real misadventure in those discourses find it impossible for me to be edified by this his charity I must be shewed my disease before Hippocrates himself can point me out the causes of it and therefore my briefest return to his preface is but to beseech him to reserve his discourse of causes till the effects shall be so visible as to call for it and if this be not a sufficient reply to all of it What is behind will easily be referred to this one head the injustices and mistakes of the author of it which I shall but briefely recite to him First that he hath thought fit to compare Superstition and Wil-worship as they are the subjects of my discourses with Heresie whereas 1. Superstition in the proper notation
oathes the negative and affirmative parts of it and then with what propriety can that be said to denote the right manner of the worship with all due reverence Or if it should be extensible so far then sure all ceremonies that may express that reverence though not elsewhere prescribed will be here commanded and then sure not forbidden in the 2d Commandment Lastly for the right time God's own appointed day the Sabbath I suppose he means though that be appointed in the 4th Commandment yet sure not so as to prohibite all others we know there was a yearly Sabbatick fast the great day of expiation so called Isa 58. 13. and many other feasts beside that of the weekly rest in the 4th Commandment some of Gods own institution others as the feast of dedication of the Altar in memory of the purging by Judas Maccabaeus instituted by the Jewes themselves and never mentioned in the Canon of the old Testament and so the fasts of the fift and seventh moneth Zac. 7. 5. And under the new Testament the first day of the week that certainly was not the last which the Decalogue prescribed and why the Apostles that instituted that proportionably to the weekly Sabbath should not either they or their successors institute other days festival or fasting proportionable to the like among the Jewes sure there is no manner of prohibition in the 4th Commandment which commanding one day to be hallowed and allowing the rest for their ordinary labour doth not yet interdict all others or bind his own or his peoples and all Christians hands from prescribing or setting a part any other And there being so little solidity in the grounds how can it be expected there should be any in the conclusion as he saith answerably erected on them that Superstition may extend to the whole first Table or that every excess which he will phansie reducible to any of these shall straightway commence Superstition That he may farther perswade this one observation he commends to us fundamental to this discovery but such as I think never slipt from any man before him His words are these The Commandments of God having every of them a negative and affirmative part expressed or understood the duties of Religion do stand in the midst as virtues between two extremes Here I shall not question the corner stone of this foundation else I might demand what is the affirmative part of the 2d Commandment or how can it be evidenced that there is any or indeed any more then a prohibition of idol-worship appendant to the no other Gods in the first Commandment which still is but a negative or an interdict or if an affirmative be to be understood must it not be bowing down to the true God and so that will not prejudge but justifie all outward decent gestures of adoration assist not oppugne our pretentions But in stead of this nicer inquirie and supposing with him that every of the Commandments hath its negative and affirmative part I onely demand how he could think that the duties of Religion stand in the midst what I pray is the antecedent to which in the midst relates there is no other in the period but an affirmative and negative part of each Commandment But do the duties of Religion stand in the midst of the affirmative and the negative part of each Commandment as virtues between two extremes Then sure the affirmative part of the command is one extreme and the negative is the other then what is commanded in the affirmative part to that which is under precept is an extreme and so a vice as far removed from virtue as that which is forbidden in the negative the worship of one God a vice as well as the worshipping of many paying to God our oathes a vice as well as perjurie perfect chastity a vice as well as the most prostitute adultery and so in the rest of them what could have been said more unluckily then this I would fain believe that the Diatribist did not mean thus and therefore would attempt to affixe some other possible meaning to his words as thus without any retrospect toward the former part of the period that the duties of Religion stand in the midst between two extremes as virtues stand in the midst between two extremes But then to what purpose was the ment on of the two parts affirmative and negative of the Commandments premised for this I am still to seek and therefore must misdoubt my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is not so fit for the malady as I could have wisht and yet I have no better to succeed it The best of it is he hath not pursued this observation nor made this Superstructure in his exemplification thereof the grosseness of it would not permit that But then to what purpose was his observation sure but to amuse the reader and say somewhat demurely which should pretend to be a ground of his beloved conclusions that all additions to the rule of worship are excess against the 2d Commandment additions of ridiculous ceremonies or gestures an excess against the 3d men's instituting other holy days and times an excess against the 4th And truly what else he please with as much appearance of truth or solidity of argument as these are inferred from either the letter of those Commandments or from the solemne observation concerning the affirmative and negative parts of them and the duties of Religion in the midst T is true all worshipping of Idols is forbidden in the 2d Commandment but how come all uncommanded rites to be Idols All perjury and by Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluntarie swearing at all is forbidden in the 3d Commandment but how come rites and ceremonies and gestures though never so ridiculous to be either oaths or perjuries or to bear any analogie with or by that means to be reducible to them In the 4th Commandment the not observing Gods designed Sabbath was a defect but what words of that Commandment conclude against instituting other holy days and times as an excess and that criminous not admittable among Christians If any it must be six days shalt thou labour but sure that is not the meaning of them but the explication is to be fetcht from the other part of the period and do all that thou hast to do i. e. all thy labour and all that thou hast to do shall be finisht as God's was in six days and no other day must be so set apart as to take off from the seventh dayes rest or Sabbath but for such celebrations as are reconcileable with that there is no word nor appearance to the prejudging of them But the unlawfulness of this last is confirmed by the sinfulness of Jeroboams act 1 Kin. 12. 32. He ordained a feast like unto the feast that was in Judaea But the Diatribist cannot but know what it was that made that criminous in Jeroboam his appointing this feast to be kept with sacrifices at Bethel which beside the
whether if a Christian had observed some Jewish ceremony which did not foreshew Christ to come but significant only of something past though they had not taught it necessary the Apostle would not have blamed them for that as superstitious and so for any new rites and ceremonies To which I answer considently and to the latter first that he would not and the very asking or questioning it in that form as if it could not be denied but the Apostle would have blamed them is the known fallacy of begging the question For the whole matter of controversy betwixt me and the Diatribist is this whether every devised rite or ceremony not commanded by God be superstitious And to the former part of the question I answer as confidently and ask him first what he thinks of the abstinence from things strangled and all eating of bloud was not that a Jewish ceremony and was not that observed by Christians Act. 15. and did the Apostles blame it as superstitious Certainly they did not Nay did not this observance continue among Christians for many ages Ne animalium quidem sanguinem in epulis habemus suffocatis morticinis abstinemus we have not the bloud of any living creatures in our feasts we abstain from things strangled and that die of themselves saith Tertullian Apol. c. 9. And Lucian tells us how his Peregrinus was rejected by the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for eating some of their forbidden meats which sure belongs to this matter and in Eusebius's history l. 5. c. 1. Biblis thus vindicates the Christians from the accusation of eating of children because saith she 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we count it not lawful to eat the bloud of unreasonable creatures If this be not perfectly home to his question I shall then proceed and alledge for my instance the known practice of the Christian Church of the Apostles and purest time who as they celebrated the weekly Lords day on the first of the week in commemoration of Christs resurrection so they continued the observation of the Saterday Sabbath on the last day of the week in remembrance of the Creation of the World The custome appears in Tertullian de Monogam and was continued to the time of the Laodicean Councel which orders that not only the Law as Act. 15. 21. but the Gospel also should be read that day And the words of Balsamon are clear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sabbaths were by the holy Fathers almost quite equalled to the Lords days and a great deal more to the same purpose as is elsewhere shewed in the Exposition of the fourth Commandment 4thly When § 32. he so reports my words as to conclude me to affirm that if ceremonies be but harmless or negatively wholesome there cannot be too much of them This is a plain changing of sense into that which is most contrary to it For my words are plain without his glosse that if they be positively wholsom or tending to edification not contenting my self with negatively wholesom or harmlesse or with any thing lesse then positive wholsomnesse then there will be little reason to accuse them of excesse then they will rather help devotion then incumber it the fear of which was the main objection against the multitude of them 5thly When § 35. he pretends to prove all folly and vanity in the worship of God to be superstition by demanding what Superstition is but folly and vanity this is a meer paralogisme never reducible into a Logical mood and figure by supposing things to be convertible which are not as if I should prove a particular substance for example the soul of man to be a body because every body is a substance The answer would be easie by saying every body is a substance but every substance is not a body so in like manner every superstition is folly and vanity but every folly and vanity even in the worship of God is not superstition This was a little too grosse a Sophisme to impose it self upon the Diatribist and he now sees a small measure of subtility was sufficient to enable me for the discovering of it 6 xtly When § 34. on occasion of my speaking of that one kinde of excesse of placing more virtue in some things then belongs to them he demands what I mean by or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church and whether the purer ages of the Church after the Apostles had power to put virtue into things which they had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word I answer that I never thought of any such thing that my meaning is plain enough if he would please to see it in the end of § 45. viz. that the thing there mentioned the signe of the Crosse and the parva Evangelia and the like had not either naturally or by the rule of Gods word or in the estimation of the purer ages of the Church that force or virtue in them which in the latter impurer ages they were thought to have and I wonder what difficulty there was in understanding or fault in affirming this which hath no more dangerous intimation then that the opinion or estimation of the purest ages of the Church i. e. the first and neerest to the Apostles times were in any such controversie as this very fit to be considered in their due place i. e. next after the Apostles themselves 7thly When § 30. concerning holynesse or separation to holy from common uses he promises to speak somewhat considerable and under that head tells us that there is this difference between times and places separated by God and those which are separated by men that the former require holy duties to till them up i. e. that the duties are appointed for the time or places sake but the latter are to wait upon holy duties the time or place are appointed for the duties sake I must still challenge his promise whereby he is yet our debtor of somewhat considerable For certainly prayer and fasting and sacrifices among the Jews all duties appointed by God as in stead of the last the offertorie or almes among Christians were not appointed for time or places sake holy days and holy places the weekly Sabbath and the annual day of Expiation and the tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem were never the end for which prayer c were instituted nor is it imaginable how they should when each of those duties visibly prayer and sacrifice were appointed and practised before there was any such thing as Tabernacle or Temple instituted by God Again the time or place when instituted by God himself is as truly a circumstance of worship as when instituted by man and duty is equally the substance and it can with no probability be affirmed that the substance is appointed for the circumstances sake or as he is pleased to speak to till up the circumstances any otherwise then he would say substances were created to till up accidents the body for the colors sake As
Levitical no longer to continue then the Jewish priesthood of the Tribe of Levi continued and so is long since abolished by Christ and accordingly I never meant and I hope he cannot think I meant to conclude that the same kinds of freewill offerings which were acceptable then that of slaying a Bullock or a Ramme c. do now continue acceptable among Christians 2dly Then the onely question must be of the spontaneousness of the oblations whether that being confestly lawfull and acceptable under the Law it be now unlawfull under Christ or in plain termes whether Gods acceptance of uncommanded oblations when the matter of them is confest to be such as is acceptable to him be to be deemed Levitical and such as being peculiar to the Mosaical oeconomie is not now to be lookt for being abolished under Christ The question thus plainly set his affirmation is too far from the the least shew of probability and so utterly distitute of all proofs either from reason or Scripture as far as he hath here discovered himself and so but a begging of the question in him that thus affirmes that there is no need of my pains in disproving it Yet shall I offer a few considerations to this purpose and the first such as may be of force adhominem to this Diatribist And it shall be the reminding him of his three speciall proofs which he hath brought in his Preface and in his Diatribe to infer the sinfulness of Will-worship viz. the 2d Commandment the summe of which is as he oft saith Gods prescribed worship and all devised worship an excess and so sin against it The words of Deut. 4. 2. where all additions to the word are prohibited And to the particular of Festivals the 4th Commandment against which saith he it is an offence in the excesse to observe any other holy day but that one of the Weekly Sabbath Now of these three it is plain that they are all taken out of the words of the Judaical Law and consequently if they were fitly urged to Christians then must it needs follow 1. That they were thus of force against all uncommanded services in the Old Testament and 2. That by way of analogie they still hold under the New Testament which if they do then is this the direct contradictory to both the Diatribist's present pretensions to his allowing unprescribed uncommanded worship under the Old Testament for how can that be when his proofs against uncommanded worship are all fetcht from the Old Testament to the abolishing in the New Testament what was allowed in the Old for if so how can the analogie hold betwixt the Old and the New in which his three proofs were founded as to the application of them to Christians Which being so the great evidences on which he had founded his hypothesis proving so irreconcileable with his present pretension I shall still give him his choice which part of his method he will adhere to the former or the latter The former he cannot the force of those places in the Mosaical Law for it is manifest by the free-will offerings and now confest by the Diatribists that uncommanded worships were allowed and so lawfull among the Jews And the latter he cannot having formerly supposed in his arguing that the analogie holds in this matter between the two Testaments So that I may now forme a Syllogisme the premises whereof shall be both fetcht out of the Diatribist the Minor from his very words the Major from that on which his arguments are founded thus Whatsoever was lawfull under the Old Testament is lawfull under the New But freewill or uncommanded offerings were lawfull under the Old Testament and then having given me me my premises t will be great unkindness to deny my conclusion therefore uncommanded offerings are lawfull under the New Testament Quod erat demonstrandum A 2d argument against his affirmation shall be the consideration of the liberty and advantages which result to Christians from the abolition of the Mosaical Law That liberty must consist in the taking off not in the imposing of weights and interdicts whereas by this Diatribists affirmation there shall by this abolition of what was Levitical i. e. by this libert y come in a multitude of unprofitable burthens which never lay upon the Jews Whensoever I shall do any thing in the service of God which I am not particularly commanded to do I am presently ensnared guilty of an abominable sin whereas a Jew might by his confession bring a thousand free-will offerings and in each of them be accepted This sure must be directly against one main part of the design of Christ's coming and therefore is not to be admitted in the 2d place 3dly It is sufficiently known and by the Apostle affirmed that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 positive ordinances and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph 2. 15. A Law of Commandments in ordinances which Christ did by his death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cancell and naile to the Cross and indeed nothing else is capable of abolition or cancelling But this of the free-will offerings among the Jews is not any Law or Commandments or Ordinances but rather a negation of all those for such is a bare allowance to be deemed and therefore sure this as to the voluntariness of them was none of the things which were abolished by Christ 4thly If it were true which is here said by the Diatribist that the Leviticalness or Ceremoniality of the offerings seems to ly here viz. in the uncommandedness or freedome to offer or not to offer wherein he truly saith that the formality of a freewill offering consists as that is contradistinguished to the commanded offerings then sure the Leviticalness c. would not extend to the commandedness of the other offerings and consequently the commanded offerings under the Law would not be Levitical Which as it is palpably false and contrary to plain Scripture Heb. 9. 1. 20. and elsewhere frequently so it will farther conclude also that the commanded offerings are still in force for by the Leviticalness and Ceremoniality saith he it was that those other are supposed to be now abolished 5 tly Against his conclusion I thus argue Whatsoever was lawfull before the Mosaical Law to mankind and remained lawfull under the Mosaical Law and is not now prohibited by Christ or his Apostles under the Gospell that certainly is now perfectly lawfull and free to Christians But such are freewill offerings Ergo. Of the Major I suppose there will be no doubt And the Minor consisting of three branches is manifest in the first of them among many others by Abel's oblation which the Fathers generally observe not to have been by way of precept from God and t is affirmed by the antient Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pseudo-Clement c. 22. I say not how truly that before the Jews idolatries and high provocations sacrifices themselves were not imposed on or commanded the Jewes but onely left to their free
Ecclesiasticas praesertim quae fidei non officiunt ita observandas ut à majoribus traditae sunt nec aliorum consuetudinem aliorum contrario more subverti I would briefely admonish you that Ecclesiastical traditions especially such as offend not the faith are so to be observed as they are delivered by our Ancestors nor must the custome of some be subverted by the contrary custome of others And yet higher in the same Epistle Vnaquaeque provincia praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province esteem the precepts of their Ancestors as Apostolical Laws i. e. certainly pay observance to them though they be not of Apostolical institution So Isidore l. 2. de Eccl Offic c. 43. Nec disciplina in his melior est gravi prudentique Christiano nisi ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit Ecclesiam ad quam devenerit There is no better rule in such things for a grave and prudent Christian then to do in that manner as he sees the Church do to which he comes Store of suffrages might be heaped up on this occasion these few may suffice to justifie all that I had said in that first § Sect. 2. Heathen adherents a proof of the first Antiquity THE 2d § had proposed one argument for the antiquity of this usage among us founded in the adversaries suggestion against it The adversaries generally accuse the Christmass Festivity for some heathenish mixtures reteined in it From which if it were true or however from the concession of those that affirmed it I conceived an argument might be drawn that therefore it was to be taken as granted that this usage was continued among us from the time of our first conversion from heathenism And I cannot yet see how this inference can be avoided For how can any heathen usage adhere to this Festivity if all heathen customes were laid aside long before this Festival were observed Can it be imagined that after the ejecting of heathenism and the solemn abolition of all their feasts Saturnalia and the like when Christianity had gotten the possession there should still continue among them those adherent rites of their heathen feasts so many accidents without their subjects Or that Christians that had long since renounced heathenism and at length received this Christian feast should ransack their heathen rituals for ceremonies wherewith to adorn it But this it seems is of no force or as he saith no way constringent with this Diatribist For saith he they might be added some good while after the first conversion of some part of this Island the better to win the rest to a liking of Christian religion by conforming to them in the celebration of festivals As the like was done to win the Jews in observing the old sabbath Pentecost c. But sure there is little force in this evasion For 1. it is by this answer confest that as to some parts of this Island my argument is of force and that in those this festival was introduced as early as their Christianity and if that may be granted me I shall contend for no more by this medium but think I have gained a very fair confession for the antiquity of this usage in this Church that this festivity was thus early introduced among us even as soon if not before Christianity had gotten possession of this whole Nation Meanwhile that the Nation was not converted the several parts of it together I mean not every person of every part but some of all or that there was any such interstitium or interval considerable betwixt the conversion of some part of this Island and the rest of it this is incumbent on the Diatribist to prove or else the argument remains in full force to the whole Nation as well as to any part of it And for this he hath offered no proof and so hath yielded the force of my argument when he went about to refute it 2dly The example of the Christians complying with the Jews will stand him in as little stead for when was it that the Christians thus complied with the Jews or that they retain'd their old sabbath out of that design of compliance with them Was it not at the time of the first conversion of the Jews to Christianity Can it be imagined that the Jews were a good while before converted to the faith and to the doctrine of the abolition of the sabbath and then some good while after that their conversion the observation of their sabbath should be reduced expostliminio Would not this be a constringent argument to any gainsayer to prove that baptism was introduced at the first beginnings of Christianity because baptisme is known to be a custome taken from the Jews And so sure of the sabbath and the like If any space or interval had come in after the planting of Christianity among the Jews it is no way probable that the sabbath once laid aside as a ceremony naild to the cross of Christ would ever after have been recalled and observed among Christians only at the first conversion or plantation of the faith such things might from the Jewish state adhere unto the Christian though they were not taught by Christianity and so some others from the heathen also t is possible and imaginable but t is no way supposeable after the space of many years when heathenisme with all its rites and adherents had long ago been cast out And let this serve for his 2d § The matter is not so weighty being but an argumentum ad homines as to deserve any greater length of discourse to vindicate it Sect. 3. Of Crescens coming into France and Simon Zelotes into England The difference of keeping Easter in the West and East Testimonies for our conversion in the Apostles times Before King Lucius The Diatribists suggestion disproved Britain not converted from Rome COncerning the first planting of Christianity in this Nation by some Apostle or Apostolical person what was said with competent probability out of our histories is considered by the Diatribist in the next place but nothing said or offered to be proved by him which may exact answer from me the whole matter especially being but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the business of Festivals only some passages of his must be shortly noted As 1. when from my saying that Crescens his being in France removes all improbability from those histories that record the plantation of Christianity in these Islands in the Apostles times he seems to believe it my opinion that Crescens came over hither for so saith he the Doctor would have it and proves it out of Scripture which very thing he knowes I absolutely disclaim and only conclude it as credible that some other Apostle or Apostolical person should so early come over hither and plant the Faith as that Crescens should come into France in S. Pauls dayes which yet the French generally believe that he did and have received it by tradition and the words of Scripture may very
his 24 Chapter gives us the full debate of it in the Epistle of Polycrates to Victor This Polycrates was the eighth Bishop of Ephesus and was then 65 years old which reacheth up very high within 30 years of S. Johns time and he set down and manifested the tradition to be Apostolical expressely deducing it from two of the Apostles Philip one of the twelve which saith he died at Hierapolis and John the beloved disciple of Christ who lived and died at Ephesus adding to these Polycarp Bishop and Martyr of Smyrna and Thraseas Bishop and Martyr of Eumenia Sagaris of Laodicea Papyrius and Melito of Sardis All which saith he observed the fourteenth day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keeping exactly the Canon of faith and no way varying from it Here it is undeniably evident that the Asiatick custome was by Polycrates and all the Bishops of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consented to this Epistle of his fetcht from two of the twelve Apostles S. Philip and S. John And if that which our stories tell us of Philips being in France and sending Joseph of Arimathea and others into Britain be to be understood of Philip the Apostle as Gildas Albanicus expressely affirmes then have we a clear account of the derivation of this custome of keeping Easter in this Nation from Philip to our first Christians just as Polycrates in Asia deduces it from the same Philip. And that affords us an irrefragable instance of the observation of Christian festivals among us not only from the first plantation of Christianity among us but even from the practice of the very Apostles themselves which was the utmost that I could pretend to in this matter 8. And it is farther observable that Pope Victor of Rome though he was willing to have proceeded with greater rigor against the Asiaticks even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cut off or excommunicate all the Provinces and Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as heterodox yet never questions the truth of Polycrates's affirmations concerning his receiving the custome from those Apostles And indeed the other Bishops assembled were not for such severity but for peace and unity and charity with these fellow Christians and reprehended Victor severely for his thoughts of severity And the Epistle of Irenaeus to Victor is very considerable to this purpose who though he resolved on Victors conclusion for the keeping it on the Lords day only yet he is absolutely against excommunicating the Asiaticks upon this very ground that these Churches of God did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observe the tradition of ancient or original custome and he farther tells him that the Bishops before him had never broken peace with any on occasion of this difference instancing in Polycarp who came to Rome in Anicetus's time and as Anicetus could not perswade him to leave his custome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having observed it alwaies according to the practice of John the disciple of the Lord and the rest of the Apostles with whom he had conversed So neither could Polycarp perswade Anicetus to leave his way and yet they communicated one with another Here again by Irenaeus his own confession who was for the Western custome the Eastern was practised by John and the rest of the Apostles sure more then one with whom Polycarp had conversed Lastly There is no doubt all this while of that which the Western pretended for their custome that they had it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Apostolical tradition saith Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the Apostolical tradition upward or from the beginning saith Nicephorus and that expressely from S. Peter the Apostle which still leaves the matter most evident and irrefragable that this feast of Easter which sure is a Christian festival and all others are to be rated by that standard was observed and celebrated by the Apostles and so is the evincing of all that I need to pretend to for the vindicating of that Resolution of the Quaere concerning the Festivals of the Church What now can be invented by way of reply to this argument thus inforced I profess not to be able to foresee what he hath thought fit to offer for the proof of the contrary I shall now very briefly consider And 1. saith he there is no mention of the institution or observation of it in Scripture nor any ground to found it on But to this 1. It is sufficient to answer that there is small virtue in this argument from Scripture negative 2dly That the Apostles word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us keep the feast which by circumstances is applied to the feast of Easter is some be it acknowledged a lesse weighty ground in Scripture for the observation 3dly That the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords day Rev. 1. is some farther ground whether that signifie the weekly or annual Lords day If it be the annual there is then a clear evidence for the observation of it in the Apostles days and if it should be the weekly yet in any reason the annual day of the resurrection was the foundation of this weekly day which we know is to commemorate the resurrection as it is evident that the weekly friday fasts in the Church had their foundation in the annual great fast on the day of Christs death in the Paschal week 4thly If the Scripture should give us no kinde of mention of this yet seeing it hath otherwise appeared from the most ancient and undoubted records of the Church that Easter was observed by the Apostles by Peter and Paul in one manner by John and Philip in another what place of doubt or question can there be in this matter What he addes in the close of his first reason that the Apostles were so farre from instituting these as Christian feasts that they do expressely repeal them and cry them down hath not the least degree of truth in it as hath formerly appeared in the view of Gal. 4. 10. His 2d proof is from Socrates the Historian saying that the Apostles were not solicitous to appoint any festival days at all therefore not this of Easter To this I answer that Socrates's words do not at all deny this to have been the practice of the Apostles only his conceit is that neither Christ nor his Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanded to observe this by any law and again that they intended not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make laws of festival days referring the original of them to custome which varied in several regions as appeared to him by that difference betwixt the Asiatick and Western Christians from whence his conclusion or as in the same matter he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his conjecture was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the feast of Easter among all sorts of people had a peculiar different observation from some custome because none of the Apostles had made any
cards or dice on Christmas day and this must adde either to our superstition or hypocrisie our superstition if they be lawful in that they forbid them on that day that God hath not forbidden them Hypocrisie if they be unlawful in abstaining then and yet using them on ther days But we shall soon be extricated from the power of this Dilemma by affirming 1. that those sports used moderately as diversions and no way abused by our inordinacy are not by any argument that ever I met with proved to be toto genere or absolutely unlawful and so that they may be used for divertisement on other days and particularly on the following days of that Festivity and yet 2dly that they are no way necessary and so that no man offends that abstains from them on all other days and employs himself better constantly From whence it is necessarily consequent also that he that hath fed on the body and blood of Christ and consecrated himself in an extraordinary manner to commemorate the mysterie of our redemption on Christmas day and agreeably thereto desires to spend it so much more strictly then other dayes as not to admit those sports which are lawful on other days to divide any part of that can never be criminous in so doing As for any thing of riot but such is not all lawful divertisement on the following days he knowes they are no way pleaded for by me and if any be guilty of them as the shame thereof is due to the offenders not to the festival which is innocent and laudable so t is too well known that the Lords day it self hath not been secured from the same unhappy adherences And it might as well be charged on that that the heathens worshipt the Sun on that day and that revelling upon it are fitter for such heathen feasts then for Christians as the Diatribist could suggest in this place that the Saturnalia were celebrated about the same time that Christmas was and that the excesses of the following dayes are services fitter for the revels of Bacchus and Saturn or the birth day of Herod then for the festivity of a spiritual Saviour All this is true and equally granted by both parties and so hath no propriety or pertinency to the dispute between us Sect. 16. Christmas if of the same original with Easter certainly Apostolical However of the practice of the Primitive Church All rendring of motives no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 MY 27th § was introductory to a discourse more general to shew by what authority festivals in general and particularly this of Christmas pretends to stand in the Catholike Church which I acknowledged not to be by any institution of Christs but to have had the beginning from the Apostles or the succeeding Church To the view hereof he now proceeds and briefly sets to it to disprove each of these originals beginning first with that of the Apostles And of this he thinks he need say no more then to appeal to the same arguments which he had used against the Apostles institution of Easter § 6. viz. 1. the no mention of such institution in the Scripture 2. the expresse words of Socrates that neither Christ nor his Apostles commanded the feast of Easter to be observed But to both these it is certain that I ow no return having now paid it so punctually in the 4 h § where beside clear answers to the Diatribists arguments I added evidences undeniable that the feast of Easter was observed by the Apostles And I cannot doubt but they will be of force with him when he shall take leisure to weigh them And then if the case shall be acknowledged the same betwixt Easter Christmasse that of the resurrection this of the birth of Christ as the Diatribist seems to acknowledge in tendring no one argument more against the Apostolicalness of Christmass then he had before produced against the institution of Easter by them then it is evident my affirmation must ascend higher then it ever meant to have done and not proceed disjunctively that this feast of the nativity is derived either from the Apostles or the succeeding Church but leaving out the latter part of the partition fix upon the former that being yielded to have the same original with Easter it is certainly derived from the Apostles from whence it appears that of Easter is derived To which purpose we have already produced some evidences which may justly pretend to some force at least ad hominem to him that hath no more against this then against all other Christian festivals viz. those from the martyrdomes of Ignatius and Polycarp written by those that were present at them and so lived soon after the Apostles That of Polycarps recorded in that famous Epistle of the Church of Smyrna I have set down at large and made my inferences from it § § 33. and 34. of that treatise of Festivals To which I have here formerly added that other parallel testimony from the acts of Ignatius So that now I hope I may safely resume my former affirmation without all diffidence that other Festivals beside that of the weekly Lords day were derived to us some certainly from the Apostles others from the Church immediately succeeding the Apostles In one of which ranks though I have no reason to doubt but this of the Nativity of Christ is to be placed yet because we have not those evidences of the fact which we have for Easter and others I shall not build upon any degree of uncertainties nor affirm more then what that treatise hath shewed out of the ancient Fathers that this feast is deduced to us early from the first antiquity And against this I am sure neither Socrates nor my L. of Falkland who is joyned next to him hath suggested any thing then what was thus done by them must not in equity fare the worse for my adding the mention of a motive or incitement that might reasonably recommend it to them which is therefore presently styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a shew of wisdom as if all reasonable motives were to be blasted under that title as all uncommanded performances here are said to be by the express words of the 2d Commandment Col. 2. 23. But sure we have formerly spoken enough of this arguing Sect. 17. The Encaenia a religious feast instituted by the the Iewes and approved by Christ vindicated from all his exceptions Marriage feasts Religious feasts cannot be unlawful if civil be lawful The feast of Purim a religious feast THE 29th § proceeds to consider what I had said of the Encaenia among the Jewes the feast of dedication not instituted by God in the Law but in commemoration of the purging of the altar by Judas Maccabeus and yet this observed by the Jewes and approved by Christs presence at it Joh 10. 23. To this the Diatribist answers that there may be many mistakes in this And truly it matters not how many there may be as long as
in him I will onely demand whether St Augustine be of any better account with him Haer. 53. he knew what heresie was and what Aërius was guilty of and whether elsewhere he may deserve to be believed when in consort with himself and with Epiphanius he saith Rectè festa Ecclesiae colunt qui se Ecclesiae filios recognoscunt they that profess themselves sons of the Church do duely observe the feasts of the Church setting this of the nativity in the front of such where surely those that do not observe them must disclaim their sonship and that is but a paraphrase to express those whom Epiphanius styles hereticks If he shall bring any so fair evidences that they that observe feasts are superstitious I shall think my self obliged to do more then deny the accusation For the festivities of martyrs mentioned by me in the same § he acknowledges they began betimes as superstition saith he ever attends religion and devotion adding that though they were intended for good ends yet they produced in time much superstition But sure thi answer is very unsufficient and inconstant Vnsufficient for what if it were granted that in a processe of time these festivities did occasionally produce some evil so Christianity it self so all things that should have been most for our wealth may through the vices of men be perverted into occasions of falling But what is that to the antiquity of Festivals which is the only thing that these instances were required to testifie And 2dly inconstant for at first these festivities are lookt on as superstition attending religion and devotion and by the way if that be applicable to these festivities that will be a competent character of their antiquity for religion and devotion were brought in with Christianity and if the Festivities were the superstition that attended that they will be pretty ancient and yet in the latter part t is said of them that they produced in time much superstition which latter if it be true then the former which was contrary is not true and that is sufficient to be replied to that answer As for his return to § 33. which is of the same matter that I presume too much upon my own reason in concluding from the testimony of the Church of Smyrna that the days of the death of the Apostles themselves were solemnized thus early i. e. before Polycarps death Sure his censure is not over reasonable For when by those expresse words of that Churches Epistle it is first apparent that Polycarps death was thus celebrated 2. That this Polycarp was immediate successor to the Apostles and lived in the same time with them 3 That this commemoration of Martyrs was before this time used in the Church and no new thing now to be done to Polycarp what reason of doubting can there be but that at this time the Apostles having received many of them this crown of martyrdome should be thus commemorated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in joy and exultation i. e. with a festivity when this appears so expressely of Polycarp and that in accord to former practice especially when to that is added the instance perfectly parallel of Ignatius yet more ancient then Polycarp and the day of his death precisely observed by those that were present on this very purpose say they ut secundum tempus martyrii ejus congregati communicemus athletae that they might assemble at the day of his martyrdome and communicate with this champion That I produce not more or more express testimonies for the festivals of the Apostles need not seem strange the records being so few which remain of those times and my reading being so small For the present these two may be considered being testimonies of competent antiquity and force to prove what I pretend to prove that Festivities were observed by the Church next succeeding the Apostles and why Polycarp and Ignatius should have that honour when Peter and Paul were not allowed it I still professe not to discern reason nor consequently to make any doubt of it Mean while when the Diatribist is willing to form an argument from my not bringing of testimonies § 33. it is remarkeable that § 34. is wholly past over in silence by him which yet produceth the authorities of Gregorius Thaumaturgus of Cyprian of Tertullian ex majorum traditione and so of those that were much more ancient then he and so intirely made up of testimonies of the first antiquity concerning the memories of the Martyrs which must sure include the Apostles as many of them as were thus crowned before any Churches were built wherein to assemble and celebrate their Festivals This shewes that the Diatribist had little reason to complain of want at that very time when he was thus overcharged with plenty of testimonies and hath not a word to return to any one of them any more then he doth § 35. to the mentions of Origen Cyprian and Chrysostome deducing the Christmass festivity from the first antiquity Sect. 20. Strictures on §. 35. The author of the Constitutions a competent testifier when in accord with others Justinus 's edict for Festivals reconcileable with the Apostolical usage of them The 20000 slain by Diocletian on Christmass day Objections against the 25th of December answered The controversie in Chrysostome about the day not the Feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His words full for the Apostolicalness of both WHat now followes § 35 is so far from having weight in it that I must not allot any solemn answers to it the lightest strictures will be more proportionable As when of my mention of the Author of the Constitutions he saith this will weaken my cause the more because they are generally accounted spurious This sure must be very unjust that what was confirmed so newly from Origen Cyprian and Chrysostome should not only not gain but lose strength by the addition of the Constitutions which besides that they are acknowledged ancient by all which least believe them Apostolical are known to be designed to imitate that antiquity they pretend to and are never justly rejected but when that which they affirm is found discordant to the affirmations of other writings of undoubted antiquity which having no place here there is as little room for the Diatribists censure So what he concludes from Justinus's edict which I mentioned that it was a proof that the Apostles did not institute it is already answered by saying that the Apostles practice being all that is pretended for the institution the edict of the Emperour for the Vniversal observation of it is very reconcileable with that and so also with the usage of the first ages after the Apostles in case it be divolved no higher then these as the several decrees of Magistrates Civil and Ecclesiastical for an universal observation of the Lords day are sure perfectly reconcileable with the Apostolical original thereof And this was there evidenced by the 20000 Christians that were burnt by Diocletian on this day sure long
above the Iew. 2. That the learned Chamier hath well observed that there may be many mischiefs in a few ceremonies if the authority to institute them be in the Church or any man or men The former of these speeches is pretty home to the point in hand for if the objection to the number or wholesomness of ceremonies be this that men are judges of them as they always are when men command them then sure it is the power of the lawful magistrate for he is a man or men to command which is the ground of the quarrel and they that quarrel thus and abstain from indifferent ceremonies upon this score must abstain because commanded by lawfull authority As for example I suppose bowing when Jesus is named in the publike worship or when Christ or when the Holy Ghost to be in it self lawfull or indifferent because no where forbidden by God I suppose farther that being so this and a few other such ceremonies may very safely be used by a Christian though they were not commanded I now demand may a few namely three or four such ceremonies be lawfully prescribed or commanded by the Supreme power in any Church to all under that authority And may all under that authority safely observe such ceremonies so commanded If they may then men may be judges what ceremonies are fit both for number and wholesomeness which is contrary to the direct words of the Diatribist in the former part of this speech If they may not then it seems what was before lawfull and indifferent is now since it was commanded and by no other change become unlawfull which was the inconsequence I pointed at and it seems mistook not in thinking somebody it now seems this Diatribist to be the very person guilty of it But then the latter speech is as punctuall to it as could be well imagined and if the Diatribist have cited duely Chamier and he are both of this opinion For it being certain that nothing can be commanded by lawful authority unless the authority of instituting it be either in the Church or man or men it must necessarily follow upon the asserting of the many mischiefs in a few ceremonies if the authority to institute them be in the Church or man or men that there must be many mischiefs in their being commanded by lawfull authority then no understanding Christian can think it fit for him by observing such commands to be accessory to or guilty of the introducing those mischiefs so must abstain on that one account of the Churches exercising such an authority which was the very thing I deemed and noted to be so inconsequent Nay the very words of the Diatribist in this place when he charges me of mistake being these that they that abstain from indifferent observances do it because they were thought not indifferent but obtruded on them as parts of worship are either a calumnie against the Governors of our Church or else they assert what he disclaimes so solemnly For I shall demand Is his meaning this that the Governors of the Church thought the ceremonies simply necessary and not indifferent antecedently to the command of the Church i. e. necessary by the Divine Law though the Church had never commanded them If that be his meaning as seems most probable by what follows obtruded on them as parts of worship for all parts of worship are necessary by divine Law though never commanded by man then this is a direct calumnie against the Governors of the Church who never thought all ceremonies to be prescribed by God's Law and therefore prescribed them by Canon Ecclesiastical which argues that they esteemed them not as Divine but Humane Laws never obtruded them as parts of worship but as ceremonies for uniformity and decency and as usefull toward assisting inciting and expressing of piety outwardly But if his meaning be that being in themselves indifferent they became necessary and not indifferent by the intervening of the Churches command and so were obtruded on men as parts of worship as that may possibly signifie with him parts of obedience or duty to God by virtue of his command to obey our Superiors and if this were the thing disliked in the ceremonies prescribed by the Church then again t is evident that their being commanded by lawfull authority is the onely objection to them and ground of abstaining from them in the judgement of his Diatribist at the very point of time when he so solemnely disclaimes it So likewise may be said to his account of those things which are abstained from because they have been used by Papists This saith he is because they have been by them abused and counted parts of worship But truly I cannot with truth thus affirme of the Papists that any of the ceremonies which we use from them were ever by them accounted parts of worship but onely as usefull wholesome ceremonies appointed by the Church Of the difference between parts of worship and circumstances of time place gesture accessaries of worship I have spoken at large c. 2. § 3. And though hereafter § 28. this difference be fully consented to by the Diatribist in these words some rites and ceremonies of worship are rather called circumstances of worship time place gesture which are common adjuncts of Religious and Civil affaires then properly Religious much less to be accounted parts of worship yet by what hath here been said by him it appears that all his skill lyes in managing that one fallacie putting all ceremonies and institutions of the Church under that one ambiguous phrase uncommanded worship perswading himself or others that we introduce new parts of worship and so do contrary to God's command who hath set down the rule of worship i. e. prescribed all the parts and species of worship whereas he cannot but know that all that we say in asserting whether of ceremonies or Festivals is no more but this that each of these not as parts of worship but as decent attendants of it though not instituted by God have yet been lawfully and orderly appointed and observed by the Church of God in generall and are to us become matter of obligation by that means and as prescribed by the Governors of our particular Church to which our obedience is due and so that there is no degree of Superstition in us in doing that which is thus required of us nor in those that require it in laying this obligation upon us And so much for his animadversions on the three inconsequences from which if he would really and in earnest clear himself these debates were certainly concluded Sect. 10. Strictures on some particulars in the remaining Sections What excess Divines mean by Superstition What St Augustine Obligation to performance without being parts of worship Observers of order more Religious more acceptable then others The reason why Jewish ceremonies are interdicted The Church of England sparing in ceremonies Ceremonies not foreshewing Christ lawful to be retained by Christians The abstinence
from blood long continued in the Church The Saterday Sabbath Negative wholesomness not sufficient to recommend ceremonies All folly in worship is not Superstition The opinion of the antient Church worth considering No duties appointed for the circumstances sake Time or place instituted by God is a circumstance as well as when by man Apostolical Divine THat which follows § 25. c. is for the most part but revolving the same things again that have hitherto been spoken to or the hiding himself in those obscurities which have now been explained sometimes granting all that I assert sometimes denying it in ambiguous phrases as that all excess in worship not prescribed is a nimiety and culpable § 25. that rites be they never so few if introduced as parts of worship are Superstitious v. 28. and the like And the Reader must not be condemned to the penance of having all that hath been said on these heads repeated again and therefore I am both in justice and charity obliged to omit particular replies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the remaining Sections yet shall read them over as carefully as I can and observe whatever I discern may be thought pertinent to his cause which hath not hitherto been spoken to As 1. When he saith § 26. that all Divines generally condemne it I answer they condemne Superstition but mean not by it every excess in worship not prescribed as that phrase comprehends all ceremonies and festivals not commanded by God and those Divines that condemne this under the name of Superstition are the men of whom onely my words are to be understood that they are so few and so modern and of so smal authority that they were scarce worth producing no antient writer having ever condemned all ceremonies and festivals which are not commanded by God under the title of Superstition and that Aquinas's words are no way appliable to it hath been already shewed As for St Augustines place produced by me § 33. from whence he collects that an institution of worship by men may be Superstitious I answer that that Father speaks there of those qui instituerunt Deorum simulachra who instituted images of Gods which the Diatribist could not but see if he had pleased and of such institutions I grant that they not onely may be but are Superstitious but our ceremonies and Festivals are no Deorum Simulachra images of the Gods and so sure not lyable to his censure 2dly When § 29. he affirmes of usages in themselves lawfull and allowable that if they were taught or practised as necessary or as making the observers more Religious then others or more acceptable to God then they would be parts of worship and then I must suppose by his tenure of doctrine Superstitious I answer 1. That decency or uniformity or obedience to Superiors may be a competent ground to turn lawfull ceremonies into necessary and on those grounds joyned together I may kneel and teach kneeling at the taking of the Eucharist to be necessary viz. not by any necessity of divine precept terminated immediately in this gesture but by such necessity as Humane Laws by force of the fift Commandment and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obey those that are placed over you lay upon me and this is far from making this kneeling a part of worship when we know it is but a gesture and circumstance of it 2. That they which pray reverently and decently observe uniformity obey the lawfull commands of the Church are in so doing more Religious and more acceptable to God then others who caeteris paribus do it not pray irreverently act undecently observe not uniformity disobey the lawfull commands of their Ecclesiastical Superiors or then they which perform the same things upon their own choices So saith Leo de jejun 7. mens Serm 3. Divinarum namque reverentia Sanctionum inter quaelibit spontaneae observantiae studia habet semper privilegium suum ut sacratius sit quod publica lege celebratur quà m quod privatâ institutione dependitur The reverence of the Divine i. e. Ecclesiastical sanctions have always this privilege among spontaneous observances that whatsoever is performed by publick law is more sacred then what is done upon private institution This I hope I shall not need farther to prove and if not then sure the teaching this or acting on these grounds will not make my allowable action criminous or Superstitious 3dly When § 31. he finds fault with men for saying that the sole reason why old Jewish ceremonies are interdicted us Christians is because the observing those which foreshewed Christ and teaching the necessity of them would be the denying Christ to be come paralleling this with an answer of Bellarmine's and rendring an account from Chamier that there was another reason of their abrogation because they did load the conscience with a yoke of a multitude of ceremonies and that this is common to those and to the traditions of men I answer 1. That it is one thing for Jewish ceremonies to be interdicted Christians another for them not to be imposed the weight of the yoke was the reason why they were not to be imposed and to that the Diatribists reasons in the conclusion of § 31. do all belong but my speech was evidenly of their being interdicted and that meant not onely of the multitude of them but of every or each of them and the sole reason of that was this which I assigned for if the weight of the multitude were at all considered in that then any one of them which sure was not a multitude would have been lawful by name circumcision or sacrificing or the like against which yet the Christian interdict lyes as well as against the whole number 2dly T is certain that in the application of this instance to ceremonies not prescribed by God in a Christian Church there is great difference betwixt the Church of which Bellarmine was an advocate and that which I undertook to defend In the Church of Rome there is a great multitude of ceremonies and festivals which may be capable of the title of weight and yoke but the Church of England is far more sparing and I had fully consented to the rule of paucae salubres few and salubrious and was now disputing for the lawfulness of some ceremonies uncommanded by God not for the expedience of neer so many as other Christians both of the Western and Eastern Churches have received into their Canons and proportionable to that was any one or never so few old Jewish ceremonies for the abrogation of which I was therefore obliged to give such an account as was not founded in the multitude of them and consequently could not take either Chamier's or the Diatribist's advise to render any other then what I rendred as I thought from such like plain words of the Apostle We have an altar of which they have not power to eat that serve the tabernacle Heb. 13. In this matter the Diatribist asks a subtle question
before that edict of Iustinus at which time saith the Historian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that were called Christians of all ages assembled in the Church to celebrate the nativity And to that it seems he hath no other return but his advertisement that Nicephorus saith it was Maximinus that was thus bloody Maximianus I suppose he would have said who reigned with Diocletian and then it comes to the same passe and the truth is acknowledged which soever the name were So against resolving the day of this festival to be Decemb. 25. his proofs are extraordinary 1. from the Doctor himself that it was called Midwinter day which is a fortnight before But that hath already been answered the variation being evidenced to be from the want of exactnesse in our Calendars not from any doubt of the day 2dly From the opinion of many Divines that our Lord died when he was 33 and halfyears of age or neer unto 34 as saith he the Doctor saith Qu. 1. § 10. What Divines these are that thus calculate I am not told nor how competent they are to be confronted to the censual Tables from whence S. Chrysostome fetches the day of his birth But the luck of it is that citation from the Doctor was easily consulted and on view of the place there is no more but this that Christ preacht the will of his Father three years or foure together which I thought had signified no more then for some uncertain space betwixt 3 or 4 yeears And if he were born in December and died in April what difficulty is there in this calculation or what needed the Diatribist to have cited from the Doctor the words neer 34. when he knowes there is nothing to that sense said by him The 3d thing without which his undertaking to mention many will be a faileur which may make us doubt of the truth of the calculation is the yonger date of the Arabick Codex of the Councels But when that Codex was dated he hath not told us And if it were later then I thought it may yet possibly speak truth and so that will give us no reason of doubting His last proof is that the Doctor is upon Ifs and T is probable And I heartily wish the Diatribist would but speak probably and till he doth so that he would not have such aversions to the Doctors Ifs I mean that he would use diffidence when he pretends not to demonstrate I adde nothing to his returns about the Epiphany but leave them to be judged by the §§ to which they are opposed And for the large view of the place in Chrysostome and his dispute against that Father my answer is very brief that all that I attempted to prove from Chrysostome was the due timing of the feast on the 25th of December and that being done beyond controversie I pretend not to derive other decisions from that testimonie but leave them to stand on their own basis Only when from some words of Chrysostome he at length concludes the authority of the Church in constituting and celebrating this festival in all ages much shaken I must reminde him that that Fathers words which affirm it a question at that time belong not to the Festivity it self but only to the particularity of the day whether it were to be kept on the 25th of December or on some other day and accordingly his proofs proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this is the very time And though some doubted whether this were a new or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ancient day of the festivity yet saith he others defended it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was old antient or original so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies and is all one with Tertullians quod ab initio as that with quod ab Apostolis and from these ancient if not these first timas as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commonly imports and so again in Tertullian ordo ad originem recensus it hath been manifest and illustrious to all that dwell from Thrace to Gadeira from East to West that sure with him signifies all the world over And so still this dispute which side soever was in the right is founded in a supposition of the feast it self being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original and from the beginning And indeed if the first proof which he offers for it be considered t is not imaginable how he should say more to the asserting of the Apostolicalnesse both of the Festivity and the day also That this is the season saith he on which Christ was born the first demonstration is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the feast was so speedily promulgate every where ascended to so great an height flourisht adding that as Gamaliel said of the preaching of the Gospel that if it were of men it would come to nought but if of God ye cannot dissolve it lest ye be found fighters against God the same he might say confidently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this day not of the Gospel as the Diatribist afterward saith he thinks he means but cannot really do so in this place against such expresse words that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing or because it is from God therefore t is not only not dissolved but every year advances and becomes more splendid and yet farther adding in the words recited by the Diatribist and by omitting the former rendred capable of being misunderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the preaching of it certainly i. e. of the day or else it can have no coherence with the feast or antecedents and whole contexture in a few years took possession of the whole world though tentmakers and fishermen unlearned and idiots brought it amongst them How farre this is now from doing prejudice to the Vniversal observation of this day in the Apostles times I leave the Reader and if he please the Diatribist also to consider Sect. 21. The Diatribists answer to my conclusion Strictures on some passages in it WHat now remains is by way of reply to my conclusion that the fastidious rejecting or not observing the Festivals of the universal Church must be lookt on as an act of affected departure from the universal Church of Christ in all ages and not only from the reformed Church of England This saith he is an heavy charge if it can be proved And for that I must now referre my self to the premisses in that treatise and in this defence nor indeed can it be reasonable that I descend to any other way of probation or vindication till this which I have used be invalidated For a conclusion being as this is deduced from the premisses what more can be required to establish the conclusion then the confirmation of the premisses And therefore as it is against all laws of Discourse for the Diatribist to confute or deny or make answer to the conclusion any